TOSH KUMAR SHARMA versus HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD & ORS. R1: HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD R2: STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH R3: SELECTION & APPOINTMENT COMMITTEE OF U.P.H.J.S. EXAMINATION

TOSH KUMAR SHARMA versus HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD & ORS. R1: HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD R2: STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH R3: SELECTION & APPOINTMENT COMMITTEE OF U.P.H.J.S. EXAMINATION

Rule 8(2) does not apply to the situation where a recommended candidate from the communicated list was not approved by the Governor/State Government because the Rule requires that the 'selected direct recruits' be 'available for appointment'; where a recommended candidate is not approved and thereby a vacancy remains, the next eligible candidate in the same Merit List (the appellant at Sl. No.38) is entitled to appointment. Accordingly, the High Court's rejection of the appellant's claim was set aside and the High Court and State directed to process and issue appointment; seniority to be notionally as part of the 2016 selection and no back-wages payable.

Parties
Appellant: Tosh Kumar Sharma; Respondent No.1: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad; Respondent No.2: State of Uttar Pradesh
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
16 July 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Final Judgment and Order Dated 22.09.2022 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (writ a No.13979 of 2022)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Impugned Judgment of the High Court set aside
Legal Topics
Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975, Rule 8(2) Interpretation, Appointment to Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service, Seniority and Placement
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Service Law Judicial Appointments Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975 Rule 8(2) Interpretation Appointment to Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Seniority and Placement

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tosh Kumar Sharma

Appellant

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Respondent No.1

State of Uttar Pradesh

Respondent No.2

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Final Judgment and Order Dated 22.09.2022 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (writ a No.13979 of 2022)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant, ranked 38 in the Merit List of the 2016 Advertisement, was entitled to appointment to the 37th General Category post which remained unfilled by the Governor/State Government
  2. 2 Whether Rule 8(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975 applies where a recommended candidate from the communicated list is not approved by the Governor/State Government
  3. 3 Whether the vacancy should be carried forward to the next recruitment cycle or filled from the same selection list and how seniority should be reckoned

Ratio Decidendi

Rule 8(2) does not apply to the situation where a recommended candidate from the communicated list was not approved by the Governor/State Government because the Rule requires that the 'selected direct recruits' be 'available for appointment'; where a recommended candidate is not approved and thereby a vacancy remains, the next eligible candidate in the same Merit List (the appellant at Sl. No.38) is entitled to appointment. Accordingly, the High Court's rejection of the appellant's claim was set aside and the High Court and State directed to process and issue appointment; seniority to be notionally as part of the 2016 selection and no back-wages payable.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Impugned Judgment of the High Court set aside

Orders

  • High Court and the State Government to process and issue Appointment Letter to the appellant
  • Appellant's seniority to be reckoned notionally as part of the 2016 Advertisement's selection process