Supreme Court Rejects Review Petition on Recruitment Dispute in Uttar Pradesh

The Supreme Court of India recently dismissed a review petition filed by Sunil Kumar Yadav and Others against the State of Uttar Pradesh, marking the end of a long-standing recruitment dispute. The case revolved around the selection process for government positions initiated under the Notification dated 07.12.2012. The petitioners argued that the selection process should have been concluded instead of initiating fresh recruitment. The Supreme Court, however, found no merit in the claims and upheld its earlier decision, thereby rejecting the review petition.

Background of the Case

The dispute originates from a recruitment notification issued in 2012 for filling vacancies in government positions in Uttar Pradesh. Following the notification, a selection process commenced, but due to various legal and administrative challenges, it was not concluded. Instead, a fresh selection process was announced. The petitioners, who had applied under the 2012 notification, argued that they had a legitimate expectation that the original selection process would be carried through to completion.

Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/supreme-court-allows-withdrawal-of-nccf-employees-writ-petition-with-liberty-to-approach-high-court/

When the matter reached the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, the petitioners’ claims were dismissed on 03.12.2019. Subsequently, the petitioners filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court, which was also dismissed on 26.07.2021. Seeking reconsideration, the petitioners filed a review petition, which was again dismissed on 11.01.2022.

Arguments by the Petitioners (Sunil Kumar Yadav & Others)

• The petitioners contended that the recruitment process initiated under the 2012 notification should have been completed rather than abandoned in favor of fresh recruitment.
• They argued that the selection of 95 candidates who had not fulfilled the required criteria of 60% marks for the reserved category and 70% for the unreserved category was improper.
• The petitioners also sought a refund of the application fees they had deposited during the earlier recruitment process.

Arguments by the Respondents (State of Uttar Pradesh)

• The State argued that the previous selection process had been legally concluded, and fresh recruitment was within the government’s rights.
• The State referred to the Supreme Court’s earlier ruling in State of U.P. and Others v. Shiv Kumar Pathak and Others, which allowed for a new selection process.
• The government maintained that all recruitment actions were taken as per legal procedures, and no candidates were selected in violation of eligibility criteria.

Observations of the Supreme Court

Upon reviewing the petition, the Supreme Court found no merit in the arguments presented by the petitioners. The Court ruled:

“Finding no merit in the substantive submissions raised in support of the petition, the petition was dismissed on 26.07.2021.”

Regarding the selection of candidates allegedly not meeting eligibility criteria, the Court noted:

“We have gone through the grounds raised in the review petition and find no reason to justify interference in this review petition.”

Thus, the Supreme Court reaffirmed its earlier decision and dismissed the review petition, denying any relief to the petitioners.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court, comprising Justices Uday Umesh Lalit and Ajay Rastogi, dismissed the review petition on 11.01.2022. The judgment concluded:

“This review petition is, therefore, dismissed.”

With this ruling, the Court put an end to the legal battle concerning the 2012 recruitment notification, upholding the State’s decision to conduct fresh recruitment.

Implications of the Judgment

• The judgment reinforces that once a recruitment process is abandoned, candidates cannot claim a right to have it concluded in their favor.
• The ruling also clarifies that candidates must meet the eligibility criteria set forth in recruitment notifications to be considered for selection.
• It sets a precedent that review petitions cannot be used as a means to challenge decisions that have already been well adjudicated.

Petitioner Name: Sunil Kumar Yadav and Others.
Respondent Name: State of Uttar Pradesh.
Judgment By: Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Justice Ajay Rastogi.
Place Of Incident: Uttar Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 11-01-2022.

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

Download Judgment: sunil-kumar-yadav-an-vs-state-of-uttar-prade-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-11-01-2022.pdf