SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(SC) 1423

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.K. JAIN, H.L. DATTU, JJ.
Malik Mazhar Sultan and Another – Appellants
Versus
U.P. Public Service Commission and Others – Respondents
C.A. No. 1867 of 2006
Decided On : 15-11-2010

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Vijay Hansaria, Sneha Kalita, Ejaz Maqbool, Debasis Misra, T.N. Rao.
For the Respondent: Lakshmi Raman Singh, Atul Jha, Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, Arvind Kr. Tiwari, Radhe Shyam Sharma, Ranjan Dwivedi, Tara Chandra Sharma, Neelam Sharma, G.N. Reddy, Anil Shrivastav, Ritu Raj Biswas, Nishe Rajen Shonker, Amit Kumar, Shankar Divate, Anil Kr. Jha, Santosh Kumar, A. Subhashini Ashok, K. Srivastava Amit, Sthalekar, Shaiwal Srivastava, Vijai Shekhar Singh, Arun K. Sinha, Asha Jain, Madan Mukesh Jain, Chhaya Kumari, Ashok Mathur, Anis Suhrawardy, Bina Gupta, Bharat Sangal Vermika, Tomar, Binu Tamta, Dharam Bir Raj Vohra, G.S. Chatterjee, S.W.A. Qadri, Saima Bakshi, Rekha Pandey, Mukesh Verma, Anil Katiyar, Gopal Singh, Manish Kumar, Rituraj Biswas, Hemantika Wahi, Janaranjan Das, Swetaketu Mishra, P.P. Nayak, K.K. Mohan, Kamini Jaiswal, D.P. Singh, Naresh K. Sharma, Naresh Kumar, Pradeep Misra, K.N. Madhusoodhanan, R. Sathish Pragyan, P. Sharma, P.V. Yogeswaran S.C. Patel, Sunil Kumar Jain, V. Giri, T.G. Narayanan Nair, G. Prakash, A. Senthil, T.V. Ratnam, Ugra Shankar Prasad, A. Mariarputham, Aruna Mathur, Amarjeet Singh Girsa, R. K. Rathore, Aditya Sharma, Sunita Sharma, D.S. Mahra, Ranjan Mukherjee, S. Bhowmick, S.C. Ghosh, S. Janani, V.G. Pragasam, S.J. Aristotle, Prabu Ramasubramanian, L.A.J. Selvam, Ashok Kumar Singh, D. Bharathi Reddy, Krishnanand Pandey, Vikas Upadhyay, B.S. Banthia, Pradeep Purohit, Khawairakpam Nobin Singh, Radha Shyam Jena, Sanjay R. Hegde, Krutin R. Joshi, Ramesh Mishra, P.I. Jose, B.K. Mishra, Satish C. Joshi, Y. Raja Gopala Rao, Shail Kumar Dwivedi, T. Harish Kumar, P. Prasanth, V. Vasudevan, Vimal Dubey, R. Nedumaran, Manjit Singh, Kamal Mohan Gupta, V.N. Raghupathy, Himinder Lal, Rachana Srivastava, K.N. Choudhary, Manish Goswami, Navneet Kumar, Ashwani Kumar, Rajesh Srivastava, C.D. Singh, Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, P.S. Patwalia, Shail K. Dwivedi, Satish C. Mishra, T.N. Singh, Rajeev K. Dubey, Kamlendra Mishra, Mukul Singh, Shrish Kumar Misra, Ajay Kumar Jha, Suman Yadav, Parekh, T. Mahipal, Sumita Hazarika, Aniruddha P. Mayee, Charudatta Mahendrakar, Rucha A. Mayee, Siddhartha Chowdhury, Vishnu Sharma, Anupama Sharma, Amarjyoti Sharma, T.V. George, Prakash Kumar Singh, Sunil Kumar Verma, Ratnakar Dash, Alka Sinha, Anuvrat Sharma Balaji Srinivasan, Manish Singhvi, Devanshu Kumar Devesh, Milind Kumar Sahil, S. Chauhan, Ajay Pal, Sanjay Kharde, Asha G. Nair, Yatish Mohan, Vinita Y. Mohan, E.C. Vidyasagar, Sunil Fernandes, Sidhant Goel, Renu Gupta, A.D.N. Rao, Neelam Jain, P.K. Jain, Ashok Kr. Sharma, Mukesh Kr. Jain, P.K. Goswami, Mushtaq Ahmad.

Headnote:

Appointments to the post of District – Employment and Service – Evidence - After holding main written examination and interviews candidates in general category including from treated as general category due to his merit and were recommended for appointment - Recommendation of aforesaid candidates were sent by High Court to State Government vide letter dated January for issue of appointment letters – Held, High Court shall hold special main written examination for filling up remaining vacancies - In said examination candidates being total entitled as per category wise selection less who appeared in main written examination but did not qualify would be allowed to appear – Similarly candidates being total entitled as per category wise selection less who appeared in main written examination but did not qualify would be allowed to appear - However since only candidate secured marks in preliminary examination and he was allowed to appear in main written examination there is no other eligible candidate available - High Court shall notify date for special main written examination within two weeks from today which shall be held not later than days thereof - Result of special main written examination shall be published within days of holding examination - Oral interview of successful candidates would be within days of declaration result of special main written examination - Final select list shall be forwarded by High Court to State Government within two weeks of conclusion interviews - State Government shall issue appointment letters to selected candidates within four weeks of receipt recommendations from High Court - If for any reason all vacancies in reserved categories are not filled up as per aforesaid directions they shall be dealt with as per recruitment Rules and Regulations applicable to future recruitments - All promotes direct recruits whose names were recommended by High Court vide its letter dated and candidates to be appointed pursuant to this order shall be treated to have been appointed in same batch and their inter se seniority shall be determined accordingly Higher Judicial Service Rules– Petition disposed of

ORDER :

In Re: State of U.P.

I.A. No. 87 of 2010

1. The application is dismissed.

I.A. Nos. 83 and 84 of 2010

2. Having heard learned counsel for the State, the High Court and the learned Amicus Curiae, with their consent, the applications are disposed of with the following directions, in regard to the appointments to the post of District Judge (direct) for 2009 batch.

3. As per advertisement dated 15.4.2009, at the relevant time, there were 68 vacancies for direct recruits, of which 24 vacancies were for general category, 21 for SC, 2 for ST and 21 for OBC. By applying “category-wises” selection, 420 SC, 40 ST and 209 OBC candidates were eligible to appear in the main written examination. However, only 58 of 209 SC candidates who secured 50% marks were allowed to appear in the main written examination. Similarly 338 of 811 OBC candidates were allowed to appear. Only 1 ST candidate secured 50% in the preliminary examination and he was allowed to appear in the main written examination.

4. After holding the main written examination and the interviews, 24 candidates in general category (including 1 from OBC treated as general category due to his merit) and 10 from OBC were recommended for appointment. Recommendation of the aforesaid 34 candidates were sent by the High Court to the State Government vide letter dated 19th January, 2010, for issue of appointment letters. The State Government shall issue appointment letters to all the 34 candidates recommended by the High Court within four weeks from today.

5. The High court shall now apply the criteria of restricting the main examination to 20 times the number of vacancies subject to minimum of 50% marks in the preliminary examination “category-wise” i.e. separately for SC, ST and OBC categories.

6. The High Court shall hold a special main written examination for filling up the remaining 11 OBC and 21 SC vacancies. In the said examination, 82 OBC candidates [420 being total entitled as per category-wise selection less 338 who appeared in the main written examination but did not qualify] would be allowed to appear. Similarly, 151 SC candidates [209 being total entitled as per category-wise selection less 58 who appeared in the main written examination but did not qualify] would be allowed to appear. However, since only 1 ST candidate secured 50% marks in the preliminary examination and he was allowed to appear in the main written examination; there is no other eligible ST candidate available.

7. The High Court shall notify the date for special main written examination within two weeks from today which shall be held not later than 60 days thereof. The result of the special main written examination shall be published within 60 days of the holding of the examination. Oral interview of the successful candidates would be held within 45 days of the declaration of the result of special main written examination. The final select list shall be forwarded by the High Court to the State Government within two weeks of the conclusion of the interviews.

8. The State Government shall issue appointment letters to the selected candidates within four weeks of the receipt of the recommendations from the High Court.

9. If for any reason all the vacancies in the reserved categories are not filled up as per aforesaid directions, they shall be dealt with as per recruitment Rules and Regulations applicable to the future recruitments.

10. All the 81 promotees, 34 direct recruits whose names were recommended by the High Court vide its letter dated 19th January, 2010 and the candidates to be appointed pursuant to this order shall be treated to have been appointed in the same 2009 batch and their inter se seniority shall be determined accordingly under the U.P. Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975.

11. We reiterate that this order will apply in relation to appointments for the 2009 batch only. Nonetheless, if in the light of these directions, any amendment to the existing Rules is deemed necessary for future recruitments, it w

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top