Allahabad HC Orders UP to Appoint Librarians, Holds State Estopped After Withdrawing Its Own Appeal

A Division Bench rules that the State of UP, having withdrawn its challenge to an earlier adverse judgment, cannot revive the same grounds to deny appointment to selected librarians selected through a 2016 recruitment process.

A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court on 3 August 2026 set aside two orders — one passed by the State Government and one by a Single Judge — and directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to grant appointments to a group of candidates selected as Librarians under Advertisement No. 22-Examination/2016 within one month. The court held that the State, after voluntarily withdrawing Special Appeal No. 65 of 2023 challenging an earlier Single Bench judgment in Kamal Nayan Singh v. State of UP (Writ-A No. 5390 of 2022), became bound by every finding recorded in that judgment. Having acquiesced to those findings, the State could not lawfully re-run the same rejected arguments in a fresh order dated 23 March 2024 denying the candidates' appointments. The judgment authored by Justice Saral Srivastava, sitting with Justice Sudhanshu Chauhan, applied the principles of res judicata, constructive res judicata, and estoppel to close the State's attempt to relitigate settled issues.

A Selection That Spanned Five Years

The U.P. Subordinate Services Selection Commission (UPSSSC) issued Advertisement No. 22-Examination/2016, which included 69 posts of Librarian under the Director of Technical Education, UP, Kanpur. The posts carried Grade Pay of Rs. 2,800/- in the Pay Band of Rs. 5,200–20,200/-. The prescribed qualification at the time was graduation with a diploma in Library Science. Applications closed on 19 December 2016.

UPSSSC conducted the written examination on 28 July 2019. Interviews followed between 1 December 2020 and 24 December 2020. The final selection result was declared on 10 December 2021.

While the process was underway, the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) framed the AICTE Pay Scales, Service Conditions and Minimum Qualifications Regulation, 2019 (Regulation, 2019) under Section 23(1) read with Section 10(g), (h) and (i) of the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987. Regulation 5.1 of that instrument prescribed a Master's degree in Library Science with at least First Class marks, along with clearance of a national-level test conducted by the UGC, as the minimum qualification for the post of Assistant Librarian. The post was simultaneously upgraded from Group-C (Grade Pay Rs. 2,800/-) to Group-B (Pay Band Rs. 56,100/-).

The State Government subsequently enacted the Uttar Pradesh Technical Education (Teaching) Service Rules, 2021 (Rules, 2021), notified on 9 June 2021, which incorporated the upgraded qualification in Appendix-II. Separately, the UP Public Service Commission (UPPSC) issued Advertisement No. A-7/E-1/2021 dated 15 September 2021, notifying 87 Librarian posts under the revised qualification framework.

Despite multiple letters from the Directorate of Technical Education requesting UPSSSC to stay or cancel the 2016 selection process, UPSSSC did not act on those requests and declared its result in December 2021. The State Government then declined to grant appointments, prompting the petitioners to approach the court.

The Earlier Single Bench Judgment and Its Findings

In Writ-A No. 5390 of 2022, a learned Single Judge examined each ground urged by the State against appointment. The key findings, which the Division Bench reproduced in detail, were:

First, neither Regulation, 2019 nor Rules, 2021 operated retrospectively. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in State of Bihar v. Mithilesh Kumar (2010) 13 SCC 467, the Single Judge held that a change in law during an ongoing selection does not automatically govern that selection unless made retrospectively effective.

Second, Clause 1.4(f) of Regulation, 2019 itself provided a conditional mechanism: where the interview stage had not yet been conducted, the employer was required to first publish a corrigendum before the amended qualifications could apply. No such corrigendum was ever published by the State Government.

Third, Rules, 2021 was wholly prospective and contained no recital making it applicable to pending selections.

Fourth, while UPSSSC had no power to cancel the requisition on its own, the State Government also never formally withdrew its original requisition dated 14 September 2016. The letters asking UPSSSC to stay the process carried no legal force because the State itself — the only authority with jurisdiction — never cancelled the requisition.

Fifth, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Ramjit Singh Kardam v. Sanjeev Kumar (2020) 20 SCC 209, the Single Judge held that the mere fact that a cadre might become a dying cadre does not automatically defeat a selection process already underway; a conscious administrative decision was required.

On these grounds, the Single Judge directed the State to grant appointments within one month pursuant to the UPSSSC result dated 10 December 2021, while leaving open the liberty for the State to take a different view if one existed, provided that decision was made keeping in mind the observations in the judgment.

The State's Compliance Order and the Second Round of Litigation

The State did not comply voluntarily. The petitioners filed a contempt petition. During its pendency, the State passed an order dated 23 March 2024 which purported to comply with the Single Judge's direction but instead rejected the petitioners' claim for appointment — relying on the very same grounds that the Single Judge had already repelled.

The petitioners challenged this order in Writ-A No. 6738 of 2024 (and a connected petition, Writ-A No. 7788 of 2024, filed by a separate group). The learned Single Judge dismissed both petitions on 30 July 2024, reasoning that the earlier judgment had granted liberty to the State to take an independent view, and that the post-upgrade change in qualification and category gave the State the right to insist on better-qualified appointees.

Meanwhile, the State's own Special Appeal No. 65 of 2023 against the 2022 Single Bench judgment was listed along with the new appeals. On 9 February 2026, the Additional Advocate General stated that the State did not wish to press Special Appeal No. 65 of 2023 as the authority had already passed an order in compliance. The Division Bench recorded its dismissal as not pressed. The petitioners also withdrew their cross-appeal (Special Appeal Defective No. 430 of 2024) given the State's withdrawal.

The Division Bench's Reasoning on Res Judicata and Estoppel

The Division Bench identified the central question: once the State withdrew Special Appeal No. 65 of 2023, was it barred by res judicata from re-agitating before any authority or court the same grounds that the Single Judge had rejected in Writ-A No. 5390 of 2022?

The court surveyed the law of res judicata from three Supreme Court decisions. From Satyadhyan Ghoshal v. Deorajin Debi AIR 1960 SC 941, it extracted the core principle: once a matter between the same parties is finally decided, neither party may canvass it again, and every court must proceed on the basis that the previous decision was correct. From Mathura Prasad Bajoo Jaiswal v. Dossibai N.B. Jeejeebhoy 1970 (1) SCC 613, it drew that decisions on mixed questions of fact and law are conclusive between the same parties where the cause of action is the same. From Forward Construction Company v. Prabhat Mandal (1986) 1 SCC 100, it applied Explanation IV to Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure: any matter that might and ought to have been raised as a ground of attack or defence in the earlier proceeding is deemed to have been directly in issue, whether or not it was actually agitated.

Applying these principles, the Division Bench found all conditions for res judicata satisfied. The parties were identical, the cause of action — a claim for appointment based on the UPSSSC result dated 10 December 2021 pursuant to Advertisement No. 22-Examination/2016 — was the same in both rounds of litigation, and the earlier court had jurisdiction. The Single Judge in Writ-A No. 5390 of 2022 had heard and finally decided all the contentions on merits.

The Division Bench then addressed the State's specific argument that all posts of Librarian had been upgraded, leaving no post at Grade Pay Rs. 2,800/-. It found this ground had not been pleaded before the Single Judge in Writ-A No. 5390 of 2022, nor in the counter affidavit in Writ-A No. 6738 of 2024. Two separate reasons barred it:

First, constructive res judicata under Explanation IV of Section 11 CPC precluded the State from raising a ground it could and should have raised in the earlier proceeding. Second, even on the merits, Appendix-II to Rules, 2021 itself, at Serial No. 6, expressly contemplated existing Librarians recruited between 1 January 1996 and 15 March 2000 continuing under a career advancement scheme. This showed the Librarian cadre at the lower pay band had not been abolished; existing incumbents were simply being placed on an upgradation track. The contention that no post remained at Grade Pay Rs. 2,800/- was therefore factually incorrect on the face of the very rules the State relied upon.

The court also applied the principle from Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1978) 1 SCC 405 that the validity of a statutory order must be judged by the reasons stated in it and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in affidavits filed in later proceedings. The order dated 23 March 2024 had not rejected the claim on the ground of non-availability of posts at the lower grade; that argument was therefore additionally inadmissible.

On the question of estoppel, the court relied on Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam v. Raj Kumar Rajinder Singh (2019) 14 SCC 449, which explains that withdrawal of a proceeding on a stated ground creates an estoppel against the withdrawing party from thereafter contending to the contrary. By getting Special Appeal No. 65 of 2023 dismissed as not pressed, the State had acquiesced in every finding of the earlier Single Bench judgment and was estopped from re-agitating those findings.

The Division Bench further disagreed with the Single Judge's reading of paragraph 44 of the 2022 judgment. That paragraph had to be read as a whole: the liberty given to the State to form “another view” was a liberty to act on any additional rational ground that had not already been adjudicated, not a licence to reiterate rejected arguments. The State's order of 23 March 2024 had done precisely the latter, making it an impermissible exercise of sitting in appeal over the Single Judge's judgment — a jurisdiction the executive does not possess.

Relief Granted to the Second Set of Appellants

Special Appeal No. 829 of 2024 was filed by a separate group of candidates (Shree Pati Yadav and four others) arising from the dismissal of Writ-A No. 7788 of 2024. These appellants were not petitioners in Writ-A No. 5390 of 2022, and no direct appointment direction had been made in their favour in the earlier judgment.

The Division Bench held that since their case was factually and legally identical to that of the petitioners in Special Appeal No. 701 of 2024 and they stood on the same footing, they were entitled to the same relief. The judgment of the Single Judge dated 30 July 2024 in Writ-A No. 7788 of 2024 was also set aside, and the State was directed to grant them appointments as Librarians.

Order

The Division Bench allowed both Special Appeal No. 701 of 2024 and Special Appeal No. 829 of 2024. It set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 30 July 2024 in both Writ-A No. 6738 of 2024 and Writ-A No. 7788 of 2024. It directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to grant appointments to the appellants on the post of Librarian in the Pay Band of Rs. 5,200–20,200/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 2,800/- within one month from the date of production of a certified copy of the judgment. The order was delivered on 3 August 2026.