Case at a Glance
A waitlisted candidate selected for the post of Principal under Advertisement No. 49 of 2019 of the U.P. Higher Education Service Selection Commission was recommended to a college in Ballia but did not join, citing family circumstances, and later secured orders posting him as Principal of Meerut College. The Allahabad High Court set aside those orders on a writ petition by the officiating Principal. The Supreme Court dismissed his appeal, holding that Section 13(4) of the old Act did not permit such a change of posting and that, once the 2023 Act repealed the old Act, the old select list lapsed and could not be acted upon. It also left it to the Chief Secretary to look into the conduct of the officers concerned.
The U.P. Higher Education Service Selection Commission issued Advertisement No. 49 of 2019 for Principal posts in PG and UG colleges. The final select list of 290 selected and 73 waitlisted candidates was published in October 2021, with the appellant at serial No. 59 of the waitlist. On 3 August 2022 the Director recommended him as Principal of Shri Bajrang P.G. College, Ballia, but on 26 June 2023 he declined to join, citing family circumstances, and asked for a posting at another college with vacancies, including Meerut College. On 17 August 2023 the Director informed the Special Secretary that there was no provision to change a posting once recommended.
Meanwhile the Principal of Meerut College, a selected candidate appointed in October 2021, resigned in 2023, and officiating Principals took charge — respondent No. 6 from 14 June 2024. The U.P. Education Service Selection Commission Act, 2023 came into force on 21 August 2023 and repealed the old Act. Even so, the Director issued an order on 13 December 2023 changing the appellant’s place of posting to Meerut College, followed by orders of 12 and 15 January 2024 directing the Management to appoint him. The officiating Principal challenged these orders; a Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court allowed his writ petition on 17 February 2025 and a Division Bench dismissed the special appeal on 5 May 2025.
The Key Question Before the Court
Could a waitlisted candidate who did not join the college he was recommended to obtain a change of posting under Section 13(4) of the old Act, and could orders under the old select list be issued after the old Act was repealed by the 2023 Act?
No Second Recommendation, and No Life for the Old List After Repeal
The Court read Sections 12 to 14 of the old Act as a complete scheme under which appointments must be made by the management on the Director’s recommendation, with every appointment in contravention being void. Section 13(4), it held, covers only vacancies arising by death, resignation or otherwise during the validity of the list. Following Kamlesh Kumar Sharma v. Yogesh Kumar Gupta, the word ‘otherwise’ must be read ejusdem generis with death and resignation. The Court viewed the appellant’s non-joining at Ballia and his later representation as an attempt to bring himself within Section 13(4), which would frustrate the purpose of Section 13(3).
On the repeal, the Court held that Section 31(2) of the 2023 Act saves only acts done under the old Act, and the only act done in the appellant’s case — the 17 August 2023 letter — recorded that no change of posting was permissible. It held that “the validity of the list/panel under the Old Act will automatically lapse” once the new Act commenced, and that Section 6 of the U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904 does not revive anything not in force at the time of repeal. It was therefore “not open to the authorities to act in terms of the list prepared under the Old Act” after 21 August 2023, so the orders of 13 December 2023 and January 2024 had no legal basis. Finding the illegality clear, the Court did not decide the officiating Principal’s locus standi, which was questioned with reference to Anand Sharadchandra Oka v. University of Mumbai and Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 11 SC CK 0005, and left the point open.
What the Court Actually Held
- Section 13(4) of the old Act applies only to vacancies arising by death, resignation or otherwise during the validity of the list; it does not allow a fresh recommendation or change of posting for a candidate already recommended elsewhere.
- A candidate cannot decline the recommended posting and then use the waitlist mechanism to obtain a college of choice.
- After the 2023 Act came into force on 21 August 2023, the select list under the old Act lapsed; the orders of 13 December 2023, 12 January 2024 and 15 January 2024 had no legal basis.
- The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs; the Chief Secretary may look into the conduct of the officers concerned, and the question of locus standi was left open.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It confirms that a selection list is not a menu from which a candidate can later choose a preferred institution.
- It clarifies the effect of repeal on old selection panels in Uttar Pradesh’s education services.
- It signals accountability for officials who issue orders without legal authority.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Candidates and Teachers
- Join the institution you are recommended to; refusing it does not entitle you to a different posting.
- A waitlist operates only for vacancies arising by death, resignation or similar causes while the list is valid.
- Once a new recruitment law repeals the old one, an old panel may lapse entirely.
For Counsel
- Examine savings clauses in the repealing Act closely; only acts actually done under the old law are saved.
- Rely on Kamlesh Kumar Sharma v. Yogesh Kumar Gupta for the ejusdem generis reading of ‘otherwise’ in vacancy provisions.
- Where illegality is clear, courts may decline to go into the locus of the challenger.
Key Takeaways
- A waitlisted Principal who did not join at Ballia could not be shifted to Meerut College.
- Section 13(4) does not permit a second recommendation for the same candidate.
- The old Act’s select list lapsed when the 2023 Act came into force.
- The Chief Secretary may examine the officers’ conduct.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a selected candidate refuse a posting and ask for another college?
Not under this scheme. The Supreme Court held that Section 13(4) of the old Act does not allow a change of posting once a candidate has been recommended; reading it otherwise would frustrate Section 13(3).
What happens to an old select list when a new Act repeals the old one?
The Court held that the validity of the list under the old Act automatically lapsed after the new Act commenced, and Section 31(2) saved only acts actually done under the old Act.
Did the Court act against the officers?
It made no adverse direction itself but observed that the Chief Secretary may look into the conduct of the officers concerned and left the State free to act in accordance with law.
Conclusion
The ruling shuts the door on using a waitlist and a change in law as a route to a preferred posting. Appointments in aided colleges must follow the statutory chain of recommendation, and once the governing Act is repealed, officials cannot keep issuing orders under a panel that no longer exists.
Practical takeaway: In recruitment disputes straddling a repeal, first identify what exactly was done under the old law before the repeal; nothing more survives under the savings clause.
Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com