Featured image for Supreme Court Judgment dated 11-09-2018 in case of petitioner name Ashok Singh & Ors. vs State of U.P. & Ors.
| |

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal in Uttar Pradesh Service Matter Dispute

The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Ashok Singh & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors., ruled on a dispute involving government service appointments in the state of Uttar Pradesh. The case revolved around whether certain individuals had the legal standing to challenge a decision after the controversy had already been settled between the original parties. The Court dismissed the appeal, stating that the appellants were not parties to the original writ petition and, therefore, had no right to question the High Court’s decision.

Background of the Case

The dispute originated when a group of individuals filed writ petitions in the Allahabad High Court, challenging appointments made by the state government. The primary issue in contention was the legality of certain service appointments and whether they adhered to the required procedural and merit-based criteria. The writ petitions were filed by respondents 4 to 6 against respondents 1 to 3, while another set of petitioners, respondents 7 to 17, also filed similar petitions.

The Single Judge of the High Court ruled on the matter, and dissatisfied with the decision, respondents 7 to 17 filed an intra-court appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench upheld the Single Judge’s ruling and dismissed the appeal.

Supreme Court Proceedings

The appellants in this case, Ashok Singh & Ors., were neither parties to the original writ petitions nor the intra-court appeal before the Division Bench. Despite not being part of the earlier proceedings, they filed a special leave petition before the Supreme Court, questioning the legality of the High Court’s order.

Key Legal Issues

The primary issues before the Supreme Court were:

  • Whether the appellants had the locus standi (legal standing) to challenge a decision in which they were not involved.
  • Whether the Supreme Court should reopen a case that had already attained finality between the original parties.
  • Whether the appellants had a direct or indirect interest in the outcome of the case.

Arguments of the Appellants (Ashok Singh & Ors.)

The appellants argued that:

  • The decision of the High Court affected their rights, even though they were not parties to the original proceedings.
  • The appointments in question impacted their employment opportunities, and they should be given a chance to contest the decision.
  • The High Court’s decision contained legal errors that should be reviewed by the Supreme Court.

Arguments of the Respondents (State of U.P. & Others)

The respondents countered the appellants’ claims, arguing that:

  • The appellants were never part of the original litigation and had no legal standing to challenge the judgment.
  • The matter had already been settled between the original parties and should not be reopened.
  • The appellants had no vested right in the appointments and were trying to intervene at a belated stage.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court carefully examined the case records and made the following key observations:

  • “The appellants were neither parties to the writ petitions nor the intra-court appeal in the High Court.”
  • “The controversy in the writ petitions and writ appeal had attained finality as no original party had challenged the High Court’s ruling.”
  • “Since no party to the original proceedings had approached the Supreme Court, it was not appropriate for the Court to reopen the case at the instance of outsiders.”
  • “If the appellants had a legitimate grievance, they should have sought to be impleaded in the High Court proceedings before the matter was decided.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the respondents and dismissed the appeal, holding that:

  • The appellants had no locus standi to challenge the High Court’s ruling.
  • The matter had already been settled between the concerned parties and did not require further adjudication.
  • The appellants were free to explore alternative legal remedies if they had independent grievances.

Impact of the Judgment

The ruling reinforces several key legal principles:

  • Finality of judicial decisions: Once a matter is resolved between the original parties, unrelated individuals cannot seek to reopen the case.
  • Proper procedure for grievances: If individuals have an interest in a case, they must intervene at the appropriate stage and not after a judgment has been delivered.
  • Prevention of frivolous litigation: The ruling discourages individuals from misusing judicial forums to delay settled matters.

By rejecting the appeal, the Supreme Court upheld the integrity of the judicial process and ensured that settled matters are not needlessly prolonged.


Petitioner Name: Ashok Singh & Ors..
Respondent Name: State of U.P. & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Justice Vineet Saran.
Place Of Incident: Uttar Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 11-09-2018.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Ashok Singh & Ors. vs State of U.P. & Ors. Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 11-09-2018.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Recruitment Policies
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Termination Cases
See all petitions in Judgment by Abhay Manohar Sapre
See all petitions in Judgment by Vineet Saran
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments September 2018
See all petitions in 2018 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category

Similar Posts