(B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan, JJ.)
Mohit Sharma ___________________________________ Appellant;
v.
State of Uttar Pradesh and Others ______________ Respondent(s).
Civil Appeal No(s). of 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition(C) No(s). 9026/2025), decided on September 23, 2025
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B.V. Nagarathna, J.:—
1. Leave granted.
2. Appellant is aggrieved by the dismissal of his writ petition (W.P. No. 28398 (S/S) of 2021) by the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, by order dated 04.12.2021, which judgment and order was confirmed by the High Court vide impugned judgment.
3. On the last date of hearing i.e. on 15.09.2025, we passed the following order:
“We have heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent-State.
The respondent-State to first consider whether the petitioner could be appointed in any vacant post after ascertaining the eligibility of the petitioner to be appointed. If the petitioner has the eligibility to be appointed to any vacant post then the respondents shall appoint him to such a vacant post under further order of this Court.
In the circumstances, in order to ascertain the aforesaid details, the matter stands adjourned to 22.09.2025.
It can also be observed that in the event there are no vacancies at all then, the petitioner could be considered to be appointed in a supernumerary post if he has the eligibility to be so appointed.”
4. Pursuant thereto, the appellant herein has filed the following affidavit of undertaking:
“UNDERTAKING OF PETITIONER ON AFFIDAVIT
1. That I state that I am the Petitioner in the above mentioned Special Leave Petition.
2. That in pursuance of the order dated 15.09.2025 passed by this Hon’ble Court in the present SLP, I state that I am duly eligible for appointment to the post of Pharmacist (Allopathic) under Rule 8 of the U.P. Pharmacist Service Rules, 1980 at page 20 of the SLP as advertised vide recruitment advertisement at pages 54-55 of the SLP since-
a. I passed Diploma in Pharmacy in 2002 from recognised Institute;
b. I am duly registered with the Uttar Pradesh Pharmacy Council, Lucknow having Registration No. 30794; and
c. I was accordingly selected for appointment to the post in question at Serial No. 383 of the select list at p. 118, SLP.
3. That I state that in the event of my appointment under orders of this Hon’ble Court in the present SLP, upon setting aside or otherwise interfering with the impugned order dated 31.08.2024 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Special Appeal No. 529 of 2021, I undertake as under:
a. That I consent to be placed at the bottom of the seniority list of 2002 Batch of Pharmacists and I waive my claim for seniority accordingly.
b. That I shall not claim back wages for any period prior to the date of my joining service on the post in question.
4. That I reiterate that I am duly eligible for appointment to the post of Pharmacist (Allopathic) in question as I belong to the 2002 Batch of Pharmacists who have been persistently directed to be appointed by this Hon’ble Court in response to the aforesaid advertisement dated 12.11.2007 by following judgment and orders:
(a) Judgment dated 03.08.2010 in SLP (C) No. 20558 of 2009 etc. reported in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Santosh Kumar Mishra, (2010) 9 SCC 52, Para. 41 (Ann. P-3, SLP),
(b) Orders dated 27.11.2012 (Ann. P-4) and 15.04.2013 (Ann. P-23) passed by this Hon’ble Court in Contempt Petition (C) No. 347 of 2010 in the aforesaid SLP (C) No. 20558 of 2009,
(c) Order dated 05.12.2023 passed by this Hon’ble Court in Contempt Petition (C) No. 725 of 2020 (Ann. R-1 of the State’s Counter Affidavit) in the aforesaid SLP (C) No. 20558 of 2009.”
5. In response to the aforesaid direction, learned counsel for the respondent-State submitted that there are 1106 vacant posts. However, any indulgence to be shown to the appellant herein would result in a deluge of cases being filed. Therefore, there is no merit in this appeal.
6. The fact remains that although the appellant was selected and was at serial No. 383 in the select list, he failed to appear for counselling and therefore his documents were also not verified by the competent authority. It is only later that he filed the writ petition seeking certain reliefs before the High Court.
7. However, when further queried by this Court, learned counsel for the respondent(s)-State submitted that if at all this Court is inclined to grant any relief to the appellant herein having regard to his merit and the fact that his name was found at serial No. 383 in the select list, then appropriate orders may be made and the directions that would be issued by this court would be complied with by the respondents-State.
8. We have taken note of the facts and circumstances of this Case.
9. It is not in dispute that the appellant’s name was found at serial No. 383 of the select list. He was therefore eligible to be counselled and all that remained was the verification of his documents and thereafter entering his name in the final select list. That process did not take place insofar as the appellant is concerned owing to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and his consequent failure to appear before the competent counselling authority on the date notified.
10. Whatever may be reasons for the failure of the appellant to appear on the notified date, the fact remains that the appellant was otherwise eligible to be counselled and to be selected in the post of pharmacist (Allopathy) as he had complied with all the eligibility criteria both with regard to the educational qualifications and even otherwise.
11. In the circumstances, we take note of the submissions made at the bar as well as the affidavit of undertaking of the appellant, which we have extracted above, and consequently direct the respondent(s)-State to appoint the appellant herein in the post of Pharmacist (Allopathy).
12. The affidavit of undertaking shall be complied with by the appellant herein and the same shall be taken note of by the respondent-State while issuing the appointment order to the appellant herein.
13. The said exercise shall be carried out within a period of four weeks from the date the certified copy of this order is made available.
14. We clarify that the aforesaid order has been made in the peculiar facts of this case and in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
15. The passage of time as well as the present age of the appellant shall not work to the detriment of the appellant.
16. The appeal is allowed in the above terms. No costs.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 9026/2025
[Arising Out of Impugned Final Judgment and Order Dated 31-08-2024 in SA No. 529/2021 Passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench]
Mohit Sharma.….Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.….Respondent(s)
(IA No. 65155/2025 – Exemption From Filing O.T.
IA No. 65154/2025 – Permission to File Additional Documents/Facts/Annexures)
UPON hearing the counsel, the Court made the following
ORDER
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that an inadvertent mistake has crept in the affidavit of undertaking filed by the petitioner herein. Hence, the said affidavit is not pressed with liberty to file a corrected affidavit during the course of the day.
Petitioner is permitted to do so.
Leave granted.
Appeal is allowed in terms of the signed non-reportable judgment, which is placed on file.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
———
