KAMLA SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners Ms. Kamla Srivastava and Shri Ghanshyam appeared in the selections in pursuance to the Advertisement No. A-5 E-1/1997-98 issued by the Public Service Commission, U.P., for selection on the post of Asstt. Prosecuting Officers in the Asstt. Prosecuting Officers Examination, 1997 held under Section 15 of the U.P. Prosecuting Officer Service Rules, 1991. The advertisement was made for total 218 posts of APO to which reservation was applied in accordance with the U.P. Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes/Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994.

(2.) Shri Sheo Shyam and 5 others filed Writ Petition No. 28192 of 2002 alleging that the appointments were made in pursuance to the selection by the State Government on three dates. A large number of selected candidates failed to join. The number of these candidates was found to be 30 out of 218 recommended by the Public Service Commission. The High court found that the result was declared on 20.3.1999, and that even if the appointments were given on different dates, waiting list was valid only for a period of one year upto 20.3.2000, and in view of the decision of the Division Bench in Surendra Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. in Writ Petition No. 16899 of 2001 decided on 1.3.2002, the waiting list was no longer valid and operative to be used for making appointments.

(3.) The petitioners challenged the judgment in the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No. 6505 of 2003, which was converted into Civil Appeal No. 1035 of 2004. The Supreme Court found that the appointments were given on different dates from 10.5.1999 to 26.7.2001. It posed a question to itself as to whether the period of validity of the waiting list has to be one year from the date of the first recommendation made by the Commission, or from the date of the last of the recommendations. In view the peculiar nature of the fact situation, the Supreme Court allowed the Special Appeal with directions that the appellants shall be considered by the Commission and the State Government for appointment and that they will be appointed, if otherwise found suitable and eligible after verification of such credentials, documents and background as are necessary to be done for appointment. The last four paragraph of the judgment of the Supreme Court are quoted as below: