Back
ARUNA JAGADEESAN, ELIPE DHARMA RAO
Gidla Satyanarayana – Appellant
Versus
Union of India, rep. by the Government of Puducherry through the Inspector General of Police – Respondent
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:
The petitioner, belonging to the Scheduled Caste, applied for the post of Sub Inspector of Police and participated in the selection process, but was not appointed despite being eligible and having scored well in the written test (!) .
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the appointment of the third respondent, seeking to be appointed as Sub Inspector under the SC quota with retrospective effect and benefits (!) .
The respondents contended that the vacancies increased from the initially notified ten to eighteen, and the cadre strength was purportedly 123 before the addition of 67 posts, with the total sanctioned strength claimed to be 181 before the additional posts were created (!) .
The court observed that the actual cadre strength was established at 248, which was significantly higher than what the respondents claimed, indicating improper adherence to reservation rules and roster procedures (!) (!) .
The court noted that the respondents had not properly followed the reservation roster, deviating from their own precedents and failing to allocate reserved vacancies correctly, particularly in the original notification (!) (!) .
The court found that some SC candidates had already been appointed, but there remained vacancies that should have been filled following proper reservation and roster rules, which was not done (!) .
The court acknowledged that the third respondent's appointment was finalized through a legal process and that the petitioner’s challenge to that appointment was barred due to finality of the earlier order (!) .
To ensure justice, the court directed the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Sub Inspector against an SC vacancy from the date the third respondent was appointed, even if it required creating a supernumerary post (!) .
The court emphasized that the entire process should be completed within eight weeks, and while the petitioner would not be entitled to back wages, he should be considered for appointment to rectify the reservation and roster violations (!) .
The writ petition was ordered in favor of the petitioner with directions to the respondents, and the interim petition to keep a vacancy vacant was disposed of accordingly (!) .
Would you like a further detailed analysis or assistance with specific legal implications?
ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J.
The petitioner, working as constable and belonging to Scheduled Caste, has applied for the post of Sub Inspector of Police, pursuant to the Notification dated 15.12.2005 issued by the respondents 1 and 2 for filling up the notified ten vacancies of Sub Inspector of Police. The written test was conducted on 14.7.2007. He participated in the selection process and was placed at Serial No.35, based on the marks of 86 scored by him. However, he could not make it to the appointment as Sub Inspector of Police. Therefore, he filed O.A.No.227 of 2010 before the Tribunal, praying to declare the appointment of the third respondent as illegal, invalid and consequently to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to appoint him (the petitioner) as Sub Inspector of Police under the SC quota with effect from the date on which the 3rd respondent is appointed with all other consequential benefits, including arrears of wages and seniority.
2. His case is that once the respondents 1 and 2 have notified ten vacancies, they are bound to fill up only ten vacancies whereas they have filled up 20 vacancies to the post of Sub Inspector of Police and even though several vacancies are a
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
