TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (3) TMI 798
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed on 7-1-2000. The UPPSC sent its recommendations to the U.P. Government on 30-10-2000. The U.P. Government forwarded the recommendations on 31-10-2000 to the Chief Engineer's Office, Hill Cadre, Almora. The separate State of Uttaranchal came into existence on 9-11-2000. U.P. Government forwarded the UPPSC recommendations in respect of posts in Hill Cadre to the Government of Uttaranchal. On 29- 8-2001, Government of Uttaranchal issued the order not to appoint the selected candidates mentioning two reasons that - (1) the new reservation policy of the State of Uttaranchal is different from that of U.P. and (2) practical and legal difficulties "in such a situation" in giving appointments to the candidates recommended by the UPPSC. The selected candidates, aggrieved by the same, filed a batch of writ petitions assailing the said order, impleading State of Uttaranchal and its officers, State of Uttar Pradesh and its officers and UPPSC. A Division Bench of the High Court, by a common judgment allowed the writ petitions and issued direction to the State of Uttaranchal to give appointments to the writ petitioners. The High Court took the view that the recommendations made by the UPPS....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....so urged in the alternative that the State of Uttar Pradesh may be directed to give appointments to the non-official respondents. This aspect was neither raised before the High Court nor it was considered. Hence, we do not wish to deal with the same. All that we can say is that this order shall not come in the way of the State of Uttar Pradesh, if so advised, to consider the claims of the non-official respondents for appointments based on the selection made by UPPSC. Having regard to the peculiar situation in which the non-official respondents are placed, we would like to say that in case the non- official respondents apply as and when the applications are invited for selection either by UPPSC or by the Uttaranchal State Public Service Commission in future within a period of three years, the UPPSC or the Uttaranchal State Public Service Commission shall consider them for selection subject to their satisfying all other eligibility requirements but relaxing the upper age-limit. 6. After this Court's judgment, the candidates whose names had been included in the select list approached the State of Uttar Pradesh to appoint them. However, their requests were turned down. Challengi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that even if a mistake has been committed in some case that cannot be a ground to perpetuate the mistake, on the logic of negative equality yet this is a case, according to the High Court, which was not based on any mistake. The select list was operative and its validity had not expired. If the State Government had given effect to the Office Memorandums while making appointment in other departments, there could be no justification to deprive the writ petitioners of some benefit particularly when the select list was in force and no vacancies had been advertised since 1998. It was held that this Court left the matter to be determined by the State Government. The discretion had not been exercised objectively. Accordingly, the special appeal was dismissed, upholding similar views expressed by learned Single Judge. 10. In support of the appeal, Mr. R.G. Padia, learned senior counsel appearing for the State of U.P. and its functionaries submitted that the High Court's judgment is unsupportable on more than one counts. First, all the posts which were advertised for the plain areas cadre have been filled up. After having accepted that the appointments cannot be made beyond the numbe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Dash v. Union of India (1992)IILLJ18SC , Smt. Asha Kaul and Anr. v. State of Jammu & Kashmir and Anr. (1993)2SCC573 , Union of India v. S.S. Uppal [1996]1SCR230 , Hanman Prasad v. Union of India (1996)10SCC742 , Bihar Public Service Commission and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. AIR1997SC2280 , Syndicate Bank and Ors. v. Shankar Paul and Ors. (1997)IILLJ814SC , Vice Chancellor, University of Allahabad v. Dr. Anand Prakash Mishra and Ors. (1997)10SCC264 , Punjab State Electricity Board v. Seema 1999 SCC (L&S) 629; All India SC & ST Employees Association v. A. Arthur Jeen [2001]2SCR1183 , Vinodan T. v. University of Kalikut [2002]3SCR530 , S. Renuka v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. [2002]2SCR697 , and Baitariani Gramiya Bank v. Pallab Kumar and Ors. AIR 2000 SC 4248. 15. Even if in some cases appointments have been made by mistake or wrongly that does not confer any right on another person. Article 14 of the Constitution does not envisage negative equality, and if the State committed the mistake it cannot be forced to perpetuate the same mistake. (See: Snehprabha v. State of U.P. and Ors. AIR1996SC540 , Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur v. Daulat Mal Jain and Ors....