Yashwant Chauhan and 11 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 19246 of 2023 Court No. - 32 HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.

¶1Heard Sri J.P. Singh, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Abhishek Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent - Power Corporation.

¶2The petitioners have participated in a recruitment process against 623 vacancies of Technical Grade-II (Apprentice) - Eletrical for U.P. Power Corporation Ltd in pursuance of an advertisement dated 03.05.2016. The petitioners have claimed that they were selected and were appointed also, however, when a revised list was published on 12.12.2017 their names and others were deleted. The petitioners and others have filed various writ petitions against revised select list, however, it was dismissed vide a judgment dated 08.03.2018 passed by a Single Bench of this Court.

¶3Some of the aggrieved persons have filed numbers of Special Appeals before Division Bench of this Court. It is not clear that petitioners have filed Special Appeals or not. All Special Appeals filed by aggrieved persons were dismissed vide a judgment dated 04.04.2018.

¶4Admittedly, petitioners have not challenged any order before the Supreme Court, however, some of aggrieved persons have filed SLP (C) No. 18020 of 2022 (Civil Appeal No. 7194/2022). Said Appeals along with intervention applications were finally allowed on 12.10.2022 exercising jurisdiction under Article 142 of Constitution, whereby it was directed that 39 appellants/intervenors should be given appointment on above referred post within two months from date of order. Admittedly, petitioners were not part of said judgment i.e. they were neither appellants Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : G.K. Srivastava, J.P. Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : Abhishek Srivastava, C.S.C. Yashwant Chauhan And 11 Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) therein nor they have filed any intervention application.

¶5The petitioners being fence-sitters have filed a Writ Petition (C) No. 1047/2022 subsequently before Supreme Court to take benefit of above referred judgments, however, it was dismissed as withdrawn on

07.12.2022. Subsequently, petitioners have filed a Misc. Application No. 132/2023 in above referred Civil Appeal No. 7194/2022 which was disposed of by following order dated 07.02.2023 :- "Benefit which was given to persons who were similarly situated to the applicant was under Article of the Constitution of India. However, these applicant(s) before us never approached this Court for about 2 1/2 years after the cause arose and now seek the same benefit. We are not inclined to once again exercise jurisdiction under Article of the Constitution of India but if what the applicant(s) claim, i.e., vacancies are available and if the respondent feel it can accommodate them, we are not coming in the way of that accommodation being made by the respondent. Miscellaneous application stands disposed of accordingly. ΙΑ NO. 12582/2023 FOR IMPLEADMENT In view of the order passed in the miscellaneous application, the application for impleadment stands disposed of in the same terms and observations as set out above."

¶6In aforesaid circumstances, petitioners have filed a representation before respondent - Power Corporation that their respective case for appointment be considered in the light of above referred order passed by Supreme Court, however, same was rejected vide impugned order dated

01.09.2023 and relevant part thereof is mentioned below :- "अिभलेखों ाकीाजाँचाके ासमयाऐसेाअ?् यिथयों ,ाजोाहाईस् कू लामेंािव्ञ ानाएवंागिणतािवषय,ामेंा ्र ेसामाक् सर्ाके ासाथाउ्त ीणर्ाघोिषतािकयेागयेाथे,ाकोािव्ञ ापनाके ा्र स् तर-2ाके ाअनुसाराअहार् ना मानतेाहु येाचयनापिरिधासेाबाहराकरािदयाागयााथा।ाइन् हीा्य िथताअ?् यिथयों ा्व ाराािविभन् ना यािचकाएंा(22)ामा०ाउच् चान् यायालयाइलाहाबादाएवंाखण् डापीठालखनऊामेंायोिजताकीागयीा थी.ाजोा्र मुखािरटायािचकाासं0-58918/2016ा(सुनीलाकु माराएवंा46ाअन् याबनामास् टटे ा ऑफायू०पी०ाएवंाअन् य)ाके ासाथासम् बद्ध ाथी।ामा०ाउच् चान् यायालयाइलाहाबादा्व ाराावादासं0-ा 58918/2016ामेंािदनाँका07.10.2017ाकोापािरतािनणर्या्व ारााघोिषताचयनासूचीािदनाँका

09.12.2016ा कोा िनरस् ता करा िदयाा गयाा था।ा तदोपरान् ता मा०ा न् यायालया के ा आदेशा के ा अनुपालनामेंागिणतायाािव्ञ ानायाादोनों ामेंा्र ेसामाकर् ासेाहाईस् कू लाउ्त ीणर्ाअ?् यिथयों ाकोा सिम् मिलताकरताे हु येािलिखतापरी्ष ााएवंाअिभलेखों ाके ासत् यापनाके ाउपरान् ता्र े्ठ ्त ााके ाआधारा परा पुनरीि्ष ता चयना सूचीा िदनॉका 12.12.2017ा कोा िनगर्ता कीा गईा थी,ा िजसमेंा िदनाँका

09.12.2016ाकोाघोिषताचयनासूचीामेंाचयिनता99ाअ?् यथर् ाचयनापिरिधासेाबाहराहोागयेा थे। चयनापिरिधासेाबाहराहु येाअ?् यिथयों ामेंासेा्र ीादु गर्शाकु मारा्र ीवास् तवा्व ाराामा०ाउच् चतम्ा न् यायालयानईािदल् लीामेंायोिजतास् पेशलालीवािपटीशना(िसिवल)ाडायरीानं0-ा31612/2019ा (दु गर्शा कु मारा ्र ीवास् तवा बनामा िवद्य ता सेवाा आयोगा एवंा अन् य)ा मेंा पािरता िनणर्या िदनॉकाु

12.10.2022ाके ाअनुपालनामेंा39ानगावादीगणों ाकोाचयिनताघोिषताकरािनयुि्त ा्र दानाकीा गई। कालान् तरामेंाआपाएवंा12ाअन् या्य िथताअ?् यिथयों ा्व ाराािसिवलाअपीलासंख् या-7194/2022ा (डायरीा सं0-31612/2019),ा दु गर्शा कु मारा ्र ीवास् तवा बनामा िवद्य ता सेवाा आयोग,ा उ०्र ०ाु पा०का०िल०ाएवंाअन् यामेंािमसलेिनयसाअप् लीके शनासं0-132/2023ादािखलाकर,ािसिवला अपीलासं0-7194/2022ामेंािदनों का12.10.2022ाकोापािरतािनणर्याकीाभाँिताहीाआदेशा िनगर्ता करनेा कीा ्र ाथर्नाा कीा गईा िजसपरा मा०ा उच् चतम्ा न् यायालया ्व ाराा आदेशा िदनांका

07.02.2023ापािरतािकयाागयाािजसके ामुख् याअशािनम् नवत्ाहःै - "Benefit which was given to persons who were similarly situated to the applicant was under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. However, these applicant (s) before us never approached this court for about 212 years after the cause arose and now seek the same benefit. We are not inclined to once again exercise jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India but if what the applicant(s) claim, i.e., vacancies are available and if the respondent feel it can accommodate them, we are not coming in the way of that accommodation being made by the respondent. Miscellaneous application stands disposed of accordingly..." सूच्य हैं कि रिक्त पदों के सापेक्ष बिना नियत चयन प्रक्रिया का पालन किए समायोजित किये जाने के संदर्भ में वर्तमान विनियमावली में कोई प्राविधान नहीं हैं। उपरोक्त तथ्यों के दृष्टिगत आपके द्वारा प्रस्तुत प्रत्यावेदन पर मा० उच्चत्तम् न्यायालय द्वारा पारित निर्णय दिनाँक 07.02.2023 के आलोक में राज्यक विचारोपरान्त अवगत कराना है कि आपका प्रत्यावेदन विचार किये जाने योग्य नहीं है।"

¶7Learned counsel for petitioners submits that reasons assigned in aforesaid order are not correct. The petitioners have participated in recruitment process and were appointed also though later on, their appointment were cancelled, however, when similarly situated persons were granted benefit from Supreme Court and since the petitioners have approached Supreme Court by way of filing a Misc. Application which was disposed of with certain directions, therefore, their claim, on a factually incorrect reason, cannot be rejected on a ground that they were not part of recruitment process.

¶8Learned counsel further submits that according to information given under RTI Act, presently 98 posts are still vacant and he refers a judgment of Supreme Court in Vikas Pratap Singh and others vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others, (2013) 14 SCC 494.

¶9Per contra, learned counsel for respondent-Power Corporation submits that Supreme Court in above referred order has not passed any direction. Claim of petitioners for parity was rejected except that petitioners can approach concerned respondents, however, it would be the complete discretion of Corporation to appoint them or not and in given circumstances, said discretion was not exercised.

¶10I have considered above submissions and perused the records.

¶11From facts referred above, it is not much under dispute that petitioners were fence-sitters. They have not approached Supreme Court either by way of filing SLP or by way of any Intervention Application at relevant stage, therefore, an order passed by Supreme Court on 12.10.2022, would not be applicable to them and that was the purport of subsequent order dated 07.02.2023 passed in Misc. Application No. 1332/2023 that said benefit cannot be granted to petitioners, however, a window was left open that if respondents feel to accommodate petitioners on vacant posts, they can do so, therefore, there was no direction of Supreme Court even to consider claim of the petitioners.

¶12The respondents were left with a complete discretion to consider the case of petitioners or not, therefore, even reasons assigned in impugned order may not happily worded, still, once on basis of instructions, it is specifically denied that petitioners cannot be accommodated even vacancies are available, Court cannot sit on orders passed by Supreme Court and to direct the respondents to follow such directions which was passed under Article 142 of Constitution by the Supreme Court since it was limited to only 39 appellants/intervenors in Civil Appeal No. 7194/2022, therefore, there is no illegality in impugned order.

¶13So far as above referred judgment is concerned, it would not be helpful to petitioners in given set of circumstances.

¶14Accordingly, writ petition lacks merit, hence, it is dismissed. April 23, 2026 N. Sinha (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.) High Court of Judicature at Allahabad