2000 INSC 0828
                                        SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                                         U.P. Public Service Commission

                                                           Vs.

                                                    Sanjay Kumar

                                      (M.J. Rao and K.G. Balakrishnan JJ.)

                                                      26.07.2000

                                                       ORDER

M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.

1. There are two respondents in this appeal of 1996. Both have been served and have chosen to
remain ex-parte notwithstanding the fact that this Court has stayed the operation of the order of the
High Court as long as back on 8.12.1995, at the time of issuing notice in the S.L.P.

2. The two respondents appear to have applied for the Combined State Upper Subordinate Services
Preliminary Examination, 1993, pursuant to an advertisement. They were to conform to certain
conditions mentioned by the Service Commission in the advertisement and the other Rules
applicable to the examination. But, inasmuch as about two lakh applications had come, the
procedure adopted by the Service Commission was to issue provisional admission cards enabling
the candidates to take the examination upon their giving an undertaking that, if anything is wrong
with their application, the result of their examination need not be declared.

3. According to the appellant Service Commission, there were two serious defects in regard to the
two applicants/ respondents, and it was because of those defects, the result of their examination was
not declared. The respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court of Allahabad and the Division
Bench of the High Court on 7.12.95, passed the following order:-

After hearing Counsel for the parties, we dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the
respondent commission to declare the result of the petitioner, stating whether he has failed or passed
in the examination.

4. The above order does not contain any reason and does not say whether by virtue of the
undertaking given by the respondent, the Commission was justified or not in withholding the result
of the examination. The respondents have not chosen to appear either in person or through Counsel
to defend the judgment of the High Court. As the respondents have not chosen to appear before this
Court, in spite of the stay order granted by this Court, it appears to us that there is no point in
remitting the matter to the High Court for re-consideration.

5. Inasmuch as no reasons are given in the judgment of the High Court, we set aside the said
judgment and dismiss the writ petition filed by the respondents.
6. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.