Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:64856 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5514 of 2025 Petitioner :- Dr. Anand Krishna Srivastava Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Aalok Singh,Bheem Singh,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,M.N. Singh Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Aishwarya Pratap Shahi, learned counsel holding brief of Sri Nipun Singh, learned counsel for respondent no. 2-Commission and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-State. 2. The writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:- "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no. - 2 to declare the waiting list including the name of petitioner for the post of Lecturer in Physiology in pursuance of the Advertisement No. 02 of 2021, within the time stipulated by this Hon'ble Court. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no.-1 to select/appoint the petitioner on the post of Lecturer in Physiology, within the time stipulated by this Hon'ble Court." 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that various posts in Government Homeopathic Medical Colleges were issued by Advertisement No. 2/2020-21. The result was declared on 1.5.2023, however, later on recommendations for the selected candidates were made on 24.7.2024. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that one of the candidate being Dr. Manjit Mishra has not joined the post of Lecturer in Forensic Medicine and as such the State Government by letter dated 18.2.2025 has directed the Commission for sending recommendation in which the person who has not joined the post. He further submits that despite the letter dated 18.2.2025 till date no order/recommendations have been made by the Public Service Commission. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that Public Service Commission - respondent no. 2 may be directed to proceed in accordance with the direction issued by the State Government on 18.2.2025. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 - Commission on instructions submits that validity of the select list was for a period of one year which has expired and as such no recommendation at this stage can be sent. 5. On a query being made to learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 - Commission whether any communication has been sent to the State Government in this respect in response to the letter dated 18.2.2025 of the State Government, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 - Commission could not show that any reply has been sent. 6. At this stage, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that currency of the select list shall be considered for a period of one year from the date the last recommendation sent by the Commission. The last select list of the petitioner was sent on 24.7.2024 and as such the currency of the list shall remain in operation till July, 2025 in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sheo Shyam and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, (2005) 10 SCC 314. Paragraph no. 10 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted hereinbelow:- "10. In the aforesaid background, in a case of this nature and in view of the peculiar nature of the fact situation noted above, it would be inequitable and unjust to compute the one-year period from the date when the first recommendation was made by the Commission. Undisputedly, appointments were made till the end of 2001. Therefore, it would be proper to reckon the period from the last date when the recommendation was made. But another situation has developed subsequently. The State Government itself had requisitioned for fifty-six posts including the unfilled posts of the previous selection and examinations are stated to have been already held. The fate of the present 11 appellants has suffered a set back on account of the action of both the Commission and the State Government. If the Commission's stand is that the validity period of the waiting list is one year, it should have sought for clarification from the State Government as to why unfilled posts were included in the requisition, when its specific stand in the office memorandums referred to above was to the contrary. At the same time, the State Government having taken a positive stand all through that the date of reckoning would be the last date on which the recommendation was made, it should not have included the unfilled posts in its requisition. The career of 11 candidates cannot be jeopardized in this battle of inconsistent and varying stands taken and moves adopted by the State Government and the Commission at different stages for different purposes." 7. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 - Commission submits that judgment of Sheo Shyam (supra) would not be applicable in the present case. 8. It is to be seen that till date there is no order of the Commission for sending the names of the select list. The Commission is a collective body and decision has to be taken. At this stage, after considering the law laid down by the Supreme Court, this Court deems it proper that the matter be relegated to the respondent no. 2 - Commission for taking decision on the demand made by the Government on 18.2.2025 and shall also consider the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sheo Shyam (supra). The aforesaid decision shall be taken within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order and decision shall also be communicated to the petitioner forthwith. 9. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 28.4.2025 VMA Digitally signed by :- VISHWA MOHAN ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad