http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: JAI NARAIN RAM

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF U.P.& ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT16/11/1995

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. HANSARIA B.L. (J)

CITATION:  1996 AIR  703            1996 SCC  (1) 332  JT 1995 (9)   123        1995 SCALE  (6)671

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      We 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. The 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. to 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.      In the counter affidavit of Bihari Lal, it is stated in

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

para 6 thus:      "That 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.      It is  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.      In the  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.      In para  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.      Right 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.      The 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.      The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.