Waitlisted candidates cannot seek change in place of posting under Section 13(4) of the Old Act post-repeal.

The appellant was at Sl. No. 59 in the waitlist for the post of Principal under Advertisement No. 49 of 2019 issued by the UP Higher Education Service Selection Commission

On 03.08.2022, the Director recommended the appellant for appointment at Shri Bajrang P.G. College, Ballia

The appellant failed to join or contact the Management for over ten months due to "family circumstances"

On 21.08.2023, the Uttar Pradesh Education Service Selection Commission Act, 2023 ("New Act") came into force, repealing the 1980 Act ("Old Act")

Despite the New Act being in force, the Director issued orders on 13.12.2023, 12.01.2024, and 15.01.2024, changing the appellant’s posting to Meerut College

The respondent no. 6, the Officiating Principal of Meerut College, challenged these orders. The High Court quashed the recommendation, leading to this appeal

1. Whether Section 13(4) of the Old Act permits a fresh recommendation or change in place of posting for a waitlisted candidate who was already recommended elsewhere

2. Whether recommendations and placement orders issued in favour of the appellant after the enforcement of the New Act (repealing the Old Act) are legally sustainable

Section 13(4) of the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980, which permits the Director to intimate names from the merit list for unforeseen vacancies

The precedent Kamlesh Kumar Sharma v. Yogesh Kumar Gupta (1998) 3 SCC 45, which interpreted the term "otherwise" in Section 13(4) as ejusdem generis to death or resignation, excluding vacancies that were never advertised or sought to be filled by bypassing standard procedures

Section 31 of the U.P. Education Service Selection Commission Act, 2023, and Section 6 of the U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904, to determine the effect of repeal, concluding that while past "acts done" are saved, the repeal does not revive lapsed lists or authorize new actions under a defunct statute

The Court reasoned that the appellant’s initial recommendation to Ballia on 03.08.2022 was the only valid "act done" under the Old Act

The appellant's subsequent request for a change of posting did not fall under the "otherwise" category of Section 13(4) because he was at fault for not joining the original post

Applying Kamlesh Kumar Sharma, the Court found that interpreting Section 13(4) to permit a change of posting would frustrate the legislative intent of Section 13(3) and permit "seat shopping"

The Court observed that upon the commencement of the New Act on 21.08.2023, the old select list lapsed

Consequently, the Director lacked the jurisdiction to issue the 13.12.2023 order or the 15.01.2024 appointment recommendation using the repealed Act’s powers

The New Act does not contain a provision equivalent to Section 13(4), and Section 31(2) only saves completed actions, not fresh exercises of repealed powers

Once the New Act repealed the Old Act, the authorities could not revive or act upon the old waitlist to issue new recommendations

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court's judgment quashing the appellant’s appointment at Meerut College

The Court severely criticized the State officials for filing affidavits supporting an "unlawful stand" contrary to the statutory scheme

Regarding respondent no. 6's locus, the Court held that when an authority's action is ex-facie illegal, the issue of locus standi of an officiating principal is not germane