of U.P. & Anr Vs. Pawan Kumar Tiwari
& Ors  Insc 3 (4
R.C. Lahoti,G.P. Mathur & A.K. Mathur R.C. Lahoti, Cji
year 1997 the State Public Service Commission, pursuant to the requisition made
by the State Government on the advice of the High Court of Uttar Pradesh,
advertised 93 posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division) in the Uttar Pradesh
Judicial Service. Keeping in view the provision for reservation mandated by the
U.P. Public Service (Reservation for Physically Handicapped, Dependants of
Freedom Fighters and Ex- Servicemen) Act 1993 and U.P. Public Service
(Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes)
Act 1994, certain posts were reserved. To the extent of the percentage of
reservation, as contemplated by the two Acts, mentioned above, there is no
controversy. The controversy centres around the application of percentage as
against the total number of posts.
percentages of reservation, as applicable and as was actually applied, are set
out in the following table:
Percentage (prescribed) Percentage worked out to Number of Posts reserved
General 50% 46.50 46 Scheduled Castes 21% 19.53 20 Other Backward Classes 27%
25.11 26 Scheduled Tribes 2% 1.86 1 The respondent belongs to general category.
46 selected candidates in general category were appointed. There were 3
candidates in the waiting list. The respondent was at the top of the waiting
list. He was denied appointment.
aggrieved the respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court which has been
allowed. A writ of mandamus has been issued by the High Court directing the
appellants herein to issue a letter of appointment to the respondent. The State
has filed this appeal by special leave.
heard the learned counsel for the parties we are satisfied that the appeal is
devoid of any merit.
High Court has found mainly two faults with the process adopted by the State
Government. First, the figure of 46.50 should have been rounded off to 47 and
not to 46; and secondly, in the category of freedom fighters and ex-
servicemen, total 3 posts have been earmarked as horizontally reserved by
inserting such reservation into general quota of 46 posts which had the effect
of pushing out of selection zone three candidates from merit list of general
not find fault with any of the two reasonings adopted by the High Court. The
rule of rounding off based on logic and common sense is: if part is one-half or
more, its value shall be increased to one and if part is less than half then
its value shall be ignored. 46.50 should have been rounded off to 47 and not to
46 as has been done. If 47 candidates would have been considered for selection
in general category, the respondent was sure to find a place in the list of selected
meritorious candidates and hence entitled to appointment.
submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that if this principle of
rounding off is to be applied then the percentage of reservation in scheduled
tribe category would come to 2 by rounding off 1.86, to the nearest higher
value, and in that case a candidate from scheduled tribe category and not the
respondent would be entitled to appointment. We cannot agree. No candidate in
scheduled tribe category has chosen to lay challenge to the selection. We are
also not aware if there is any scheduled tribe category candidate available and
qualified for appointment consequent upon his having participated in the
process of selection. This plea of the appellants is without any foundation and
hence does not deserve to be taken note of.
is yet another reason why the judgment of the High Court has to be maintained.
The total number of vacancies was 93. Consequent upon the allocation of
reservation and calculation done by the appellants, the number of reserved
seats would be 47, leaving only 46 available for general category candidates.
Meaning thereby, the reservation would exceed 50% which would be
unconstitutional. The total number of reserved seats could not have been more
than 46 out of 93.
appeal is devoid of any merit and is dismissed.