Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. By means of the counter affidavit filed by the State of U.P., it has been asserted, on 18.01.2018 the Secretary Technical Education, Government of Uttar Pradesh wrote to the Secretary, UPPSC (not UPSSSC), to not conduct any further examinations till enforcement of new Rules (that may have become necessary to the Government), in view of the AICTE Notification dated 01.03.2019. At the same time, it does appear, the Director, Technical Education wrote to the Secretary, UPSSSC on 16.02.2018, to place in abeyance the ongoing selection. However, it may be noted, at that stage, the AICTE had yet not issued Notification dated 01.03.2019.

10. Plainly, the letter dated 16.02.2018 appears to have been issued in anticipation of change of law, likely to be made by the AICTE. Nevertheless, it is not in dispute, the earlier stipulations made by the AICTE (of 2010), had neither ceased to operate nor had been amended or modified, at any earlier point in time. After declaration of the result (of the written examination), by the UPSSSC on 10.10.2021, the Director, Technical Education wrote to the Secretary, UPSSSC on 23.10.2021 to cancel the requisition for appointment on 69 Group - C posts of Librarian at Government Polytechnics etc. This communication though not annexed to the counter affidavit, has been relied by the learned Standing Counsel, at the time of hearing. The existence of that communication is also admitted to the UPSSSC, in the counter affidavit filed by that respondent.

32. As noted above, in face of specific legal obligation cast on the State Government to publish the corrigendum of Regulation 1.4(f) and, in absence of any delegation or sub-delegation of that essential function on the UPSSSC, the latter was never authorised or enabled to do cancel the requisition or to modify it. Therefore, there is no inherent or other defect in the conduct of the UPSSSC, in having continued and completed the selection process. 

33. Undisputedly, the UPSSSC is an autonomous body. Also, there are limits to its authority and work. It acts on engagement sought by the State agencies. It could not have acted of its own, either to determine the number of vacancies in various services that were to be filled up at any point in time, nor it could proceed to initiate any selection process on such post, nor it could prescribe or amend the eligibility conditions to be applied, to such selection. To that limited extent, it always remained dependent on the State authorities. The State authorities issued the requisition and thus created the embryo of the selection process, together with all its genetic attributes as to post, grade, pay band and eligibility conditions.

34. Thereafter, the cycle of development of that embryo incubated with the UPSSSC. It is at that stage and in the context of the requisition thus received, the advertisement was published by the UPSSSC. The selection process initiated by the UPSSSC, completed its cycle upon declaration of the result. It is the result that the UPSSSC has delivered to the State for the purpose of grant of appointment to the posts requisitioned.

35. While the selection process incubated with the UPSSSC, the State authorities did not have any statutory right to require the UPSSSC to place the same in abeyance or to otherwise interfere with the same, except as permitted under Clause 1.4(f) of the Notification. It was never resorted to. Also, the UP Rules were not enforced retrospectively to the impugned selection process.