Allahabad High Court
Pankaj Kumar And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 18 August, 2021
Author: Yashwant Varma
Bench: Yashwant Varma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 34 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7568 of 2021 Petitioner :- Pankaj Kumar And 4 Others Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Agnihotri Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,M.N. Singh Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Piyush Shukla, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents as well as Sri M.N. Singh, learned counsel who appeared for the Commission.
The sole relief which is claimed in this petition reads thus:
"i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding the respondents to consider the candidature of petitioners against the unfilled vacancies in Subordinate Agriculture Service Grade-3 (Technical Assistant Group-C) Exam 2013 within a period to be specified by this Hon'ble Court."
Identical issues have been considered by the Court while rendering judgment on Writ -A No. 14144 of 2020 [Manoj Kumar Yadav And Another Vs. State of U.P. And Another]. In that judgment, the Court held thus:
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri M.N. Singh for the Commission and Sri Birendra Pratap Singh learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
This petition has been preferred seeking the following reliefs:
"Issue a writ order or direction of a suitable nature commanding the respondents to consider the candidature of petitioners against the unfilled vacancies in Subordinate Agriculture Service Grade-3 (Technical Assistant Group-C) Exam 2013 within a period to be specified by this Hon'ble Court."
The principal contention addressed was that in terms of the provisions made in the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Agriculture Service (Third Amendment) Rules, 2019 and more particularly Rule 15 thereof, the respondents were obliged to prepare a panel of candidates numbering not less than 25% of the vacancies. Rule 15 reads thus;-
"(15). 1. Direct recruitment to the post of Group-C in the service shall be made in accordance with the Uttar Pradesh direct recruitment to 'Group-C' posts (mode and procedure) Rules-2015 as amended from time to time.
The Commission shall forward the list to the Director of Agriculture who will send the names to the appointing authorities for issuing the appointment orders.
... The number of names in the list shall be larger (but not larger by twenty five percent) than the number of the vacancies. The Commission shall forward the list to the Director of Agriculture who shall forward the names to the appointing authorities for issuing the appointment orders."
As is unambiguously clear from a bare reading of the aforesaid rule it employs the phrase "..not larger by twenty five percent...". It is manifest that there is no mandate of a panel being formed which will contain the names of candidates totalling not less than 25% of the total number of vacancies. The expression "not larger" is undisputedly different and distinct from "not less".
Dealing with an identical question, this Court in Ambrish Kumar And 30 Others v. State of U.P. And 2 Others [Writ-A No. 6812 of 2021 decided on 23 July 2021] held thus:-
"The sole question which therefore arises for consideration is whether the Board was obliged to prepare a select list comprising of names equivalent to 25% of the total number of vacancies which were advertised.
As is evident upon a bare perusal of Rule 12 (8), the language used is "not larger than twenty-five percent". The expression "not larger than.." clearly indicates that it is the maximum and in any case does not mandate the Board to necessarily declare a list of candidates equivalent to 25% of the total number of vacancies advertised. The clear command of the statute is that the Board shall not draw up a select list of candidates numbering more than 25% of the total vacancies advertised. It is essentially a command mandating that the Board shall not exceed the 25% limit as prescribed. It principally places a negative restraint upon the Board to ensure that the maximum ceiling of 25% is not breached.
It becomes relevant to note that the provision does not employ the phrase "not less than.." which may have then lent some credence to the submission of learned senior counsel that the Board was obliged to prepare a list of candidates numbering at least 25% of the total vacancies.
In any case as the Rule stands the Court notes that the Board cannot be held to bear a mandatory obligation to draw up a list equalling at least 25% of the total number of vacancies which were advertised. In light of the interpretation accorded to Rule 12(8) above and since no other argument was urged or addressed, the Court is of the view that the writ petition must fail.
It shall accordingly stand dismissed."
In light of the aforesaid discussion, the Court finds no merit in the submission addressed. No other point or contention was urged for the consideration of the Court.
Accordingly and for the aforesaid reasons the writ petition fails and shall stand dismissed."
The case of the petitioner here for the remaining vacancies being filled and the panel expanded is based on grounds which were duly considered and rejected by the Court in Manoj Kumar Yadav. No other submission was addressed.
Accordingly and for the reasons assigned therein, this petition shall stand dismissed.
Order Date :- 18.8.2021 Arun K. Singh