STATE OF U.P. versus CHUNNI LAL & ORS.

STATE OF U.P. versus CHUNNI LAL & ORS.

The High Court's direction to appoint the original writ petitioner to the post of Deputy Collector was unsustainable because that post had already been filled pursuant to the High Court's earlier order in favour of another candidate, and two persons cannot be appointed to a single post; accordingly the High Court judgment dated 16.07.2014 was quashed and set aside, and implementation was also impracticable as the original writ petitioner retired during the pendency.

Parties
Appellant: State of U.P.; Respondent No.1 (original Writ Petitioner): Chunni Lal; Respondent No.2: Ajay Shankar Pandey
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
23 November 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal No.6945 of 2021 / Appeal to the Supreme Court Against High Court Judgment Dated 16.07.2014 in Writ Petition No.1181 (s/b) of 1996
Outcome
Appeal allowed; impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 16.07.2014 quashed and set aside; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Appointment, Public Service Commission Recommendations, Writ Petition, Vacancy, Superannuation
Service Law Administrative Law Appointment Public Service Commission Recommendations Writ Petition Vacancy Superannuation

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

State of U.P.

Appellant

Chunni Lal

Respondent No.1 (original Writ Petitioner)

Ajay Shankar Pandey

Respondent No.2

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal No.6945 of 2021 / Appeal to the Supreme Court Against High Court Judgment Dated 16.07.2014 in Writ Petition No.1181 (s/b) of 1996

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court could direct appointment of the original writ petitioner to a post already filled pursuant to its earlier order in favour of another candidate
  2. 2 Whether two persons can be directed to be appointed to a single post
  3. 3 Whether the High Court order was capable of implementation given the original writ petitioner's subsequent retirement

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court's direction to appoint the original writ petitioner to the post of Deputy Collector was unsustainable because that post had already been filled pursuant to the High Court's earlier order in favour of another candidate, and two persons cannot be appointed to a single post; accordingly the High Court judgment dated 16.07.2014 was quashed and set aside, and implementation was also impracticable as the original writ petitioner retired during the pendency.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 16.07.2014 quashed and set aside; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • Impugned judgment and order dated 16.07.2014 in Writ Petition No.1181 (S/B) of 1996 quashed and set aside
  • No order as to costs