http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  2402 of 2002

PETITIONER: SECRETARY, U.P. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

RESPONDENT: UDAY KUMAR UPADHYAYA & ORS

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14/02/2008

BENCH: H.K. SEMA & MARKANDEY KATJU

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT O R D E R

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2402 OF 2002

       Aggrieved by the order dated 15/11/2000, this appeal has been preferred by the U.P.  Public Service Commission.

       Heard the parties.

       Briefly stated, the facts are as follows.

       Sometimes in the year 1983, an advertisement was issued for filling up posts of 301  Naib Tehsildar.  Result was declared on 22/9/1988.  In the said result, 297 candidates  were recommended and appointed.  Subsequently, 40 recommended candidates did not  join their post within the stipulated time and 6 appointees resigned.  Thus, 46 posts  became vacant.  For the 46 subsequent vacancies, the department again recommended  46 candidates from the waiting listed.  The break-up of 46 candidates are as follows: 32  general candidates, 6 OBC and 8 .....2.  

- 2 -

SC candidates.  All of them were appointed.  It appears that the respondents herein  preferred a writ petition in February 1992 claiming their appointment from the waiting  list. In paragraph 28 of the writ petition, allegation has been made that the respondents  1 to 3, the appellants herein, have committed illegality in giving appointment to the 12  persons who have not even appeared in the examination and they were not in the merit  list and as such their appointment is wholly illegal and is liable to be cancelled.  Counter   affidavit has been filed on behalf of the appellants rebutting the said contention.  Be that   as it may.  The allegation in paragraph 28 of the writ petition was as vague as anything.   The name of none of the 12 persons, who were alleged to have been appointed despite  the fact that they did not appear in the examination, has been mentioned, save and  except, making bald statement. They were not made parties. Also it is not the case of the  respondents that they were high in the waiting list and ignoring their candidature, the  persons, who were below them in the waiting list, have been appointed.

       By now it is well-settled principles of law that even a recommended candidate does  not possess any indefeasible right.  No enforceable right has accrued even to the  recommended candidates.  The case  of the respondents was still worse.  It  .........3.

- 3 -

is contended that the respondents, who filed writ petition, were far below than the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

candidates who have been appointed from the waiting list.  The High Court on such bald  allegation issued a writ of mandamus to the appellants for appointment of the  respondent Nos. 3 and 4. The order of the High Court is clearly not in accordance with  law.

       In the result, this appeal is allowed.  The order of the High Court is set aside.  N o  costs.