In a recent legal case, the High Court’s judgment in a Writ Petition has been overturned, highlighting the challenges in implementing the court’s order due to the retirement of one of the involved parties. The court’s decision was based on a detailed legal analysis, ultimately leading to the quashing of the initial judgment. This case sheds light on the complexities of legal proceedings and the importance of thorough consideration in such matters.
Facts
- The State Government issued a letter for medical examination of two candidates recommended by the Public Service Commission.
- Ajay Shankar Pandey filed a Writ Petition in the High Court.
- Two candidates named Shri Digvijay Singh and Chunni Lal were sent for the appointment as Deputy Collectors.
- The selection process for 35 posts of Deputy Collector was initiated.
- The State of U.P. appealed against the High Court’s judgment on Writ Petition No.1181(S/B) of 1996.
- Chunni Lal challenged the rejection of his representation in the amended writ petition.
- Shri Ram Subhag Singh and Shri Ramesh Kumar Yadav did not join as Deputy Collectors after selection.
- A Combined State Service Examination was conducted in the year 1985.
- Respondent No.1, the original writ petitioner, was not appointed as Deputy Collector despite the High Court’s judgment.
- The Division Bench of the High Court directed the Public Service Commission to recommend the name of Ajay Shankar Pandey in a judgment dated 09.05.1989.
- The Commission withdrew the recommendation in favor of Chunni Lal as per the court’s order.
- Chunni Lal filed a writ petition against Ajay Shankar Pandey’s appointment, which was allowed by the High Court, directing the State to reconsider Chunni Lal’s appointment for the post of Deputy Collector.
- The High Court also mentioned that Ajay Shankar Pandey’s appointment should not be disturbed in any way.
- The State appealed against this judgment and the High Court’s decision was stayed by a subsequent order dated 30.10.2014.
Also Read: Legal Analysis on Conviction Based on Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix
Analysis
- The High Court ordered the State to appoint two persons to the single post of Deputy Collector.
- This was in relation to the appointment of respondent No.2 – Ajay Shankar Pandey following a previous High Court order in Writ Petition No. 22966 of 1988.
- The current order for the State to appoint respondent No.1 to the post of Deputy Collector is no longer feasible as respondent No.1 has retired as Deputy Transport Commissioner on 31.08.2019.
- Both State’s counsel and respondent No.2’s counsel have acknowledged this fact during the proceedings.
- The High Court’s judgment and order are not sustainable on merit as well.
- The original writ petitioner cannot be appointed as Deputy Collector as Ajay Shankar Pandey has already been appointed to the position.
- There is no vacant post available, and creating a supernumerary post is not possible.
- The High Court directed the State to appoint the original writ petitioner solely based on a subsequent recommendation by the Public Service Commission.
- The High Court’s observation that both original writ petitioner and Ajay Shankar Pandey be appointed cannot be sustained as two persons cannot be appointed to a single post.
Also Read: Legal Analysis on Concurrent Sentences in Drug Trafficking Cases
Decision
- The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court dated 16.07.2014 in Writ Petition No.1181 (S/B) of 1996 is quashed and set aside.
- No costs are to be awarded.
- The appeal succeeds based on the noted submissions.
- Respondent No.1 has retired as Deputy Transport Commissioner on 31.08.2019, making the implementation of the High Court’s order impossible.
Also Read: Legal Jurisdiction and Award Finality in Arbitration Dispute
Case Title: THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH THROUGH ITS SECRETARY Vs. CHUNNI LAL (2021 INSC 776)
Case Number: C.A. No.-006945-006945 / 2021
