Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

12. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel would submit, once the AICTE had issued Notification dated 01.03.2019 and upgraded the post advertised (Librarian) to a Group - B post while simultaneously making quantitative change in the prescribed qualifications as also pay condition etc., of the upgraded posts, it became impossible for the State to complete the selection process for the advertised posts. It therefore required the UPSSSC to withdraw the requisition made and, to disband the selection. That communication having been made much earlier, the UPSSSC should have aborted the selection process, then. In any case, mere taking forward the selection process and declaration of the result did not create any right in favour of the petitioners as may allow a writ to be issued - to grant them appointment. Reliance has been placed on a co-ordinate bench decision of this Court in Gyan Prakash Chaubey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., (Writ - A No. 4570 of 2022, decided on 25.07.2022). Relying on that order, learned Standing Counsel would contend, with respect to the same recruitment process and for the same posts of Librarian, Group C, that writ petition was dismissed, occasioned by the fact - the requisition for the advertised posts was required to be withdrawn. He has also relied on a reference order made by three judge bench of the Supreme Court in Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. Vs. Rajasthan High Court & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 2634 of 2013), dated 20.03.2013. That reference is stated to be pending. It has been further stated, the same is likely to be decided at an early date. Therefore, it was permissible to alter the selection process, upon change made to the law by the Notification and the UP Rules. Referring to the decision in State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Raj Kumar & Ors. (supra), it has been further submitted, the ratio in Y.V. Rangaiah Vs. J. Sreenivasa Rao, (1983) 3 SCC 284, has been declared - not good law. The law as it existed on the date of vacancy having arisen, is not the law to be enforced for the purpose of making fresh recruitment. In the present case, the law stood changed on 01.03.2019 itself. Referring to the Notification, it has been submitted, no rights ever vested in the petitioners to seek appointment under the pre-existing/unamended law. In any case, upon enforcement of the UP Rules, the recruitment must be conducted and completed in terms of those Rules. Last, learned Standing Counsel has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Shankarsan Dash Vs Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47, to submit successful candidates do not acquire an indefeasible right to appointment. It remains within the domain of the competent authority to cancel the requisition and/or the selection process as has been done in the present case.

15. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, a fundamental aspect that may be first addressed is - whether the requisition made by the State Government and acted upon by the UPSSSC upon issuance of the advertisement dated 26.11.2016 developed an incurable defect as may not have allowed the UPSSSC to continue or complete the process of selection undertaken by it, either upon issuance of Notification dated 01.03.2019 (by the AICTE) or upon enforcement of the UP Rules on 09.06.2021.

22. Mere enforcement of the UP Rules also had no adverse effect on the impugned selection process. Those being statutory Rules, they contain no recital or intent to enforce them retrospectively. Plainly, they are wholly prospective.

23. Though the Writ Court may not enforce equity against the plain letter of statutory law, yet it may always recognize equity in that statutory law. Here, while bringing the amendment (to its norms), through the Notification, the AICTE acted mindful of ongoing selection processes, at various stages of completion. Being conscious of that, it first completely protected such selection process where stage of interview may have been crossed. Second, it allowed for other (less complete) selection process to be altered (in terms of the law amended by the Notification), subject to condition of such alteration being first adopted by the concerned ''institutes/employers' and decimation of that information, through publication of corrigendum.

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.