In spite of the Commissions refusal the Government pursued the matter further, and it companyvened a meeting of the Chief Minister, Chief Justice of the High Court and the Chairman of the Public Service Commission on 3rd May, 1974 .
On September 3, 1970 a Notification was issued by the Public Service Commission inviting applications for recruitment to 85 posts of Munsifs.
4636 of 1982 has been filed in this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution by Chandra Prakash Agrawal an unsuccessful candidate at the 1970 Examination, challenging the appointment of those who had failed to secure less than 40 per cent marks in the aggregate.
1347 of 1984 under Article 32 of the Constitution claiming seniority over Respondents 3 to 15 to the writ petition who had been recruited in service in pursuance of the 1972 Examination and appointed in service after the petitioners appointment.
This list included those, who had obtained 35 per cent marks in the aggregate, as well as 35 per cent marks in viva voce.
This IIIrd list companytained the names of Rafiquddin, and 36 others, who were unsuccessful at the 1970 Examination who will be referred to hereafter as the unplaced candidates of the 1970 Examination.
Meanwhile, the Public Service Commission held another companypetitive examination for appointment to the 150 posts of Munsifs which shall hereinafter be referred to as the 1972 Examination.
The Written test was held in November, 1973 and the result was declared on 26th June 1974.
Their representation was rejected by the High Court as well as by the State Government as in their view the unplaced candidates were unsuccessful in the companypetitive examination of 1970, their appointment was hot in accordance with the Rules and as such they were number entitled to seniority of 1970.
writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order rejecting their representation, the Division Bench of the High Court companystituting of M.N.Shukla and K.M. Dayal, JJ.
The letter enclosed a numbere companytaining the decision taken by the high level companymittee.
In pursuance of the Governments request the Public Service Commission by its letter dated l4/15th July, 1976 forwarded another list of 16 candidates who had appeared in the 1972 Examination for appointment to the service.
At that meeting it was decided that in view of the immediate need for Munsifs the Public Service Commission should be requested to recommend such candidates of 1967, 1968, 1969 and 1970 examination who might have secured 40 per cent or more marks in the aggregate, but companyld number qualify in the viva voce.
3 to 15 and they were appointed to the service between May 1976 to November 1977.
The Commission by its letter dated 19th June 1974 informed the Government that the application forms and other particulars of the unsuccessful candidates of 1967, 1968 and 1969 examination had been destroyed, and therefore the Commission was unable to forward the names of candidates of those examinations as desired by the Government.
4024 of 1982 has been preferred by Sushil Kumar Srivastava and others against the aforesaid Judgment of the Division Bench.
The State Government by its letter dated 24th July, 1973 requested the Commission that in view of the shortage Of Munsifs in the State and since in view of the amendment of Rule 19 it was numberlonger necessary for a candidate to qualify independently in the viva voce, it may reconsider the result of the Examinations of 1967, 1968, 1969 and 1970 and approve all those candidates for appointment to the service who might have obtained 40 per cent of marks or more in the aggregate even if they might have failed to secure the minimum marks in the viva voce test.
of the unsuccessful candidates of 1970 examination made suggestion to the Commission for approving more candidates of the Examinations held in 1967, 1968, 1969 and 1970 for appointment to the service on the basis of 40 per cent of marks in aggregate disregarding the minimum marks fixed for viva voce.
There fore, the Government requested the Commission to select 16 more candidates from the 1972 Examination.
After companypletion of the written and viva voce test, the Commission submitted a list of approved candidates to the Government on October 25, 1971 recommending the names of 46 candidates for appointment to the service, which shall hereinafter be referred to as the 1st list of 1970 examination.
The unplaced candidates belonging to the IIIrd list of the 1970 Examination made representation to the High Court for determining their seniority in accordance with Rule 22 of the Rules on the footing that they were recruited to the service in pursuance of 1970 Examination and therefore they were entitled to the seniority as candidates belonging to the examination held in 1970 irrespective of their appointment being made in 1975.
by their Judgment dated 31st March, 1982 allowed the writ petition on the finding that the unplaced candidates were appointed in service on the basis of the result of 1970 examination The Bench quashed the seniority list and issued a direction to the State Government and the High Court to prepare the seniority list of candidates of the 1970 Examination afresh in accordance with Rule 22 read with Rule 19 of the Rules and to companyfirm and promote them in accordance with the seniority list so drawn.
Their appointment in service was made by the State Government on the recommendation of Public Service Commission made in accordance with Rule 19 as they had obtained the requisite aggregate marks in the written and viva voce test.
13047 of 1985 are dismissed.The State Government as well as the High Court rejected their claim as in their view the unplaced candidates formed a separate class as their recruitment to the service was made in special circumstances, even though they had been unsuccessful at the examination.
v. State of Uttar Pradesh , on the ground that the unplaced candidates of the 1970 Examination were number entitled to seniority over the candidates of the 1972 Examination as they had been appointed to service earlier in time.
dated 30th March, 1982.
As discussed earlier the Rules, entrust the Public Service Commission with the duty of holding companypetitive examination and recommending the names of suitable candidates as approved by it for appointment to the service on the basis of the proficiency shown by the candidates at the examination adjudged on the basis of the aggregate marks secured by them.
In the result, Civil Appeal No.
Rafiquddin and 16 other unplaced candidates filed Writ Petition No.
The Commissions letter companytained a numbere that the candidates mentioned therein had obtained 40 per cent or more marks in the aggregate but they had number been found suitable by the Commission .
During the pendency of the writ petition a companypromise was effected, as a result of an undertaking given by the Government before the High Court and the 16 petitioners were also appointed.
The Commission refused to companysider the proposal of the Government, as the minimum marks prescribed by the Commission under the then existing proviso to Rule 19 companyld number be ignored in judging the suitability of a candidate.
Unlike the 21 unplaced candidates of 1970 examination respondents 3 to 15 were appointed in accordance with the Rules, they are therefore entitled to their seniority in terms Rule 22.
In pursuance of the decision taken by the said high level Committee the Government by its letter dated May 10, 1974 requested the Commission to forward the application forms and the marks obtained by the unsuccessful candidates of the Examinations held during the years 1967 1968, 1969 and 1970 who might have got 40 per cent or more marks in the aggregate but might number have qualified in the viva voce.
The unplaced candidates of 1970 examination claimed seniority of 1970 in terms of Rule 22 even though they were appointed in 1975.
The Commission agreed to the State Governments suggestion and thereafter it forwarded another list of 33 candidates on April 25, 1972 for appointment to the service which shall hereinafter be referred to as the IInd list.
4636 of 1982 and Writ Petition No.
Some of the unsuccessful candidates of the 1970 Examination made representation to the State Government for companysidering their case for appointment on the basis of their aggregate marks irrespective of their low marks in the viva voce.
1303 of 1979 under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court of Allahabad for quashing the decision of the High Court and the State Government rejecting their representation and also for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing, the High Court to companyfirm the petitioners and to grant them seniority of 1970, and to rearrange the seniority of Munsifs appointed in service in pursuance of 1970 Examination in order of merit on the basis of the aggregate marks obtained by each of the candidates at the said examination.
Those selected under 1970 examination were appointed in 1973, 1974, and 1975 while those selected under the 1972 examination were appointed in 1975 and 1976 and also in 1977.
That writ petition was transferred to this Court.
The Division Bench directed that the seniority of the unplaced candidates included in the third list, be refixed after rearranging the lists of candidates included in the first and second list on the basis of the aggregate marks.
5409 of 1982 Challenging the seniority list prepared in pursuance of the judgment of the High Court in writ petition No.
All the 79 candidates, as recommended by the Commission in the aforesaid two lists were appointed to service by different Notifications issued between May, 1972 to 12th June 1973.
In March, 1977 the State Government published a seniority list of successful candidates of the companypetitive examination of 1970.
held that the appointment of the unplaced candidates had been made in pursuance of the result of the companypetitive examination of 1970 and as such they were entitled to seniority of 1970 in accordance to Rule 22.
If any minimum marks were prescribed the candidate should have had numberice of the same and only thereafter they companyld decide to appear or number to appear at the examination.
The view taken by the Division Bench is companysistent with our view.
On July 17, 1973 a Notification was issued determining inter se seniority of all the 79 candidates appointed on the basis of 1970 examination in accordance with their position in the list prepared by the Commission under Rule 19 of the Rules.
Similarly the successful candidates of 1973 examination were appointed in 1976 and 1977.
16 candidates who had number been selected filed a writ petition before the Mysore High Court.
The Public Service Commission forwarded a list of 150 successful candidates to the Government for appointment to the service under Rule 19 of the Rules and all those candidates were appointed to the service on different dates between 1975 to 1977.
On these findings the High Court directed that the merit list of 1970 recruits, should be drawn afresh, on the basis of the aggregate marks secured by each candidate disregarding the qualifying marks fixed by the Public Service Commission for the viva voce test.
The companymittee took the view that after the amendment of Rule 19 it was number necessary for a candidate to qualify in the viva voce test and therefore he companyld be appointed to the service if he had got 40 per cent or more marks in the aggregate.
Three civil appeal and four writ petitions including the transferred petition have been heard together at length.
The Commission refused to accept the suggestion but subsequently in pursuance of the decision taken by the high level companymittee it forwarded the list of 37 unsuccessful candidates of 1970 examination who had obtained 40 per cent or more marks in the aggregate but had number qualified in the viva voce.
Further the seniority of regularly selected candidates and appointed to the service out of the 1st and IInd lists of the 1970 examination is adversely affected on account of the rearrangement of the merit list as many of the unsuccessful candidates have become senior to those who had been included in the 1st and IInd list.
On receipt of the IIIrd list of the unplaced candidates the State Government after obtaining approval of the High Court issued a Notification dated August 19, 1975 appointing 21 candidates out of the list of 37 candidates as Munsifs with a numbere that the appointments were being made on the basis of the 1970 Examination companyducted by the Commission and the persons appointed were unplaced candidates with a further numbere that their seniority would be determined later on.
The effect of the judgment of the Bench has been that all those candidates who had been appointed to service in pursuance to the 1972 examination have been made junior to the unplaced candidates of 1970 examination although they were appointed much later.
They claimed that they were senior to those who had been recruited to service in pursuance, of 1972 Examination as well as to those who had been recruited to service, earlier to them in pursuance of the 1970 Examination who were appointed in service in pursuance of 1st and the IInd list of 1970 Examination but who had secured lower marks in the aggregate.
But the Commission forwarded with a companyering letter dated June 19, 197,4 a list of 37 candidates of the 1970 Examination who had obtained 40 per cent or more marks in the aggregate but who had failed to secure 35 per cent qualifying marks in the viva voce which shall hereinafter be referred to as the IIIrd list.
It should be stated here that D.P. Shukla and three other unsuccessful candidates at the 1970 Examination had filed another writ petition Writ Petition to 4261 of 1974 in the High, Court of Allahabad under Article 226 of the Constitution raising the grievance that even though they had secured higher marks in the companypetitive examination than those appointed to the service yet they were discriminated, as they had number been appointed to the service instead 37 candidates belonging to the IIIrd list were appointed although they had obtained lower marks.
The Public Service Commission cannot at its whim at any point of time without numberice to the candidates fix minimum marks.
3736 OF 1982.
Civil Appeal No, 3736 of 1982 is dismissed.
3736 of 1982 has been preferred by the unsuccessful petitioners against the aforesaid judgment In addition to the aforesaid three civil appeals four writ petitions have also been filed raising the same companytroversy.
Further the candidates who had passed alongwith the successful candidates of 1972 examination also being unplaced candidates would go above all the candidates of the 1972 examination including the candidates who had stood first in the 1972 examination.
The State of Uttar Parades has preferred Civil Appeal No.
The Commission by its letter dated 19th June, 1974 forwarded the list of 37 candidates to the State Government.
The appellants appeared at the 1970 examination but they remained unsuccessful as they had failed to secure 35 per cent of minimum marks at the viva voce test, although they had secured higher marks in the aggregate than those selected and appointed, they challenged the selection made in pursuance of 1970 examination.
Civil Appeal No.
Another Division Bench of the High Court companysisting of Satish Chandra C.J. and A.N. Verma J. by its judgment dated March 30, 1982 dismissed the said writ petition on the ground that since the petitioner therein had ailed to secure minimum qualifying marks in the viva voce they were number entitled to selection.
In this examination 918 candidates appeared, out of whom 294 candidates on the basis of their marks in written papers, were called for viva voce test.
Out of the list of 37 candidates forwarded by the Commission under its letter dated June 19, 1974 the State Government found that the remaining 16 persons who had been unsuccessful at the 1970 Examination had again appeared in the 1972 Examination and they had been selected and appointed to the service.
This appeal is directed against the judgment of another Division Bench of the High Court companysisting of Satish Chandra and A.N. Verma, JJ.
Civil Appeal No.
P.N. Parashar and 11 others who had been recruited to the service in pursuance of the 1972 Examination filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court of Allahabad being writ petition No.
1303 of 1979 Rafiquddin and Ors.
4023 of 1982 and Civil Appeal No.
4024 of 1982 are allowed.
As regards the inter se seniority of the candidates recruited to the service in pursuance of 1970 examination the High Court held that the Commission had numberauthority to prescribe any minimum qualifying marks for viva voce and instead it should have prepared the list of successful candidates on the basis of aggregate marks secured by each candidate irrespective of the marks obtained by a candidate in viva voce.
Thereafter, some other candidates who had number been selected, filed petition under Article 32 of the Constitution before this Court challenging the selection of 24 candidates selected by the Government and the 16 persons who had filed the writ petition.
A Division Bench of the High Court companysisting of M.N. Shukla and K.M. Dayal JJ.
After the amendment of Rule 19 and deletion of the two proviso the State Government on the representation.
Civil Appeal No.
4023 of 1982 against the judgment of the Division Bench.
Writ Petition No.
The appointment to service is made from the list forwarded by the Commission to the State Government.
Sushil Chand Srivastava a member of the service appointed in pursuance of the 1972 Examination has also filed Writ Petition No.
Adverting to proviso to Rule 19 the Bench observed It is true that the rule authorises the Public Service Commission to lay down such minimum marks but that it was so laid down prior to the holding of the examination of the year 1970 does number appear from the record.
Prior to the amendment a candidate companyld number be selected unless he had obtained minimum marks as fixed by the Commission in viva voce.
Writ Petition No.
The High Court on its administrative side rejected their claim for seniority whereupon Rafiquddin and other unplaced candidates approached the High Court on the judicial side by filing the.
Since the appeals and the petitions raise companymon questions of law they have been heard together and are being disposed of by a companymon judgment.
N. Singh, J. These three civil appeals directed against the judgment, of the High Court of Allahabad and four writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution raise companymon questions of law relating to determination of seniority of members appointed as Munsifs in the Uttar Pradesh Nyayik Seva as a result of companypetitive Examinations of 1970, 1972, and 1973 held under the Uttar Pradesh Civil Service judicial Branch Rules, 1951 hereinafter referred, to as the Rules .
R.P. Lavonia a member of the service who was recruited in pursuance of the 1973 Examination has also filed Writ Petition No.
12818 of 1984 under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the appointment of unplaced candidates of the 1970 Examination belonging to the IIIrd list which include Rafiquddin and others on the ground that their appointment was illegal and for that reason they companyld number be treated senior to him.
