ANUPAL SINGH AND OTHERS versus STATE OF U.P THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS

Citation: [2019] 12 S.C.R. 1071 · Decided: 30-09-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R. BANUMATHI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · cites 18 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1071
     ANUPAL SINGH AND OTHERS
v.
STATE OF U.P  THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No.4815 of 2019)
SEPTEMBER 30, 2019
 [R. BANUMATHI AND A.S. BOPANNA, JJ.]
Service Law: Selection process – Reservation policy – Post
of Technical Assistant – Appellants as well as private respondents
applied for and appeared in the written examination held in 2014 –
As per U.P. Reservation Act, specific percentages of vacancies were
reserved for different categories – It was brought to notice of State
Government that there was wrongful calculation of category-wise
vacancies in the earlier requisition and, therefore, the earlier
requisition was required to be revised – State Government by order
dated 20.08.2014,  re-worked the vacancies for different
categories of persons and sent the revised requisition for the
vacancies for different categories to UP Public Service
Commission (UPPSC) after adjustment of diploma holders against
‘general category’ – Based on revised requisition, UPPSC declared
the result of written examination, wherein appellants as well as
private respondents were declared successful – Thereafter, UPPSC
issued O.M. dated 12.10.2014 specifically mentioning the number
of  vacancies to be filled up in various categories in
consonance with order dated 20.07.2014 – Successful candidates
appeared in interview on 27.10.2014 and finally result of select list
candidates was declared on 21.05.2015 – Private respondents did
not qualify – Unsuccessful candidates filed writ petitions before
High Court challenging the validity of O.M. 12.10.2014 and the
result declared on 21.05.2015 and praying for quashing the same
and for preparation of result afresh without giving effect to  O.M.
12.10.2014 – The impugned result was also assailed on the ground
that it contravened s.3(1) of UP Reservation Act, 1994 and r.15(3)
of UP Subordinate Agriculture Services Rules, 1993 and also that
the percentage of reservation to SC/ST and OBC categories crossed
the upper limit of 50% – Held: Revised requisition dated 20.8.2014
and OM dated 12.10.2014 was valid since it was only intended to
[2019] 12  S.C.R. 1071
 1071
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1072
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 12 S.C.R.
rectify wrongful calculation of number of vacancies in different
categories and to comply with requisite percentage of quota of
reservation in different categories as per 1994 Act – By virtue of
r.15 and r.6 of UP Subordinate Agriculture Services Rules, 1993
(Agriculture Service Rules, 1993), the Recruitment Authority is
empowered to rectify the wrongful calculation and make a revised
requisition of number of vacancies in different categories which is
in accordance with the provisions of UP Reservation Act, 1994 –
High Court was not right in saying that the diploma holders ought
not to have been absorbed against the “General category” so as to
alter the advertised number of posts against the “General category”
– Absorption of diploma holders were required to be done only
against the “General quota” – Revising the number of vacancies in
different categories to satisfy reservation quota scheme as per UP
Reservation Act, 1994 would not amount to changing the rules of
the game after the commencement of the selection process – Having
participated in the interview and when they failed in the final
selection, it was not open to the private respondents/intervenors to
turn around and challenge the revised notification dated 12.10.2014
and the final select list dated 21.05.2015 – The filling up of the
unfilled horizontal reservation by the candidates from the
respective vertical reservation is in accordance with the policy of
the government and the same cannot be faulted with – Uttar Pradesh
Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes
and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994.
Service law: Selection process – Reservation scheme –
Appointment letter not issued to 906 candidates – Plea to exercise
power under Art.142 of the Constitution of India – The 906
candidates were not issued the appointment orders in order to keep
the appointment within the permissible percentage of reservation
as per UP Reservation Act, 1994 – These 906 candidates who were
left out and were not issued appointment orders were ranked lower
in the merit list than the last selected candidate in their respective
category under the reservation limit as identified by the Personnel
Department, therefore appointment orders were not issued to them
– 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.