2016 Supreme(SC) 665

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.A. BOBDE, ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.
VIVEK SINGH – APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P. & ANR. – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL No.10381 OF 2014
Decided On : 26-08-2016

IMPORTANT POINT
Relief, even rightful, may not be granted if it upsets seniority over a long period of time already elapsed.

Headnote:Service law – Reservation in appointment – High Court in 2010 directing State in 2009 to identify all backlog vacancies for physically handicapped candidates and fill them – Appellant, physically handicapped was declared successful in selection process of 2001-02 but could not be appointed – State calculated roster points from 1997-98 because that was the first year after the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunity, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 came into effect from 01.01.1996 – High Court recognized entitlement of appellant for appointment against sole reservation vacancy for year 2001-02 in physically handicapped quota but declined to grant any relief – Reason for declining relief being gap of 10 years between entitlement and claim during which time appointments were made every year – Granting relief to appellant would upset the entire seniority list affecting even those who might have been promoted – No interference warranted. (Para 11, 12)

       Writ Petition No.6047 (MB) of 2009(All) – Referred

       Facts of the case:

       On 29.01.2001, the U.P. Public Service Commission invited applications for filling up 800 posts through the Combined State/Upper Subordinate Service Examination 2001. Amongst others the posts to be filled up were Deputy Collector – 9 posts, Deputy S.P. – 67 posts and Trade Tax Officer – 12 posts.

       The appellant applied for selection under the physically handicapped category along with the necessary certificate. His first preference was for the post of Deputy Collector and second preference was for the post of Trade Tax Officer. The appellant was duly selected and placed at Sl.No.38 in the overall merit list. The U.P. Public Service Commission recommended the appellant’s appointment as a Trade Tax Officer under the quota reserved for physically handicapped candidates.

       The appellant filed a writ petition praying for appointment on the post of Deputy Collector. However, pending the writ petition, he joined as a Trade Tax Officer in November, 2004.

       On 26.11.2010, in National Federation of the Blind, U.P. Branch and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & others, Writ Petition No.6047 (MB) of 2009 the High Court passed an interim order directing the State Government to henceforth not fill up any vacancy unless a reservation of 3% was provided to physically handicapped candidates from the initial stage, i.e., from the stage of advertisement itself.

       In pursuance thereof the State Government carried out the following exercise:

       On 13.1.2011 the State Government issued a requisition to the Public Service Commission for selection of suitable candidates belonging to the physically handicapped category for appointment on 5 posts of Deputy Collector by a special recruitment drive to fill up the backlog quota. In the said letter, 1 post of Deputy Collector for the year 2001-2002 i.e. the year in which the appellant had appeared and was declared successful was also directed to be filled up.

       In the pending writ petition, the appellant modified his prayer and claimed that since 1 out of the 5 posts of Deputy Collector was to be filled up under the special recruitment drive for physically handicapped category, included the post for the year 2001-2002 in which the appellant appeared and was selected, he is entitled to be selected therein.

       The High Court accepted that the post of Deputy Collector for selection in the year 2001-2002 was amenable to reservation for physically handicapped category under the horizontal quota of 3%. The High Court reiterated the settled position of law that reservation for the physically handicapped category was to be provided as a matter of law and that such reservation was to be made on the basis of total sanctioned strength and not on the basis of available vacancy of a recruitment year. However, the Court declined relief to the appellant on the ground that if the appellant is adjusted against the sole vacancy for the year 2001-2002, the entire seniority list will get disturbed.

       Finding of the Court:

       There is no merit in the appeal.

       Result: Appeal dismissed.