2010 (4) Supreme 504
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Uttaranchal High Court)
Dr. B.S. Chauhan, Swatanter Kumar, JJ.
Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal — Appellant
versus
Mamta Bisht & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5987 of 2007
with
State of Uttaranchal — Appellant
versus
Mamta Bisht & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5982 of 2007
Decided on : 3-6-2010
AIR 2010 SC 932 – Relied upon
(b) Joinder of Parties – Necessary party, proper party and proforma party – Natural Justice – A person who is likely to suffer from the order of the Court and has not been impleaded as a party has a right to ignore the said order as it has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. (Para 7)
AIR 1963 SC 786 – Relied upon
(c) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order I, rule 9 and section 141, r/w Article 226, Constitution of India – Although provisions of the Code are not applicable in writ jurisdiction but the principles enshrined therein are applicable. (Para 7)
AIR 1965 SC 1153; AIR 1974 SC 2105; AIR 1987 SC 88 – Relied upon
(d) Service Law – Selection – In a challenge to selection process successful candidates are necessary parties. (Para 8)
AIR 1985 SC 167; (2009) 1 SCC 768 – Relied upon
(e) Service Law – Appointment – Reservation – Vertical and Horizontal (Social) Reservation – Horizontal (special) reservation differs from vertical (social) reservation – Thus women selected on merit within the vertical reservation quota will be counted against the horizontal reservation for women. (Para 13)
AIR 2007 SC 3127 – Relied upon
AIR 1993 SC 477; Writ Petition No.816/2002 (M/B) – Referred to
Facts of the case:
1.Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal invited applications for 35 posts of Civil Judge, (Junior Division) with a stipulation that the number of vacancies may be increased or decreased. It clarified that the reservation policy adopted by the State i.e. reservation in favour of SC/ST/OBC and horizontal reservation in favour of handicapped, and women etc. belonging to Uttaranchal would be applicable.
2.Respondent No.1 applied seeking benefit of reservation in favour of Uttaranchal women. She qualified in the written examination and thus faced the interview held by the Commission. The final result of the selection was declared on 31.7.2003 and respondent No.1 was not selected.
3.Respondent No.1 preferred writ petition which was allowed.
Finding of the Court:
Impugned judgment cannot be sustained.
JUDGMENT
Dr. B. S. Chauhan, J. —
1.These appeals have been preferred by the Public Service Commission and the State Government of Uttaranchal being aggrieved of the judgment and order of the High Court of Uttaranchal, Nainital dated 26.10.2005 allowing the Writ Petition No.780 of 2003 (M/B) and directing the present appellants to appoint respondent No.1- Ms. Mamta Bisht as Civil Judge, Junior Division in the State of Uttaranchal.
2.Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are that Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Commission’) issued an advertisement dated 7.6.2002 inviting applications for 35 posts of Civil Judge, (Junior Division) with a stipulation that the number of vacancies may be increased or decreased. It clarified that the reservation policy adopted by the State i.e. reservation in favour of SC/ST/OBC and horizontal reservation in favour of handicapped, and women etc. belonging to Uttaranchal would be applicable. Respondent No.1 applied in pursuance of the said advertisement seeking benefit of reservation in favour of Uttaranchal women. She qualified in the written examination and thus faced the interview held by the Commission. The final result of the selection was declared on 31.7.2003 and it was evident from the result that respondent No.1 was not selected. Instead of filling of 35 vacancies, recommendations to fill up 42 vacancies were made as the decision had been taken in this regard prior to declaration of result. Out of 42 posts, 26 were filled up by general category and 16 by reserved category candidates. Some women candidates stood selected in general category while others had been given the benefit of horizontal reservation being resident of Uttaranchal. Respondent No.1, being aggrieved preferred Writ Petition No.780 of 2003 (M/B) in the High Court of Uttaranchal seeking quashment of select list dated 31.7.2003 mainly on the ground that women candidates belonging to Uttaranchal had secured marks making them eligible to be selected in general category and had it been done so, respondent No.1 could have been selected in reserved category being a woman of Uttaranchal. It had also been pleaded in the petition that some of the women candidates who not only claimed the benefit of horizontal reservation but have been selected giving the said benefit, did not submit their respective certificate of domicile at the time of filling up the application forms but they produced the said certificate at a later stage and it was accepted. The High Court accepted the first submission of respondent No.1 after examining the record of selection and came to the conclusion that last selected woman candidate who was given benefit of horizontal reservation for Uttaranchal women had secured marks higher than the last selected candidate in general category. Thus, the said candidate ought to have been appointed against the general category vacancy and respondent No.1 ought to have been offered the appointment giving her the benefit of horizontal reservation for Uttaranchal women. Hence, these appeals.
3.Shri S.S. Shamshery, Advocate appearing for the Commission and Shri Ashok Mahajan, Advocate appearing for the High Court have submitted that all the vacancies advertised had already been filled up before the writ petition could be filed. Not a single successful candidate had been impleaded as a respondent before the High Court. Thus, the petition ought to have been dismissed for not impleading the necessary parties. The High Court did not consider the issue of acceptance of domicile certificates by the Uttaranchal women at a belated stage nor any finding has been recorded on the said issue. The High Court failed to consider the principle that if a reserved category candidate secures more marks than the last selected candidate in general category, then he is to be appointed against the general category vacancy, does not apply while giving the benefit of horizontal reservation. The writ petiti
Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar
Gulabchand Chhotalal Parikh v. State of Gujarat
Babubhai Muljibhai Patel v. Nandlal, Khodidas Barat
Sarguja Transport Service v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal
Prabodh Verma v. State of U.P.
Tridip Kumar Dingal v. State of West Bengal
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.