Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2019 (9) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (9) TMI 1707 - SC - Indian LawsThe result of written examination for the post of Technical Assistant-Group-C Agriculture Department upheld - selection process subsequent to the written examination quashed - seeking direction to Principal Secretary, State of U.P. to send requisition to the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission on the basis of quantifiable data and cadre strength as well as actual persons working in different categories so that the interview may be conducted afresh. HELD THAT:- The revised requisition dated 20.08.2014 and the revised notification of the UP Public Service Commission itself were in excess of the permissible limits of reservation as per UP Reservation Act, 1994. We cannot pass direction to accommodate the surplus candidates as that would be in excess of the permissible limit as prescribed by the Act and would be in violation of prescribed limits of reservation as per the statutory provisions of UP Reservation Act, 1994. In exercise of power Under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, if we are to issue direction to appoint 906 candidates, it will be crossing the limits of 50% reservation which would be violation of the constitutional provisions and the UP Reservation Act, 1994. Even assuming that the Respondent State was not diligent in carrying out the proper quantifiable data of existing working strength in different categories and ascertaining the vacancies position under different categories, it needs no reiteration that a wrong cannot be corrected by committing another wrong. It is fairly well-settled that the selected candidates do not have any indefeasible right to be appointed. As held in State of Bihar and Ors. v. Amrendra Kumar Mishra [2006 (9) TMI 569 - SUPREME COURT] , merely because the names of candidates were included in the provisional select list, they do not acquire any indefeasible right to be appointed. Merely because UP Public Service Commission has recommended the names of 906 candidates, they do not acquire any indefeasible right for being appointed. Article 142 of the Constitution of India confers wide power upon the Supreme Court to do complete justice between the parties. Though the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by Article 142 are very wide, the same cannot be exercised to pass an order inconsistent with express statutory provisions of substantive law. In Ramji Veerji Patel and Ors. v. Revenue Divisional Officer and Ors. [2011 (11) TMI 880 - SUPREME COURT] , the Supreme Court held that the power Under Article 142 of the Constitution of India is to be exercised very carefully and sparingly. The power Under Article 142 of the Constitution of India can be exercised so as to do complete justice between the parties. In the case in hand, as per the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994, specific percentages of vacancies have been reserved for different categories viz., (a) Scheduled Castes-21% (b) Scheduled Tribes-2% and (c) OBC-27%. In any recruitment, this statutory permissible limit of reservation not exceeding 50% has to be maintained. The power Under Article 142 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised to supplant the statutory provision under the UP Reservation Act, 1994. In exercise of power Under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, no direction can be issued to the State of UP to issue appointment orders to the 906 candidates. The private Respondents/intervenors and 906 candidates who were not issued appointment orders and those who filed writ petitions before the High Court shall be granted age relaxation as one-time measure to participate in the upcoming recruitment. Age relaxation is strictly a one-time measure. The common impugned judgment and batch of writ petitions is set aside and these appeals are allowed.
|