http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: P.S GHALAUT

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT03/08/1995

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. PARIPOORNAN, K.S.(J)

CITATION:  1996 AIR  351            1995 SCC  (5) 625  1995 SCALE  (5)56

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      We have  heard the  learned counsel  on both sides. The undisputed  facts  are  that  the  appellant  as  a  general candidate and  the third  respondent,  Dr.  Nitya  Anand  to backward  class  quota  were  selected  for  appointment  as lecturer in  the Haryana  Medical Education  Service as  per H.M.E.S. Rules,  1965 (for  short, ‘the  Rules’). The Public Service Commission  recommended the  names of  the appellant and Dr.  Nitya Anand  along with  three other candidates for appointment as  lecturers. It  would appear that Dr. Diwakar Jain and  Dr. Sidharth  Dass had  not  joined  the  service. Though  Dr.  Om  Prakash  Kalra  initially  had  joined  the service,  he   too  left   the  service.   Consequently  the appellant, as general candidate and Dr. Nitya Anand remained in service.      The question  is whether  the appellant  is  senior  to Nitya Anand.  The contention  of the appellant is that since the order  of merit given by the Selection Committee and the letter of appointment do indicate that the appellant is high up in the order of merit to Dr. Nitya Anand, he is senior to the later.  While maintaining  inter se  seniority by  wrong interpretation Dr.  Nitya Anand  has been made senior to the appellant which  is contrary  to the IInd proviso to Rule 13 of the  Rules. This  contention was not accepted by the High Court in  the impugned  Judgment dated  May 3, 1993 in Civil W.P. No.  4946/93 by  the Punjab  & Haryana  High  Court  at Chandigarh. Shri  Manoj Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant  relying upon  the instruction  issued by  the Chief Secretary, dated April 27,1972 and the Judgment of the Division Bench  of that Court in Bhupinder Singh Vs. Haryana Warehousing Corporation  in Civil W.P. No.2006/92 dated June 2, 1992  contended that  when the  Selection  Committee  had mentioned inter  se seniority  in the  order of  merit,  the State has no power to interfere with the inter se seniority.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

The same seniority shall be continued to be maintained while fixing inter se seniority after the appointment given to the respective candidates.  The High  Court, therefore  was  not right in  upholding  the  action  of  the  respondents.  The learned  counsel  for  the  respondents  have  resisted  the contention.      We  have   given  our   anxious  consideration  to  the respective contentions.  The question  is whether  Dr. Nitya Anand is  senior to  the appellant.  In  100  point  roaster maintained by  the State  Government,  the  Government  have earmarked some  places to  the reserved  candidates. In  the instructions issued  by the  Chief Secretary  on  April  27, 1972, it was specifically stated that the vacancies reserved for Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes shall be filled up to those specified points enumerated in the roaster. To give effect to  the Public  Policy of  reservation  envisaged  in Article 16(4) read with Articles 14 and 16(1) and consistent with Art.  335, the  State prescribed  certain percentage of posts or vacancies and they are required to be filled as per the roaster.  Admittedly, initially  2% posts  were reserved for the  backward classes which was later increased to 10% . Vacancies 1  to 9  were filled up by the general candidates. In consequence  of the  reservation to the backward classes, vacancy  No.10   was  reserved  for  the  backward  classes. Admittedly, Dr.  Nitya Anand  belongs to the backward class. The question,  therefore, is  whether the  placement of  Dr. Nitya  Anand  in  the  10th  place  and  relegation  of  the appellant to lower in the order of ranking in the roaster is valid in law. It is true that Rule 13 of the Rules envisages that the  seniority inter se of members of the service shall be determined  by the  length of  continuous service  on any post in the service provided further that in the case of two or more  members appointed  by direct recruitment, the order of merit determined by the Commission shall not be disturbed in fixing  the seniority. In other words, where the inter se merit has  been determined  by the public Service Commission or  the  Selection  Committee,  as  the  case  may  be,  and recommended  to   the  Government   for  appointment,  while accepting the  recommendations so  made, the  Government  do require to  maintain the  order of  merit determined  by the Public Service  Commission/Committee. But  the  question  is whether the  merit list  prepared gets  disturbed, then  the roaster  has  been  maintained  and  the  placement  of  the candidates in the order specified in the roaster when filled up and  is it  illegal, arbitrary or unconstitutional. It is seen that  when the  roaster is maintained to give effect to the  constitutional   policy  of   reservation   to   render socioeconomic justice  to the concerned sections, respective places assigned to the candidates belonging to them, general candidates,  backward   classes  or   Scheduled  Castes   or Scheduled Tribes,  as the  case may  be, the  change in  the order of merit inevitably get affected. If original order of merit prepared by the Public Service Commission or Selection Committee, if  remains unaffected, roaster becomes redundant and always  remains unimplemented.  The reserved  candidates always remain  at the  bottom  of  the  select  list  unless selected as  general candidates  in the  order of  merit. To relieve such  injustice and  hardship, roaster is maintained and vacancies are filled up in the order maintained therein. The placement  of candidates  shall  be  to  the  respective points fixed in the roaster. Take for instance vacancy No. 1 and 6,  as pointed  out in the Chief Secretary’s letter have admittedly  been  reserved  for  Scheduled  Castes.  Suppose recruitment  was  made  to  fill  up  ten  vacancies,  three candidates from  Scheduled Castes  were selected.  The first

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

one as  general and  second and  third were  selected on the basis of  reserved quota.  The question is whether the first candidate will be put in the quota allotted to the Scheduled Castes in  the roaster.  Having been  selected as  a general candidate, though he is more meritorious than the second and third candidates,  he will  not get  the  placement  in  the roaster, reserved  for Scheduled  Castes i.e.  No. 1  and  6 points. Consequently  candidates Nos.  2 and  3 will get the placement at No.1 and 6 and the first candidate will get the placement in  the order  of merit  along with   the  general candidates according to the order of merit maintained by the Selection Committee  or the  Public Service  Commission.  He cannot complain  that having  been selected in the merit, he must be  placed in  the  placement  reserved  for  Scheduled Castes at  point No.  1  in  the  roaster.  Equally,  though general candidate  is more meritorious in the order of merit prepared by  the Public  Service Commission or the Selection Committee, when  the appointments are made and the vacancies are filled  up according  to the  roaster,  necessarily  and inevitably the  Reserved candidates  though less meritorious in the  order of  merit maintained  by  the  Public  Service Commission would  occupy the  respective places  assigned in the roaster.  Thereby they  steal a  march over  some of the general  candidates  and  get  seniority  over  the  general candidates. This scheme is, therefore, constitutional, valid and is not arbitrary.      The Chief  Secretary in  his letter  obviously  was  in error in  directing to  maintain the  roaster the same inter seniority maintained  by the  Public Service  Commission  or Selection Committee. If that is given effect to, the roaster points  would  remain  unfilled  and  rotation  therein  get disturbed. It is obvious that the interpretation of the Rule by the  Chief Secretary  was found  favour with the Division Bench which  was strongly  relied upon by the appellant. The order of  merit indicated  in the  second proviso  would  be applicable only  inter  se  to  the  general  candidates  or reserved candidates  but gets  changed  when  vacancies  are filled  up   as  per   roaster  and  appointments  are  made thereunder. The  High Court, therefore, was right in holding that the  2nd proviso  to Rule  13 is  in applicable  to the facts  and   was  also   right  in  its  finding  that  when appointments are  made to fill up the vacancies in the order of roaster,  the order  of merit  prepared by  the Selection Committee get changed. In these circumstances, the appeal is dismissed but without costs.