Back
2013 Supreme(All) 948
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Rajiv Sharma, Arvind Kumar Tripathi-II, JJ.
Kamla Shanker Tripathi & Anr. -Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. -Respondent
Writ Petition No. 734 of 2012 (S/B)
Decided On : 01-04-2013
For the Respondents:Manish Kumar and S.C. advocates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that unfilled vacancies of direct recruitment quota should not be carried forward and should be filled by promotion to the officers of Nyayik Sewa, while maintaining the percentage of reservation in every recruitment.
Headnote:
Appointment - U.P. Higher Judicial Service - Rule 8(2), Ashok Pal Singh v. U.P. Judicial Service Association, 2010 (12) SCC 635 - The court discussed the determination of vacancies for direct recruitment, the method of calculation, and the reservation policy under the U.P. Higher Judicial Service Rules and the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994. The court emphasized that unfilled vacancies of direct recruitment quota should not be carried forward and should be filled by promotion to the officers of Nyayik Sewa. The court also highlighted the need to maintain the percentage of reservation in every recruitment, ensuring that reservation does not exceed the ceiling limit of 50%.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought appointment as direct recruits from the Bar to U.P. Higher Judicial Service 2000. The High Court had advertised 38 vacancies, out of which 19 were for General Candidates, 8 for Schedule Caste Candidates, and 10 for Other Backward Class. The petitioners were successful in the written examination and interview, but only a portion of the vacancies were filled. The petitioners claimed entitlement to the remaining vacancies based on a report by the Three Judges Committee.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the vacancies earmarked for General and Other Backward Caste Candidates had been filled, and no candidate was available for appointment in the Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribe category. The court concluded that the petitioners' candidature had already been considered, and their prayer for appointment was misconceived. The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that no good ground for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was made out.
Issues: The main issue revolved around the entitlement of the petitioners to the remaining vacancies in the U.P. Higher Judicial Service 2000, based on the report of the Three Judges Committee and the interpretation of the U.P. Higher Judicial Service Rules and the reservation policy.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that unfilled vacancies of direct recruitment quota should not be carried forward and should be filled by promotion to the officers of Nyayik Sewa. It also highlighted the need to maintain the percentage of reservation in every recruitment, ensuring that reservation does not exceed the ceiling limit of 50%.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that no good ground for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was made out.
Rejoinder-affidavit to the supplementary counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 2 and 3, is admitted on record.
2. Heard Sri Ramesh Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri Manish Kumar, Counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and Standing Counsel for respondent No. 1.
3. Through the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs :
“(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondents to consider petitioners' candidature for appointment as direct recruits from the Bar to U.P. Higher Judicial Service 2000 and further consider their posting as Additional District and Sessions Judge.
(ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondents to consider petitioners” candidature for appointee it to U.P. Higher Judicial Service according to their merit of selection of recruitment to the U.P. Higher Judicial Service 2000.
(iii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing decision of respondents taken on petitioners' representation dated 11.9.2011 after summoning the same.
(iv) to pass any other suitable order or direction which is deemed just and proper in the circumstances of the case.
(v) Allow the writ petition with costs.”
4. Draped in brevity, facts of the case are that for the recruitment year 1998-2000, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad published an advertisement for direct recruitment to 38 vacancies in U.P. Higher Judicial Service in the pay-scale of Rs. 16,400-20,000 plus admissible allowances. In the said advertisement, it was mentioned that out of 38 vacancies, 19 vacancies were for General Candidate, 8 vacancies for Schedule Caste Candidate, and 10 vacancies for Other Backward Class.
5. Pursuant to the said advertisement, petitioners alongwith other candidates applied for the post of U.P. Higher Judicial Service and on scrutiny of the forms, eligible candidates including petitioners were called for written examination, pursuant to which petitioners and others appeared in the written examination. The result of written examination was declared, in which, petitioners alongwith other candidates were declared successful and subsequently all such candidates were called for interview. Thereafter, the Selection Committee submitted its report dated 18.11.2004. The said report dated 18.11.2004 was placed before Full Court, which was held on 5.2.2005 as Agenda No. 3 (a) Re: Filling of Vacancies of U.P. Higher Judicial Service by direct H.J.S. Recruit-ment-2000. The Full Court, vide resolution dated 5.2.2005, resolved that the recommendation made by the Selection Committee with respect to select list of General, O.B.C. and S.C. Candidates (direct recruits) be approved and directed the Registrar General to declare the result and take follow up action without any delay as per report.
6. On the basis of the said resolution of Full Court dated 5.2.2005, final result was declared in the year 2005, in which name of petitioner No. 1-Kamla Shanker Tripathi was found at Serial No. 21 in General Category, whereas petitioner No. 2-Perwaiz Ahmad was at Serial No. 11 in OBC Category.
7. According to petitioners, in view of the judgment of this Court in writ petition No. 316 (S/B) of 2004, only 20 candidates (13 General Category, 6 Other Backward Classes and 1 Schedule Caste) were given appointments in the year 2005. The said judgment passed in writ petition No. 316 (S/B) of 2004 was challenged before the Hon”ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1312 of 2005, which was decided on 13.9.2010 in Ashok Pal Singh and others v. U.P. Judicial Service Association and others, 2010 (12) SCC 635. According to him, on the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Pal Singh (supra), Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad had constituted a Three Judges Committee to re-determine the number of vacancies for di
