DR. MANOJ KUMAR RAWATversusSTATE OF UP & ORS.

                 [2026] 6 S.C.R. 424 : 2026 INSC 508

                        Dr. Manoj Kumar Rawat
                                    v.
                           State of UP & Ors.
                      (Civil Appeal No. 7996 of 2026)
                                19 May 2026
           [J.K. Maheshwari* and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ.]


                          Issue for Consideration
       Issue arose whether s.13(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education
       Services Commission Act, 1980 can be interpreted to permit fresh
       recommendation or change in place of posting of a waitlisted
       candidate, who has already been recommended for appointment
       elsewhere; and whether, after enforcement of the Uttar Pradesh
       Education Service Selection Commission Act, 2023, repealing the
       Old Act, the recommendation dated 13.12.2023 and consequential
       communications and placement order dated 12.01.2024 and
       15.01.2025, issued in favour of the appellant can be sustained
       within the statutory scheme of the New Act.

                                 Headnotes†
       Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission Act,
       1980 – Uttar Pradesh Education Service Selection Commission
       Act, 2023 – s.31 – Repeal and Savings – Effect – Appellant
       placed in the panel of wait listed candidates for the post of
       Principal in non-Government Aided Colleges – Thereafter,
       the Director recommended the name of the appellant for
       appointment as Principal of P.G College – However, on
       account of his family circumstances, the appellant did not
       take any step for joining or to take charge for PG College
       and requested to be appointed as Principal on the vacant
       posts in some other college or Meerut college – Director
       contended that in furtherance to the provisions of the Old
       Act and the recommendation, the appellant was required to
       join PG College and that after making such recommendation,
       there existed no provision for changing the place of posting
       under the relevant Government instructions or the applicable
       laws – In the meantime, the New Act came to be notified,
       thereby repealing the Old Act – After repeal, the Director

* Author
[2026] 6 S.C.R.                                                            425

              Dr. Manoj Kumar Rawat v. State of UP & Ors.


     vide order 13.12.2023 recommended the Management to
     appoint the appellant as Principal of Meerut College and issue
     appointment order within thirty days – Respondent no.6, then
     Officiating Principal of Meerut College filed the writ petition
     on the ground that once a wait listed candidate has been
     issued direction for appointment at one place, the scheme of
     the Old Act doesn’t permit any change to the same; that after
     commencement of the New Act, the Old Act stood repealed
     and the act done thereunder couldn’t have been changed
     once the New Act was already in force – Single Judge of the
     High Court set aside the order dated 13.12.2023 as well as
     recommendation issued by the Director inter alia observing
     that the subsequent order directing the Management to appoint
     the appellant as Principal of Meerut College wholly without
     jurisdiction and cannot be sustained – Division Bench upheld
     the same – Interference with:
     Held: Output of the findings of the Single Judge and Division Bench
     of the High Court correct – Since the outcome is in conformity with
     the provisions of the Old Act as well as the New Act, interference
     not warranted – Under the Old Act, the select list of the Commission
     shall be valid till a new list is prepared in accordance with the
     provisions of such Act – Management of a college/institution
     can issue an appointment order within a period of one month
     only on receiving intimation of a candidate’s recommended by
     the Director – It is only in case a vacancy occurs due to death,
     resignation, or otherwise, during the period of the validity of the
     list, the name of a new candidate can be intimated by the Director
     only – By way of a non obstante clause in sub section (2) of s.31,
     an act done or action taken under the Old Act shall be deemed to
     have been done or taken under the New Act – This is not a case
     where the vacancy arose due to death or resignation – However,
     it is within the purview of “otherwise during the period of validity
     of the list” that the appellant claims to be entitled to appointment
     at an alternate place, as demanded, since the appointment order
     was not issued to the appellant u/s.13(3) of the Old Act – After the
     recommendation dated 03.08.2022, if the appellant was not willing
     to join due to his family circumstances and on finding vacancy at
     Meerut College, submitted a representation to post him at some
     other place with the intent to compel the authorities to bring his
     case within the ambit of s.13(4) of the Old Act, such action will
     superseding the earlier recommendation and frustrate the purpose
426                                                             [2026] 6 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


       of s.13(3) of the Old Act – After commencement of the New Act, the
       validity of the list/panel under the Old Act will automatically lapse
       and the authorities are duty bound to follow the procedure u/ss.10
       and 11 of the New Act to take steps for appointment on the post of
       Principal – Thus, the concerned authorities could not have issued
       the letter dated 13.12.2023 on the basis of the list prepared under
       the Old Act and thereafter, passed the consequential orders on
       12.01.2024 and 15.01.2024, to effectively recommend and appoint
       the appellant on the post of Principal of Meerut College – Thus,
       the act done, was the recommendation dated 03.08.2022, which
       could not be implemented – Authorities have clearly intended
       that after issuance of the recommendation dated 03.08.2022, no
       subsequent change in the place of posting can be made in terms
       of the letter dated 17.08.2023 – Thereafter, on 21.08.2023, the
       New Act came into force – Thus, there was no occasion for the
       authorities to issue the order dated 13.12.2023 and, consequent
       recommendation dated 12.01.2024 and order dated 15.01.2024
       in favour of the appellant, under the pretext of s.13(4) of the Old
       Act indicating that the position had otherwise fallen vacant – With
       the assistance of s.6 of the Uttar Pradesh General Clauses Act,
       the effect of repeal of the Old Act is clear insofar as it will not
       revive the previous list or the act done under the Old Act, which
       is having the effect of repeal – As regards the locus standi of the
       Officiating Principal, to challenge the order and subsequent orders
       which effectively grant appointment to the appellant as Principal of
       Meerut College, when the illegality of the authorities is writ large
       and the act done was completely illegal, the issue of locus standi
       may not be germane to be dealt with in the facts of the case.
       [Paras 15, 17, 18, 20, 22-25, 28]

       Judicial deprecation – Conduct of the officers of the State of
       Uttar Pradesh:
       Held: Duty of the State and its officials while filing their counter-
       affidavit and arguing the case before the Court is to provide real
       assistance – Such assistance ought to be based on the facts,
       and by applying the law applicable to the case at hand – It is not
       expected from the authorities to support any party contrary to
       the law or by filing affidavit which does not disclose the facts in
       conformity with the law – On facts, after commencement of the
       New Act on 21.08.2023, it was not open to the authorities to act in
       terms of the list prepared under the Old Act, even after reflecting
[2026] 6 S.C.R.                                                            427

              Dr. Manoj Kumar Rawat v. State of UP & Ors.


     on their intention to not grant appointment to the appellant-a wait
     listed candidate only four days prior to the commencement of
     the New Act – Thereafter, there was absolutely no occasion for
     the Director to get the old list revived and write in favour of the
     appellant on 13.12.2023 – Chief Secretary of the State of Uttar
     Pradesh may look into the conduct of the officers who have filed
     the affidavit taking such unlawful stand before the High Court and
     even before this Court, which is completely impermissible under
     the law and contrary to the finding of the High Court – Since the
     concerned officers not a party to this case, no inclination to issue
     any adverse direction, however, left it open to the State of Uttar
     Pradesh to look into the above observations and take the recourse
     in accordance with the law, if necessary. [Para 26]

                              Case Law Cited
     Kamlesh Kumar Sharma v. Yogesh Kumar Gupta and Others (1998)
     3 SCC 45; Anand Sharadchandra Oka v University of Mumbai
     and Others [2008] 2 SCR 297 : (2008) 5 SCC 217; Ayaaubkhan
     Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra and Others [2012] 10
     SCR 994 : (2013) 4 SCC 465 – referred to.

                                List of Acts
     Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980;
     Uttar Pradesh Education Service Selection Commission Act, 2023;
     Uttar Pradesh General Clauses Act, 1904.

                             List of Keywords
     Fresh recommendation; Change in place of posting of wait listed
     candidate; Recommended for appointment elsewhere; Repealing
     Old Act; Statutory scheme of New Act; Repeal and Savings; Post of
     Principal in Post-Graduate and Under-Graduate Non-Government
     Aided Colleges in State of Uttar Pradesh; Recommendation of name
     for appointment as Principal of P.G College; Family circumstances;
     No provision for changing place of posting.

                            Case Arising From
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7996 of 2026
     From the Judgment and Order dated 05.05.2025 of the High Court
     of Judicature at Allahabad in SA No. 117 of 2025
428                                                            [2026] 6 S.C.R.

                                    Supreme Court Reports


                                    Appearances for Parties
       Advs. for the Appellant(s):
       Rahul Kaushik, Sr. Adv., Manish Vashishtha, Upender Thakur,
       Ms. Sonal Awasthi, Ms. Anchal Khanna, Ms. Deepti Pandey,
       Ms. Bhawna Piplani, Abhishek Kaushik.
       Advs. for the Respondent(s):
       Amol Chitale, Nirnimesh Dube, Ms. Shweta Singh Parihar,
       Mrs. Pragya Baghel, Ms. Sarthak Sharma, Samar Vijay Singh,
       Manish Kumar, Ms. Sabarni Som, Gaj Singh, Aman Dev Sharma,
       Keshav Mittal, Vikramaditya Chauhan, Nikhil Jain, Ms. Divya Jain,
       S.D. Singh, Ms. Shweta Sinha, Ms. Meenu Singh, Ram Kripal
       Singh, Siddharth Singh.

                      Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                          Judgment

       J.K. Maheshwari, J.

1.     Leave granted.
2.     The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant who found
       place in the panel of waitlisted candidates for the post of Principal
       in Post-Graduate (in short, ‘PG’) and Under-Graduate (in short,
       ‘UG’) non-Government Aided Colleges in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
       The appellant wishes to derive the benefit of Section 13(4) of the
       Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980
       (hereinafter ‘the old Act’). The learned Single Judge of the High
       Court of Judicature of Allahabad (hereinafter ‘High Court’) allowed
       the writ petition filed by the respondent no. 6 i.e., the affected person
       and then Officiating Principal of Meerut College, Meerut (hereinafter
       ‘Meerut College’) vide order dated 17.02.20251 by quashing the
       order dated 13.12.2023 and subsequent orders dated 12.01.2024 and
       15.01.2024. On challenging the order of the learned Single Judge,
       the Division Bench of the High Court vide order dated 05.05.20252
       (hereinafter ‘impugned judgement’) confirmed the same. Hence,
       the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant.


1    in Writ-A No. 15433 of 2024.
2    in Special Appeal No. 117 of 2025.
[2026] 6 S.C.R.                                                         429

                  Dr. Manoj Kumar Rawat v. State of UP & Ors.


3.    In the facts of the present case, following questions fall for our
      consideration:
      (i)    Whether, in the facts of the case, Section 13(4) of the Old Act
             can be interpreted to permit fresh recommendation or change
             in place of posting of a waitlisted candidate, who has already
             been recommended for appointment elsewhere and such action
             is consistent with the law laid down by this Court in Kamlesh
             Kumar Sharma v. Yogesh Kumar Gupta and others3?
      (ii)   Whether, after enforcement of the Uttar Pradesh Education
             Service Selection Commission Act, 2023 (hereinafter referred
             as ‘the New Act’), repealing the Old Act, the recommendation
             dated 13.12.2023 and consequential communications and
             placement order dated 12.01.2024 and 15.01.2025, issued in
             favour of the appellant can be sustained within the statutory
             scheme of the New Act?

      Factual Matrix
4.    An advertisement No.49 of 2019 (hereinafter ‘Advertisement’)
      was issued by respondent no.4 – Uttar Pradesh Higher Education
      Service Selection Commission (hereinafter ‘Commission’) inviting
      applications for the posts of Principal in PG and UG colleges. In
      furtherance, the selection proceedings were held by the Commission
      and final select list of 290 candidates along with 73 waitlisted
      candidates was published on 05.10.2021. The appellant found place
      at Sl.No.59 in the list of waitlisted candidates. In furtherance to the
      said list, one Dr. Sachidanand Sharma (Sl.No.3 in the select list) was
      selected and appointed as the Principal of Meerut College vide letter
      dated 23.10.2021. After joining the institution and working for on the
      post for approximately one year and ten months, he submitted his
      resignation on 28.05.2023. Accordingly, Dr. Sachidanand Sharma
      was relieved from the post of Principal by letter dated 09.06.2023.
      After his resignation, one Dr. Anjali Mittal, who was the seniormost
      teacher in Meerut College was appointed as the Officiating Principal.
      However, she superannuated on 30.06.2024 and the post of Principal
      again fell vacant. Thereafter, respondent no. 6 – Yudhveer Singh,



3    (1998) 3 SCC 45.
430                                                          [2026] 6 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


       the next seniormost teacher in Meerut College was appointed as
       Officiating Principal by order dated 14.06.2024.
5.     In the meantime, on 03.08.2022, the name of the appellant came to
       be recommended for appointment as Principal of Shri Bajrang P.G.
       College, Dadar Ashram Sikandarpur, Ballia (hereinafter ‘PG College,
       Ballia’) by the Director and a communication in this regard was made
       to the respondent no. 3 – Secretary/Management of PG College,
       Ballia (hereinafter ‘Management’). In terms of this communication and
       in accordance with the provisions of the Old Act, the Management
       was directed to issue appointment order to the appellant within thirty
       days of the receipt of the said communication and in case of failure
       to receive the same, the appellant had to compulsorily approach the
       Director. However, on account of his family circumstances as revealed
       from the contents of the representation submitted on 26.06.2023
       to the Director, the appellant did not take any step for joining or to
       take charge for PG College, Ballia and requested to be appointed
       as Principal on the vacant posts in some other college, which also
       included Meerut College.
6.     The Director, in response to the said representation, submitted
       its comments on 17.08.2023 to the Special Secretary, Higher
       Education Section-2, Government of Uttar Pradesh (hereinafter
       ‘Special Secretary’) wherein it was inter alia contended that in
       furtherance to the provisions of the Old Act and the recommendation
       dated 03.08.2022, compliance had already been made whereby
       the appellant was required to join PG College, Balia. It was further
       informed that after making such recommendation, there existed
       no provision for changing the place of posting under the relevant
       Government instructions or the applicable laws. In the meantime,
       the New Act came to be notified and was brought into force on
       21.08.2023, thereby repealing the Old Act.
7.     After such repeal and without any change in the circumstances, the
       Director vide subsequent order dated 13.12.2023 informed that in
       view of the family circumstances, marital policy and disability of some
       Assistant Professors, the seating arrangement of one Principal had
       been changed under the Advertisement and further information for
       taking decision in fifteen other cases of change in place of posting
       was being sent. It was in reference to this letter that the Joint
       Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh issued the consequential
[2026] 6 S.C.R.                                                              431

              Dr. Manoj Kumar Rawat v. State of UP & Ors.


     order dated 12.01.2024 to the Director for change in place of posting
     of the appellant to Meerut College in exceptional circumstances
     and in the interest of higher education. In pursuance, the Director
     recommended the Management vide order dated 15.01.2024 to
     appoint the appellant as Principal of Meerut College and issue
     appointment order within thirty days.
8.   It is after receipt of such letter, respondent no. 6, then Officiating
     Principal of Meerut College filed the writ petition inter alia contending
     that once a waitlisted candidate has been issued direction for
     appointment at one place, the scheme of the Old Act doesn’t
     permit any change to the same. It was also contended that after
     commencement of the New Act, the Old Act stood repealed and the
     act done thereunder couldn’t have been changed once the New Act
     was already in force. In the said writ petition, the following prayers
     were made: –
           “(i) to issue & writ, order or direction in the nature of
           certiorari quashing the impugned letter/order dated
           15.01.2024 (Annexure-1) passed by the respondent No 2,
           (ii) to issue & writ, order or direction in the nature of
           mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere
           in the working of the petitioner as Officiating Principal of
           the Meerut College, Meerut till the regular appointment is
           made by the Commission.
           (iii) to issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which
           the Hon’ble Courts may deem fit and proper in the facts
           and circumstances of the instant case to award costs of
           this petition to the petitioner.”
9.   Learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition and
     set aside the order dated 13.12.2023 as well as recommendation
     issued by the Director dated 12.01.2024 inter alia observing that the
     subsequent order dated 15.01.2024 directing the Management to
     appoint the appellant as Principal of Meerut College is wholly without
     jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. The Special Appeal preferred
     by the appellant before the Division Bench of the High Court came to
     be dismissed vide the impugned judgement, confirming the findings
     of the learned Single Judge. It was observed that power of the
     Director under the Old Act would continue to the extent protected by
432                                                        [2026] 6 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


       Section 31(2) of the New Act, insofar as the act which was consistent
       to provisions of the New Act. However, once the New Act did not
       confer power on the Director for an act done, tracing its source of
       power under the Old Act, now repealed, the same couldn’t have
       been done or saved under the New Act. Consequently, the order of
       the learned Single Judge was upheld.
10. Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal, inter
    alia contending that respondent No.6 is only the Officiating Principal
    of the College and has no locus to challenge the appointment of a
    regular Principal, who has found place in the select list in terms of
    the selection process contemplated under the Old Act. It is further
    his contention that the power of appointment in the present case
    can be exercised by the Director under Section 13(4) of the Old
    Act. Therefore, the recommendation, if any, made by the Director in
    favour of the appellant, which has been directed to be acted upon by
    the Management, cannot be said to be illegal. It is also urged that
    the directions issued by the learned Single Judge and the Division
    Bench of the High Court in allowing the writ petition of the Officiating
    Principal are not in conformity with law.
11. Learned counsel for respondent No. 6 submitted that the procedure
    for appointment of teachers, identifying the vacant posts, manner
    of selection, preparation of list based on recommendations of
    Commission for appointment to the available vacant post is prescribed
    under Sections 12, 13 and 14 of the Old Act. In furtherance,
    the appellant being a waitlisted candidate was recommended
    on 03.08.2022 to join as Principal of PG College, Ballia. It is
    in reference to his family circumstances that he submitted the
    representation indicating that he has not assumed charge despite
    the recommendation of the Director for his posting at PG College,
    Ballia and requested for a change in place of posting. In response to
    such representation, the Director vide letter dated 17.08.2023 made
    correspondence to the Special Secretary that once appointment has
    already been recommended, there exists no provision for change in
    place of posting under the provisions of the Old Act. It is urged that
    only after the New Act came into force on 21.08.2023, the Director
    passed the order on 13.12.2023 and vide letter dated 12.01.2024,
    recommended appointment of the appellant as Principal of Meerut
    College. It is his case that after commencement of the New Act,
    the earlier select list dated 15.10.2021 will lapse and the procedure
[2026] 6 S.C.R.                                                        433

              Dr. Manoj Kumar Rawat v. State of UP & Ors.


     as contemplated under Sections 10 and 11 of the New Act ought
     to be followed for selection and appointment of teachers. Once the
     recommendation of the Director dated 03.08.2022 under the Old
     Act is not fortified and implemented; further order dated 13.12.2023,
     recommendation dated 12.01.2024 and order 15.01.2024 being after
     commencement of the New Act do not give any right to appellant
     to take advantage thereof. As such, the recommendation and
     the appointment made by the Director and the authorities under
     the Old Act after commencement of the New Act is completely
     without jurisdiction which has rightly been duly discussed by the
     learned Single Judge, affirmed by the Division Bench, therefore,
     interreference is not warranted. Further, on the issue of locus, it
     is urged by him that once an action taken by the authorities is ex-
     facie illegal and void, the issue of locus in the facts of this case is
     not germane.
12. Learned counsel appearing for the State contended in specific
    terms that the order issued by the Director on 13.12.2023 is within
    his competence. In the past also, the place of posting had been
    changed for some candidates and similar benefit may be granted
    to the appellant herein. In reference to the order dated 10.03.2025
    passed by the High Court, the Director was asked to file an affidavit
    on the issue whether the appellant was at fault for not joining PG
    College, Ballia or was it a case of denial of appointment to him by the
    Management. In compliance, and after obtaining relevant information
    from PG College, Ballia and examining the record, it was found that
    the appellant himself did not contact the Management for issuance of
    appointment order. An example of another candidate, namely one Dr.
    Ajay Kumar Singh was given, who did not take charge even on two
    opportunities after being appointed. It is in this context that though
    not done, the appointment order ought to have been issued to the
    appellant within the time specified, however, he tried to convey in so
    many words that there was no fault of the appellant. In this view and
    without replying to the contentions as urged on behalf of respondent
    No.6, the State of Uttar Pradesh tried to support the appellant.

     Analysis
13. Having considered the submissions as urged by the learned
    counsel for the parties and in order to answer the questions
    framed hereinabove, it is imperative to first appreciate the intent of
434                                                        [2026] 6 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


       Sections 12, 13 and 14 of the Old Act, which are reproduced for
       ready reference as under: –
           “12. Procedure for Appointment of Teachers:
           (1) Every appointment as a teacher of any college shall
           be made by the management in accordance with the
           provisions of this Act and every appointment made in
           contravention thereof shall be void.
           (2) The management shall intimate the existing vacancies
           and the vacancies likely to be caused during the course
           of the ensuing academic year, to the Director at such time
           and in such manner, as may be prescribed.
           Explanation— The expression “academic year” means the
           period of 12 months commencing on July 1.
           (3) The Director shall notify to the Commission at such
           time and in such manner as may be prescribed a subject
           wise consolidated list of vacancies intimated to him from
           all colleges.
           (4) The manner of selection of persons for appointment to
           the posts of teachers of a college shall be such, as may
           be determined by regulations :
           Provided that the Commission shall with a view to inviting
           talented persons give wide publicity in the State to the
           vacancies notified to it under sub-section (3) :
           Provided further that the candidates shall be required to
           indicate their order of preference for the various colleges,
           vacancies wherein have been advertised.

           13. Recommendation of Commission:
           (1) The Commission shall, as soon as possible, after
           the notification of vacancies to it under sub-section (3)
           of section 12, hold interview (with or without written
           examination) of the candidates and send to the Director
           a list recommending such number of names of candidates
           found most suitable in each subject as may be, so for as
           practicable, twenty-five per cent more than the number of
           vacancies in that subject such names shall be arranged in
[2026] 6 S.C.R.                                                             435

              Dr. Manoj Kumar Rawat v. State of UP & Ors.


           order of merit shown in the interview, or in the examination
           and interview if an examination is held.
           (2) The list sent by the Commission shall be valid till the
           receipt of a new list from the Commission.
           (3) The Director shall having due regard in the prescribed
           manner, to the order of preference if any indicated by the
           candidates under the second proviso to sub- section (4)
           of section 12, intimate to the management the name of a
           candidate from the list referred to in sub-section (1), for
           being appointed in the vacancy intimated under sub-section
           (2) of section 12.
           (4) Where a vacancy occurs due to death, resignation or
           otherwise during the period of validity of the list referred to
           in sub-section (2), and such vacancy has not been notified
           to the Commission under sub-section (3) of section 12, the
           Director may intimate to the management the name of a
           candidate from such list for appointment in such vacancy.
           (5) Notwithstanding anything in the preceding provisions,
           where to abolition of any post of teacher in any college,
           services of the person substantively appointed to such post
           is terminated, the State Government may make suitable
           order for his appointment in suitable vacancy, whether
           notified under sub- section (3) of section 12 or not, in any
           other college, and thereupon the Director shall intimate to
           the management accordingly.
           (6) The Director shall send a copy of the intimation made
           under sub-section (3) or sub-section (4) or sub-section (5)
           to the candidate concerned.

           14. Duty of Management
           (1) The management shall, within a period of one month
           from the date of receipt of intimation under sub-section
           (3) or sub-section (4) or sub-section (5) of section 13,
           issue appointment letter to the person whose name has
           been intimated.
           (2) Where the person referred to in sub-section (1) fails
           to join the post within the time allowed in the appointment
436                                                        [2026] 6 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


          letter or within such extended time as the management
          may allow in this behalf, or where such person is otherwise
          not available for appointment, the Director, shall on the
          request of the management intimate fresh name from
          the list sent by the Commission under sub-section (1) of
          section 13 in the manner prescribed.”
14. On perusal of the above-referred sections, it is clear that the
    appointment of a teacher in any aided college shall be made by
    the concerned management as per the provisions of the Old Act.
    The existing and anticipated vacancies for the academic year are
    required to be notified to the Commission by the said management,
    after which, the Commission shall conduct interviews of candidates
    and send a list of recommendations to the Director. Such list must
    be arranged in order of merit and will remain valid till a new list is
    received by the Commission. The Director, in furtherance to such
    recommendations, shall intimate to the management the names
    of the candidate from the list for appointment on the vacancies so
    determined. In case a vacancy occurs due to death, resignation or
    otherwise during the period of validity of the list, and such vacancy
    has not been notified to the Commission earlier; the Director may
    intimate the management about the name of a candidate from
    the list for appointment on such vacancy. It is also the duty of the
    management to issue an order of appointment to the candidate
    within one month from the date of receipt of said intimation from
    the Director. Further, in case a person so recommended fails to join
    the post within the time allowed in the appointment order or within
    such extended time, if any, the management is also at liberty to
    ask the Director to intimate a fresh name from the list sent by the
    Commission.
15. In view of the above, the intention of the State Legislature is clear.
    Under the Old Act, the select list of the Commission shall be valid till
    a new list is prepared in accordance with the provisions of such Act.
    The management of a college/institution can issue an appointment
    order only on receiving intimation of a candidate’s recommended
    by the Director. It is only in case a vacancy occurs due to death,
    resignation or otherwise, during the period of the validity of the list,
    The name of a new candidate can be intimated by the Director only.
16. The New Act came into force with effect from 21.08.2023. Section
    10 of the New Act details the mechanism to determine vacancies,
[2026] 6 S.C.R.                                                            437

              Dr. Manoj Kumar Rawat v. State of UP & Ors.


     their requisition and the process to select persons for appointment
     on the same. Section 11 of the New Act prescribes the procedure
     to prepare the panel/list of candidates who may be appointed on
     the vacancies. These provisions are relevant, hence reproduced as
     under: –
           “10. Determination of Vacancies, Requisition, and
           Selection Procedure:
           (1) For the purpose of making an appointment of a
           teacher or instructor by direct recruitment, the Appointing
           Authority or Management or Authorized Officer shall
           determine the number of vacancies existing or likely to
           fall vacant during the year of recruitment and, in the case
           of a post other than the post of head of the institution,
           also determine the number of vacancies to be reserved
           for the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes,
           the Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes of
           citizens in accordance with the Uttar Pradesh Public
           Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled
           Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994 (U.P. Act
           no. 4 of 1994), and persons belonging to economically
           weaker sections in accordance with the Uttar Pradesh
           Public Services (Reservation for Economically Weaker
           Sections) Act, 2020 (U.P. Act no.10 of 2020) and other
           directions issued by the Government from time to time,
           and notify the vacancies to the Commission in such
           manner and through such officer or authority as may be
           prescribed. The Commission shall decide the eligibility
           and accordingly advertise the vacancies received in the
           manner as may be prescribed.
           (2) The procedure of selection of candidates for direct
           recruitment to the posts of teachers or instructors shall
           be such as may be prescribed.
           (3)Regarding appointment in religious and linguistic
           minority educational institutions for maintaining quality
           of education, process of selection shall be completed by
           compulsorily inviting educationist of that particular religion
           and language (having knowledge of theology and culture)
           as experts.
438                                                        [2026] 6 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


          11. Panel/List of Candidates
          (1) The Commission shall, as soon as may be, after a
          vacancy is notified under sub-section (1) of section 10,
          conduct, wherever necessary, examinations or interviews
          or conduct the examination and interview of the candidates
          and prepare a panel/list of those found most suitable for
          appointment.
          (2) The panel referred to in sub-section (1) shall be
          forwarded to the prescribed officer or Authorized Officer
          referred to in sub-section (1) of section 10 in such manner
          as may be prescribed.
          (3) After the receipt of the panel under sub-section (2),
          the prescribed officer or Authorized Officer shall, in the
          prescribed manner, intimate the Appointing Authority of
          the names of the selected candidates in respect of the
          vacancies notified under sub-section (1) of section 10.
          (4) The Appointing Authority shall, within a period of thirty
          days from the date of receipt of such information, issue
          appointment letters to such selected candidates and
          facilitate the selected candidate to join the duties in the
          prescribed manner.
          (5) Where such selected candidate fails to join the post of
          a teacher or instructor in such institution within the time
          allowed in the appointment letter or within such extended
          time as the Appointing Authority may allow in this behalf,
          or where such candidate is otherwise not available for
          appointment, the Authorized Officer shall, on the request
          of Management, intimate in the prescribed manner, fresh
          name or names from the panel/list forwarded by the
          Commission under sub-section (2). Such time limit shall
          be up to a maximum of one year after the date of issuing
          of the appointment letter.”
17. A comparison of the two acts makes it clear that despite the New Act
    being more exhaustive, it doesn’t prescribe a power to the Director
    akin to Section 13(4) of the Old Act. As per Section 31 of the New Act,
    it is clear that the Old Act has been repealed on commencement of
    the New Act. Section 31 is also relevant, hence, reproduced thus: –
[2026] 6 S.C.R.                                                           439

              Dr. Manoj Kumar Rawat v. State of UP & Ors.


           “31. Repeal and Savings:
           (1) The Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services
           Commission Act, 1980, the Uttar Pradesh Secondary
           Education Service Selection Board Act, 1982 and the
           Uttar Pradesh Education Service Selection Commission
           Act, 2019 are hereby repealed.
           (2) Notwithstanding such repeal, anything done or any
           action taken under the Acts referred to in sub-section (1)
           shall be deemed to have been done or taken under this
           Act, as if the provisions of this Act were in force at all
           material times.
           (3) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the repeal of
           the Acts referred to in sub-section (1) shall not have an
           adverse effect on the general application of section 6 of
           the Uttar Pradesh General Clauses Act, 1904 (U.P. Act
           no. 1 of 1904) in relation to the enforcement of provisions.”
     After going through this section, it is clear that by way of a non-
     obstante clause in subsection (2) of Section 31, an act done or action
     taken under the Old Act shall be deemed to have been done or taken
     under the New Act. Therefore, it is now required to be looked on
     facts, as to what act was done by the State of Uttar Pradesh under
     the Old Act, prior to commencement of the New Act, and whether
     such an act will be deemed to have been done or taken under the
     New Act for the purpose of ascertaining the claim of the appellant
     as espoused in this appeal.
18. In this context, and to answer the said ancillary issue, the facts of
    the case are required to be recapitulated. The list of the candidates
    was published on 05.10.2021, wherein the appellant found place at
    Sl. No.59 of the waitlisted candidates. On 03.08.2022, the Director
    recommended the name of the appellant to the Management of PG
    College, Balia for his appointment in the said college. The scheme
    of the Old Act contemplates that on receipt of such recommendation;
    the Management is bound to issue appointment order to the
    recommended person within thirty days. Thus, the Management
    ought to appoint the recommended candidate within a period of
    one month and in case, the said candidate fails to join within the
    time specified in the appointment order, the Director, on request
440                                                         [2026] 6 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


       of the Management, shall intimate a fresh name from the list. It is
       surprising that despite having knowledge of the recommendation
       dated 03.08.2022 and not receiving appointment order from the
       Management of PG College, Balia, the appellant sat silent and did
       not take any action for implementation of the provisions contemplated
       under Section 13(3) of the Old Act while the Management was waiting
       that the recommended candidate shall contact them to show his
       intention to work on the post.
19. However, in contradistinction, the appellant did not contact the
    Management of PG College, Ballia and after about ten and a half
    months of his initial recommendation, i.e., on 26.06.2023 of his initial
    recommendation, submitted a representation, inter alia contending
    as under: –
            “It is to be requested that ‘I have been selected for the
            post of Principal of a non-government aided college
            of the state at the level of Higher Education Service
            Commission. My seat arrangement was made for
            Principal, Shri Bajrang PG College, Dadar Ashram,
            Sikanderpur, Ballia by the letter no. Degree Economic-1
            (Commission)/332-340/2022-23 dated 03.08.2022 of the
            Director of Education (Uttar Pradesh), Uttar Pradesh
            Degree Economic-1 (Commission) Prayagraj. Due to
            family circumstances, I have not taken charge in the
            said college. My candidature for the post of Principal
            has not been cancelled. It has come to my notice that at
            present the posts of Principals are vacant in the following
            colleges .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..”
       From the contents of the representation, it is crystal clear that it
       is the appellant himself who did not join and take charge of PG
       College, Balia and asked for appointment on the post of Principal
       in some other college; indicating some available vacancies in his
       representation. In the light of the said representation, it is now
       required to be seen whether the case of the appellant falls within
       the parameters of “vacancy occurred due to death, resignation or
       otherwise during the period of validity of the list” as contemplated
       under Section 13(4) of the Old Act.
20. After discussion of the facts in details, it is clear that this is not a
    case where the vacancy arose due to death or resignation. However,
[2026] 6 S.C.R.                                                          441

              Dr. Manoj Kumar Rawat v. State of UP & Ors.


     it is within the purview of “otherwise during the period of validity of
     the list” that the appellant claims to be entitled to appointment at an
     alternate place, as demanded, since the appointment order was not
     issued to the appellant under Section 13(3) of the Old Act. In the
     facts as narrated, it is clear that the Director initially recommended
     the name of the appellant for appointment to PG College, Balia, but
     he has failed to join there. The appellant has also not raised any
     demanded with the Management of P.G. College, Balia for issuing
     the order of appointment; but has continued to wait till vacancies as
     stated in his representation have occurred, including the vacancy
     of the post of Principal in Meerut College. We are clear in our mind
     that the said action will not fall within the purview of “otherwise
     during the period of validity of the list.” In case such interpretation
     is permitted, the intention of the State Legislature as contemplated
     under Section 13(3) of the Old Act will not sustain. Therefore, after
     the recommendation dated 03.08.2022, if the appellant was not
     willing to join due to his family circumstances and on finding vacancy
     at Meerut College, submitted a representation to post him at some
     other place with the intent to compel the authorities to bring his case
     within the ambit of Section 13(4) of the Old Act, such action will
     superseding the earlier recommendation and frustrate the purpose
     of Section 13(3) of the Old Act.
21. At this stage, it also imperative to refer to the judgement of this
    Court in Kamlesh Kumar Sharma (Supra) wherein this Court had
    the occasion to deal with the interpretation of the word ‘otherwise’
    in Section 13(4) of the Old Act. In the said judgement, it was held
    that if a wider interpretation is given, it would run contrary to the very
    object of the Old Act and permit filling of vacancy which was never
    advertised and a person, who did not apply, would inadvertently be
    absorbed on such vacancy. The relevant portion of the judgement
    is reproduced as thus: –
           “13. We find, after giving our careful consideration that in
           case the appellant’s argument is accepted by giving wider
           interpretation to the word “otherwise”, it would thwart the
           very object of the Act. In other words it would permit the
           filling of the vacancy occurring which was never advertised
           and a person in the select list panel, even though not
           applying for any vacancy, would be absorbed. Hence it
           would be limiting the sphere of selection in contradiction
442                                                         [2026] 6 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


          to the object of the provision to draw larger applicants
          by advertising every vacancy to be filled in. We have no
          hesitation to say that any appointment to be made on a
          vacancy occurring in the succeeding year in question for
          which there is no advertisement under the provisions of
          sub-section (4) of Section 12, the person on the panel list of
          preceding academic year in question, cannot be absorbed
          or be appointed. The word “otherwise” has to be read as
          ejusdem generis, that is to say, in group similar to death,
          resignation, long leave vacancy, invalidation, person not
          joining after being duly selected. In other words, it would
          be a case of unforeseen vacancies which could not be
          conceived under Section 12(2). Section 12(2) conceives
          of a vacancy which is existing on the date the vacancy is
          to be advertised and which is likely to be caused in future
          but constricted for a period ending in the ensuing academic
          year in question. The words “likely to be caused” under
          Section 12(2) are followed by the words “during the course
          of the ensuing academic year” that is any person likely
          to retire by the end of the academic year in question. In
          other words, such vacancies could be foreseen and not
          unforeseen. While vacancies under Section 13(4) are
          unforeseen vacancies which fall under the group, death
          and/or resignation. Hence the word “otherwise” cannot
          be given the wide and liberal interpretation which would
          exclude a large number of expected applicants who could
          be waiting to apply for the vacancies occurring in the
          succeeding year in question.”
22. In view of the above, it is observed that under the scheme of Old
    Act, the act done was issuance of recommendation dated 03.08.2022
    by the Director. Simultaneously, in response to the appellant’s
    representation dated 26.06.2023, the Director vide letter dated
    17.08.2023 to the Special Secretary has unequivocally made it clear
    that after issuance of the previous recommendation on 03.08.2022
    under the government instructions and applicable law, no arrangement
    for changing the place of posting can be made. In such a scenario,
    prior to the commencement of the New Act on 21.08.2023, the
    act done by the authorities was issuing the recommendation
    dated 03.08.2022, which remained valid and no further action was
[2026] 6 S.C.R.                                                          443

              Dr. Manoj Kumar Rawat v. State of UP & Ors.


     recommended vide letter dated 17.08.2023. Therefore, in furtherance
     to the repeal and saving clause under Section 31(2) of the New Act,
     the act done will be treated only to the extent indicated above.
23. It is even more surprising that after the letter dated 17.08.2023 and
    commencement of the New Act, the Joint Secretary, Government of
    Uttar Pradesh, on his own accord, issued order dated 12.01.2024
    recommending the name of the appellant for being posted as Principal
    of Meerut College. In our view, after commencement of the New Act,
    the validity of the list/panel under the Old Act will automatically lapse
    and the authorities are duty bound to follow the procedure under
    Sections 10 and 11 of the New Act to take steps for appointment on
    the post of Principal. Thus, the concerned authorities could not have
    issued the letter dated 13.12.2023 on the basis of the list prepared
    under the Old Act and thereafter, passed the consequential orders on
    12.01.2024 and 15.01.2024, to effectively recommend and appoint
    the appellant on the post of Principal of Meerut College.
24. At this stage and in to understand the real intent of Section 31 of the
    New Act, it is necessary to refer Section 6 of the Uttar Pradesh General
    Clauses Act, 1904 dealing with the ‘Effect of repeal’, whereby it is clear
    that in case any Uttar Pradesh Act repeals any enactment hitherto or
    hereafter, then unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall
    not revive anything not in force or existing at the time at which the
    repeal takes effect. Further, it shall not affect anything duly done,
    suffered or incurred under any enactment so repealed. Therefore,
    the act done, as also indicated above, was the recommendation
    dated 03.08.2022, which could not be implemented. The authorities
    have clearly intended that after issuance of the recommendation
    dated 03.08.2022, no subsequent change in the place of posting
    can be made in terms of the letter dated 17.08.2023. Thereafter,
    on 21.08.2023, the New Act came into force. Thus, there was no
    occasion for the authorities to issue the order dated 13.12.2023 and,
    consequent recommendation dated 12.01.2024 and order dated
    15.01.2024 in favour of the appellant, under the pretext of Section
    13(4) of the Old Act indicating that the position had otherwise fallen
    vacant. Therefore, with the assistance of Section 6 of the Uttar
    Pradesh General Clauses Act 1904, the effect of repeal of the Old
    Act is clear insofar as it will not revive the previous list or the act
    done under the Old Act, which is having the effect of repeal.
444                                                          [2026] 6 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


25. In consequence of the discussion made hereinabove, the inescapable
    conclusion is that the output of the findings of the learned Single
    Judge and Division Bench of the High Court is correct, though the
    reasoning may not be as elaborative as indicated above. Since the
    outcome is in conformity with the provisions of the Old Act as well
    as the New Act, interference in this appeal is not warranted.
26. Before parting with the judgment, it is our duty to observe the conduct
    of the officers of the State of Uttar Pradesh and the contentions
    raised by them to vociferously support the stand of the appellant.
    As analysed above, it is clear that after commencement of the New
    Act on 21.08.2023, it was not open to the authorities to act in terms
    of the list prepared under the Old Act, even after reflecting on their
    intention to not grant appointment to the appellant i.e., a waitlisted
    candidate only four days prior to the commencement of the New
    Act. Thereafter, there was absolutely no occasion for the Director
    to get the old list revived and write in favour of the appellant on
    13.12.2023. It is suffice to say that the Chief Secretary of the State
    of Uttar Pradesh may look into the conduct of the officers who have
    filed the affidavit taking such unlawful stand before the High Court
    and even before this Court, which is completely impermissible under
    the law and contrary to the finding of the High Court. It is necessary
    to observe that the duty of the State and its officials while filing their
    counter-affidavit and arguing the case before the Court is to provide
    real assistance. Such assistance ought to be based on the facts,
    and by applying the law applicable to the case at hand. It is not
    expected from the authorities to support any party contrary to the law
    or by filing affidavit which does not disclose the facts in conformity
    with the law. Since the concerned officers are not a party to this
    case, therefore, we are not inclined to issue any adverse direction,
    however, we leave it open to the State of Uttar Pradesh to look into
    the above observations and take the recourse in accordance with
    the law, if necessary.
27. Now, we revert to the arguments regarding locus standi of the
    Officiating Principal i.e., respondent No.6, to challenge the order dated
    13.12.2023, and subsequent orders dated 12.01.2024 and 15.01.2024
    which effectively grant appointment to the appellant as Principal of
    Meerut College. In this regard and relying on the judgement of this
    Court in Kamlesh Kumar Sharma (Supra), it is suffice that while
    interpretating Sections 12, 13 and 14 of the Old Act, this Court found
[2026] 6 S.C.R.                                                         445

                  Dr. Manoj Kumar Rawat v. State of UP & Ors.


      that the Officiating Principals have locus to challenge the same. In
      contradistinction, the learned counsel for the appellant made reference
      to the judgment in the case of Anand Sharadchandra Oka v.
      University of Mumbai and Others4 and Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan
      Pathan v. State of Maharashtra and Others5. In our view and in
      the light of the discussion made hereinabove, when the illegality of
      the authorities is writ large and the act done was completely illegal,
      the issue of locus standi may not be germane to be dealt with in
      the facts of this case. Therefore, we leave the said issue open for
      decision in an appropriate case.
28. In consequence and in our considered opinion, the arguments
    advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant are completely
    contrary to the spirit of both, the Old Act as well as New Act. The
    conclusion drawn by the learned Single Judge and Division Bench
    of the High Court is correct, with additional reasonings discussed
    hereinabove. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant stands
    dismissed in the facts. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.
29. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

      Result of the case: Appeal dismissed.




      †
          Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain




4    (2008) 5 SCC 217.
5   (2013) 4 SCC 465.