The Supreme Court has held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the litigants had filed a writ petition earlier seeking the same relief amounts to suppression of material facts, and such conduct, without anything more, disentitles them to any relief.

The Apex Court was considering a challenge laid against the selection process, which commenced in the year 2011 with an advertisement issued by the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited (UPPCL) for filling up 2974 posts of Technician Grade-2 (Trainee) Electrical.

The Division Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe held, “Secondly, the respondents have taken a specific stand, in paragraph 38 of the counter affidavit filed on 30.08.2013, that petitioners nos. 8 to 18 had filed a Writ Petition No. 2749 of 2013 before the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court seeking the same relief and therefore, the instant writ petition is not maintainable. The said writ petition was disposed on 09.11.2012 in terms of the judgment dated 26.09.2012 of the Division Bench. This fact, that petitioner nos. 8 to 18 were parties to Writ Petition No. 2749 of 2013 finds no mention in the present writ petition, nor have the petitioners disclosed that said writ petition was disposed of on 09.11.2012, or whether that order was challenged by way Special Leave Petition before this Court. This nondisclosure amounts to suppression of material facts, and such conduct, without anything more, disentitles the petitioners to any relief.”

AOR Prashant Bhushan represented the Appellant while Advocate Vikas Bansal represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

An advertisement was issued by UPPCL, Lucknow, inviting applications from eligible candidates for filling up 2974 posts of Technician Grade-2 (Trainee) Electrical in Electricity Distribution Corporations under UPPCL. Of the advertised posts so advertised, 1778 were earmarked for candidates belonging to the General Category, while 353, 128, and 715 posts respectively stood reserved for candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and the Other Backward Classes. The petitioners, being unsuccessful candidates, filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, assailing the appointments and seeking a fresh exercise of selection and an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). When the matter reached the Division Bench, the respondents were directed to delete the names of candidates who had submitted their DOEACC Certificates after March 31, 2012 and to declare the result afresh.

The respondents issued a fresh result of selection on January 20, 2013, followed by a list of appointment-cum-allotment on January 30, 2013. By an order, a two-Judge Bench of the Apex Court granted 4 weeks’ time to UPPCL to file counter affidavit setting out particulars of marks and ranking of the petitioners. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Division Bench, the unsuccessful candidates filed Special Leave Petitions. By a common judgment in Sanjay K. Dixit & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2019), the Court upheld the judgment of the Division Bench and dismissed the Special Leave Petitions.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that before a Bench of the Apex Court, the petitioners themselves confined the ground of relief to their claim of higher merit vis-a vis the selected and appointed candidates, and the said contention had not been dealt with in the counter affidavit.

“Notably, even after the select list came to be filed on 23.10.2018, no contention regarding irregularities and discrepancies in that list was urged on behalf of the petitioners. It was on this basis, and this basis alone, that the Court directed UPPCL to file a counter affidavit to explaining why the petitioners, if indeed higher in merit, had not been selected and appointed”, the Bench noted.

The Bench stated, “It is trite law that an order is effective inter partes and shall bind them until it is successfully avoided or challenged in a higher forum. The interim order dated 30.01.2019 accordingly binds the petitioners, and the scope of scrutiny in this writ petition stands confined to the contention of the petitioners as recorded therein.”

Considering that the selected candidates had long since been issued appointment letters and had, for a considerable length of time, been working on the posts in question, the Bench held that in their absence before the Apex Court, their appointments could not be disturbed.

The Bench was of the view that the petitioners had neither lodged a first information report nor had made any allegations against the local police. It was further noticed that no averments had been made in the writ petition disclosing the basis for a direction for an enquiry by CBI. “Therefore, we are not inclined to accede to the said prayer made by the petitioners”, it mentioned.

Thus, finding no merit in the petition, the Bench dismissed the same.

Cause Title: Vinit Kumar v. State of U.P. Through Secretary & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 997)

Appearance

Appellant: AOR Prashant Bhushan, Advocates Alice Raj, Rahul Gupta, Suroo Mander

Respondent: Advocates Vikas Bansal, AOR Shashank Shekhar Singh, Advocates Abhinav Singh, Siddharth Singh, Anushri Singh, AOR Sunil Kumar Jain, Advocate Rashika Swarup, AOR Satyajeet Kumar

Click here to read/download Judgment


Justice Pamidighantam Sri NarasimhaJustice Alok Aradhe

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.