ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH versus U.P. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND ORS.

ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH versus U.P. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND ORS.

A policy decision to appoint candidates from the select list as per merit was not irrational or malafide; vacancies due to non-joining were properly carried forward and filled in subsequent examination. Seniority is logical for those appointed earlier. No universal rule exists to appoint waiting list candidates whenever vacancies arise.

Parties
Appellant: Ashwani Kumar Singh; Appellant: Brij Nath Srivastava; Respondents: U.P. Public Service Commission and Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
14 July 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Allahabad High Court Judgment Rejecting Writ Petition
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Appointments, Seniority, Policy Decision, Waiting List, Promotion
Service Law Appointments Seniority Policy Decision Waiting List Promotion

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ashwani Kumar Singh

Appellant

Brij Nath Srivastava

Appellant

U.P. Public Service Commission and Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Allahabad High Court Judgment Rejecting Writ Petition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether candidates in the waiting list should be appointed to vacancies arising from non-joining of selected candidates
  2. 2 Whether the appellants are entitled to seniority over persons appointed as a result of subsequent examination

Ratio Decidendi

A policy decision to appoint candidates from the select list as per merit was not irrational or malafide; vacancies due to non-joining were properly carried forward and filled in subsequent examination. Seniority is logical for those appointed earlier. No universal rule exists to appoint waiting list candidates whenever vacancies arise.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed
  • Parties shall bear their respective costs