Ram Vs. State of U.P.& Ors  INSC 689 (16 November 1995)
K. Ramaswamy, K. Hansaria B.L. (J)
1996 AIR 703 1996 SCC (1) 332 JT 1995 (9) 123 1995 SCALE (6)671
O R D
have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the State. For the
recruitment in the 15 posts of Treasury Officers-Accounts Officers in U.P.
Finance and Accounts Services, Sales Tax Officers (6 posts) and Regional Audit
Officers (4 posts) advertisement was made in 1988. Out of 15 posts in the
Treasury Officers-Accounts Officers in U.P. Finance and Accounts Service, 4
posts were reserved for members of the Scheduled Castes. It would appear that
as a result of competitive examination conducted by the P.S.C., the last
candidate selected for these 4 posts was one Anil Kumar Rai who secured 361
marks in written examination and 39 marks in personality test out of 400 marks.
P.S.C. had recommended the names of four candidates. As a result, the appellant
and three others - one Balkesh Singh, Bali Ram Prasad, Amar Singh, who secured
347+53 (total 400 marks), 3444+56 (total 400 marks), 360+39 (total 399 marks),
could not be recommended, as there was on request by the Government for putting
them in the waiting list. Since they could not be appointed, the appellant had
approached the High Court for a writ of mandamus or direction to the P.S.C.
recommend his name for appointment in the Accounts Service. The High Court
dismissed the writ petition No.nil of 1992 by order dated December 4,1992 on the ground that the petitioner
was not intimated that he was selected. Since there was no information that he
was put in the select list, direction could not be first category, did not join
in the service. As a consequence, 4 posts were left vacant and required to be
filled up by the reserved candidates. Since the appellant is the 4th candidate
among the candidates who were standing in the order of merit, rejection of
appellant's claim for appointment is illegal and unconstitutional.
counter affidavit of Bihari Lal, it is stated in para 6 thus:
the contents of paras 11 & 12 of the S.L.P. relates to the Finance Deptt.,
therefore need no comments of answering respondent. However, it is submitted
that reserved posts can be filled by the candidates of reserved categories
only." It other words, there is no denial of the aforestated four
candidates not joining in the Finance Department. It is submitted that it would
be filled up by reserved candidates.
not in dispute that the appellant is a reserved candidate belonging to
Scheduled Castes. In view of the admitted position that four posts were
reserved in the Finance Department in category 1 given to appoint him as
Accounts Officer in Accounts Service.
counter-affidavit filed by the P.S.C., it was stated that since four posts were
reserved for the Scheduled Castes and the last candidate Anil Kumar Rai was
already selected and recommended for appointment, and as there was no request
by the State Government for preparation of waiting list for the vacant posts
reserved for the Scheduled Castes, the names of the appellant and the aforestated
three persons could not be recommended for appointment. It is stated in the
counter-affidavit filed by Behari Lal, Special Secretary, Karmik Anubhag
Secretariat, U.P. that since the appellant was not recommended nor found
qualified for appointment, he could not claim any appointment.
11 of the Special Leave Petition, a specific stand has been taken in paragraph
11 that the four candidates selected by the P.S.C., namely, Ram Bodh, Roll
No.22142, Serial No.13, Lolark Ram Roll No.442, Sl.NO. 24, and Raja Ram, Roll
No.1787, Sl. No.30, though selected and recommended for appointment in the
mentioned earlier and 4 selected candidates appeared to have not joined in the
service, as asserted in para 11 of the S.L.P. and not specifically denied by
the respondents in the counter- affidavit in para 6 as referred to earlier, it
is clear that the appellant also is the 4th candidate in the order of merit
would have been selected, had there been a requisition by the State Government
for appointment of the reserved candidates.
to seek appointment to a post under Article 14 read with Articles 16(1) and (4)
is a constitutional right to equality. The State failed to perform its
constitutional duty to requisition the P.S.C. to recommend the next qualified
persons to the posts reserved for scheduled castes. Under these circumstances,
the denial of appointment to the appellant and three others above him is unconstitutional,
Therefore, the respondents are not justified in denying the claim of the
appellant for the appointment to the above post.
P.S.C. is, therefore, directed to recommend the name of the appellant for
appointment in the first category, i.e. Treasury Officers and Accounts
Officers, within a period of six weeks from the date of the receipt of the
order and the State is directed to issue order of appointment to the appellant
within a period of six weeks thereafter.
appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
Pages: 1 2