Summary
Selected agriculture-service candidates challenged cancellation of recruitment following correction of category-wise vacancies. The Court held that correcting reservation calculations without changing eligibility or total advertised posts did not change the selection rules. It restored the selection, but refused appointments to 906 surplus recommended candidates where appointments would exceed statutory reservation limits, granting specified candidates one-time age relaxation for fresh recruitment.
Issues
- Whether correcting category-wise vacancies during recruitment unlawfully changed the selection rules.
- Whether surplus recommended candidates could obtain appointments under Article 142.
Provisions considered
- Sections 3(1), 3(2) and 4, Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994The recruitment authority could correct category calculations to comply with reservation requirements, but appointments could not exceed the applicable statutory limits. (¶¶ 26, 27, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 69, 70, 76)
- Rules 6 and 15, Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Agriculture Services Rules, 1993The authority’s power to determine vacancies and apply reservation orders supported correction of the earlier requisition. (¶¶ 29, 45, 77)
Held
- The diploma holders absorbed earlier belonged against the general quota, rather than OBC quota. Correcting their erroneous classification and recalculating category vacancies was within the authority’s competence; the total 6,628 vacancies and eligibility criteria remained unchanged. (¶¶ 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 29, 32, 33, 34, 37, 38, 42, 44, 45, 49)
- The revised requisition preceded the written result, and the revised breakdown was published before interview. Candidates who knowingly participated without protest and failed could not then challenge that breakdown; their claimed prejudice was also not demonstrated. (¶¶ 25, 48, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55)
- Filling unfilled horizontal places with suitable candidates from the respective vertical categories conformed to the Government’s applicable policy and did not invalidate selection. (¶¶ 56, 77)
- Failure to appeal every writ disposed of through the same common reasoning and operative judgment did not create the asserted res judicata bar. The Court declined to determine the separate non-impleadment issue in the circumstances of the notice order already made. (¶¶ 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65)
- Recommendation did not confer an indefeasible appointment right. The 906 lower-ranked surplus candidates could not be appointed beyond statutory reservation limits through Article 142; later vacancies required fresh advertisement open to all eligible candidates. (¶¶ 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77)
Result
The appeals were allowed and the High Court’s common cancellation judgment set aside. Appointment relief for the 906 surplus candidates was refused. The private respondents, intervenors, unappointed 906 candidates and High Court writ petitioners received strictly one-time age relaxation for the forthcoming recruitment. Intervention and impleadment applications were dismissed.