Junior engineer aspirants lose final round of litigation
New Delhi, Mar 6(UNI) Over 500 candidates selected for the posts of junior engineers by the UP Public Service Commission (UPPSC) have lost the second and final round of litigation for securing jobs with the dismissal of their appeals by the Supreme Court vide its judgement dated March 3, 2006.
A bench comprising Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee set aside the impugned judgments of single judge and division bench of Allahabad high court allowing the writ petitions of the respondents herein.
UPPSC had invited applications for 544 posts of junior engineers and the result of selection was published on Jan.7,2000. The UPPSC sent its recommendations on Oct.30,2000 to the UP government which were forwarded to the chief engineer, Hill cadre, Almora.
The trouble started with the formation of the new state of Uttaranchal on Nov. 9,2000. The new state issued orders not to appoint selected candidates. The selected candidates approached the high court which allowed their writ petitions and directed the government of Uttaranchal to give jobs to the petitioners. The Uttaranchal high court took the view that the recommendations of the UPPSC of erstwhile state of UP were binding on the newly-formed state of Uttaranchal and the state came in appeal to the Supreme Court which set aside the high court order.
The candidates approached the Uttar Pradesh government for appointment but their request was declined and the candidates again went to the Allahabad high court where the state took the stand that only relaxation of three years in age limit can be granted to the petitioners in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case. The high court, however, took the view that the select list was still in force since no vacancies have been advertised since 1998. The state government also took the plea that hill cadre stood abolished.
The Supreme Court, however, held, ''the high court after having correctly indicating the legal position, has failed to apply the same to the factual scenario in its proper perspective. The basic fallacy in the judgement of the high court is that they have proceeded under the presumption that the select list was in force.
The view is clearly wrong.'' UNI AKS/XC RP BD1803