LexALOK KUMAR PANDIT versus STATE OF ASSAM & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2012] 11 S.C.R. 87 ALOK KUMAR PANDIT v. STATE OF ASSAM & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 8499 of 2012) NOVEMBER 26, 2012 [G.S. SINGHVI AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] Service Law: A B Reservation - Option of choice/preference on selection c - Reserve category candidate securing higher position on merit than general category candidates - Option of choice/ preference against posts eannarked for reserved category - Held: A reserved category candidate who is adjudged more meritorious than open category candidates is entitled to 0 choose the particular service/cadre/post as per his choice/ preference and he cannot be compelled to accept appointment to an inferior post leaving the more important service/cadre/post in the reserved category for less meritorious candidate of that category - On his appointment E to the service/cadre/post of his choice/preference, the reserved category candidate cannot be treated as appointed against the open category post.• State of Bihar v. M. Neethi Chandra 1996 (5) Suppl. SCR 696 = (1996) 6 SCC 36; Anurag Patel v. U.P. Public F Service Commission 2004 (4) Suppl. SCR 888 = (2005) 9 sec 742 - relied on Union of India v. Ramesh Ram 2010 (6) SCR 698 = (2010) 7 sec 234 - followed G Indra Sawhney v. Union of India 1992 (2) Suppl. SCR 454 = 1992 Supp. (3) SCC 217; R. KS abharwal v. State of Punjab 1995 (2) SCR 35 =(1995) 2 SCC 7 45; Ritesh 87 H 88 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 11 S.C.R. A R. Sah v. Dr. Y. L. Yamul 1996 (2) SCR 695 = (1996) 3 SCC 253; Union of India v. Ramesh Ram (2009) 6 SCC 619; Union of India v. Satya Prakash 2006 (3) SCR 789 = (2006) 4 SCC 550; and M. Nagaraj v. Union of India 2006 (7) Suppl. SCR 336 = (2006) 8 SCC 212 - referred to. B c D E Case Law Reference: 1996 (5) Suppl. SCR 696 relied on para 9 2004 (4) Suppl. SCR 888 relied on para 9 2010 (6) SCR698 followed para 9 1992 (2) Suppl. SCR 454 referred to para 10 1995 (2) SCR 35 referred to para 10 1996 (2) SCR 695 referred to para 15 2009 (6) sec 619 referred to para 16 2006 (3) SCR 789 referred to para 18 2006 (7) Suppl. SCR 336 referred to para 18 C!VIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 8499 of 2012. From the Judgment & Order dated 17 .8.2010 of the High Court of Guwahati at Guwahati in Writ Petition No. 1040 of F 2010. Ravi C. Prakash, Purushottam Sharma Tripathi for the Appellant. G Avijit Roy, Manish Goswami for the Respondents. The following order of the Court was delivered ORDER H 1. Leave granted. ALOK KUMAR PANDIT v. STATE OF ASSAM & ORS. 89 2. The questions which arise for consideration in this A appeal filed against the order of the Division Bench of the Guwahati High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant for quashing the selection made by the Assam Public Service Commission (for short, 'he Commission') are whether a candidate of reserved category, who is adjudged more B meritorious than open/general category candidates, is entitled to be appointed in the service/cadre/post of his choice/ preference against the post earmarked for the reserved category to which he belongs and whether while computing the quota/percentage of reservation, such candidate should be c treated to have been allotted a post in the open category. 3. On a requisition received from the State Government, the Commission issued advertisement No.6/2006 dated 10.8.2006 for 116 posts of Assam Civil Service Class-I (Junior Grade), Assam Police Service (Junior Grade), Labour Officer, D Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Inspector of Labour, Inspector of Taxes and Inspector of Excise. These included 11 backlog posts of reserved categories of Scheduled Castes, S1.,heduled Tribes (P) and Scheduled Tribes (H). The appellant, who belongs to OBC applied for recruitment against E the advertised posts. After clearing the preliminary and final examination, the appellant was called for interview. The list of selected candidates was published by the Commission on 15.6.2009. F 4. As the appellant's name did not figure in the merit list, he submitted an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 for supply of the details of marks awarded to him in various papers and interview. Vide reply dated 16.7.2009, the Commission informed the appellant that he had secured 840 G marks (669 in the main examination and 141 in the interview). The appellant then filed Writ Petition No.3590/2009 for quashing the entire s
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.