U. P. Higher Education Services Commission v. Leena Khare
1990-10-24
K.RAMASWAMY, P.B.SAWANT
body1990
DigiLaw.ai
JUDGMENT : P.B. Sawant and K. Ramaswamy, JJ. - Special leave granted. 2. Heard counsel for U. P. Higher Education Services Commission as also the affected teachers who had been selected as lecturers for the respective posts. The short point involved in these appeals is as to whether if there had been delay in completing the process of selection and in trial meantime the eligibility of candidates is changed by alteration of the law, the selection made on the basis of applications received within the last date indicated in the advertisement would be rendered bad. The High Court has held that it would be and therefore, has quashed the selections and has required a fresh advertisement to be issued. It has, however, permitted the earlier applicants to be considered in the fresh selection. 2. It is not disputed that the advertisement pursuant to which the selection process was undertaken had fixed a last date on the basis of which eligibility had to be tested. Subsequent alteration in the eligibility by change of rules cannot affect the steps taken on the basis of the earlier advertisement merely on the ground that the process of selection has taken time to be completed. We allow the appeals, set aside the orders of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court and sustain the selections. 3. It is unfortunate that the selection commission has taken more than two years to complete the selections. There is a distinction between the State Public Service Commission and the appellant-commission. The appellant-commission is a special commission set up for specific purpose of making selections in a limited field. We are cognizant of the fact that the State of Uttar Pradesh is a large one with many institutions and the field of selection is large. Even then the Commission should have taken adequate care to ensure completion of the selection within reasonable time. We would have dismissed the appeals of the selection commission on this sole ground if affected candidates had not come before us. 4. There shall be no order for costs. Appeals allowed.