Ejusdem generis limits use of a prior select list; later academic-year vacancies cannot bypass open recruitment.

Section 13(4) of the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980 could not be used to appoint a candidate from an earlier select list against a vacancy arising in a succeeding academic year. The Court read the phrase "or otherwise" ejusdem generis with unforeseen vacancies linked to the advertised recruitment, such as death, resignation, non-joining or similar contingencies, and held that a broader construction would defeat the statutory scheme of open competition and merit-based selection. The objection to locus standi also failed because it was not raised earlier and the respondent's legitimate interest was not disproved. The appeal was accordingly without merit.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Section 13(4) of the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980 permits appointment from the select list against a vacancy arising in a succeeding academic year, by construing the expression "or otherwise" broadly; (ii) Whether the respondent had locus standi to challenge the Director's direction.

Issue (i): Whether Section 13(4) of the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980 permits appointment from the select list against a vacancy arising in a succeeding academic year, by construing the expression "or otherwise" broadly.

Analysis: The statutory scheme required the management to intimate existing vacancies and vacancies likely to arise during the ensuing academic year, followed by notification by the Director and public advertisement by the Commission. The amendments were intended to eliminate ad hocism, favouritism and appointments made without open competition. Section 13(4) operated only for vacancies occurring within the circle of vacancies already advertised and selected upon, such as death, resignation, non-joining, invalidation or similar unforeseen situations. The expression "or otherwise" was read ejusdem generis and could not be stretched to include vacancies arising in a later academic year that had not been advertised. A broad construction would defeat the purpose of the Act and reduce the scope of selection.

Conclusion: The Director had no authority to appoint the appellant against the later vacancy under Section 13(4), and the challenge to that direction was rightly upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the respondent had locus standi to challenge the Director's direction.

Analysis: The objection was not taken before the High Court or in the special leave petition. The respondent was in fact serving as officiating Principal under the relevant university statute, and the record did not disprove his claim to a legitimate interest in the matter.

Conclusion: The objection to locus standi failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was devoid of merit. The statutory recruitment process could not be bypassed by enlarging Section 13(4), and the order directing appointment of the appellant was unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: A vacancy arising in a succeeding academic year cannot be filled from a prior select list under Section 13(4) unless it falls within the class of unforeseen vacancies connected with the advertised recruitment, and the expression "or otherwise" must be confined by ejusdem generis to that class.

---