ANURAG PATEL versus U.P. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 888 · Decided: 29-09-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

>
A 
ANURAG PATEL 
v. 
U.P. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 29, 2004 
B 
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
State of UP.-State Services/Upper Subordinate Services Examination-
c 
Direct recruitment through UPPSC-Reservation-Allocation of inter se 
seniority amongst reserved candidates securing higher rank and selected on 
general merit vis-a-vis the candidates standing lower in merit list but selected 
against reserved vacancies-Government of U.P., Instruction dated 
19.10.1992-Held, in a combined competitive examination held for more 
than one service, each service should be treated separately-Authorities 
D 
concerned should prepare list of reserved category candidates to be appointed 
on general merit as also of those to be appointed as against the reserved 
vacancies and while making appointments the inter se merit of all candidates 
.-i 
belonging to reserved category should be considered and accordingly the 
candidates be given option treating each service separately-The State 
Government would carry out the exercise of reallocation accordingly. 
E 
Ritesh R. Sah v. Dr. Y.L. Yamul & Ors. (1996) 3 SCC 253 and State 
of Bihar & Ors. v. M Neethi Chandra & Ors. (1996) 6 SCC 36, relied on. 
CIVIL APPLLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4 794 of 1998. 
F 
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.4.98 of the Allahabad High 
Court in C.M.W.P. No. 46029 of 1993. 
WITH 
C.A. Nos. 4795/98, 6763 and 6764 of 2~04. 
G 
Rajiv Dutta, R.N. Trivedi, P.N. Misra, T.N. Singh, V.K. Singh, S.N. 
~ 
Singh, Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, Mrs. Deepti, R. Mehrotra, Garvesh Kabra, 
Shail Kumar Dwivedi, G. Venkateshwara Rao, Ms. Shweta Garg, Mohmmad 
Shoeb Alam, Mis. K.L. Mehta & Co., Pradeep Misra, Himanshu Munshi, R.P. 
Gupta, A.S. Pundir, Vibhakar Mishra, Pankaj Kumar and K.L. Janjani for the 
H 
appearing parties. 
888 
... 
ANURAG PATEL v. U.P.S.C. 
889 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted in Special Leave Petition Nos. 24015 of2003 and 2197 
of 2004. 
In the year 1990, the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (for 
short 'the U.P.P.S.C.,) conducted a combined State Services/Upper Subordinate 
Services (Preliminary) Examination for selection to various posts such as 
Deputy Collectors in U.P. Civil (Executive) Services/Dy. Superintendent of 
Police in U.P. Police Services, Treasury Officers/Account Officers in U.P. 
Finance and Accounts Services, Sales Tax Offocers, Asstt. Transport Officers, 
District Supply Officers and various other posts. Pursuant to the advertisement 
made by the U.P.S.C., a large number of candidates appeared for selection 
and the U.P.P.S.C. Published the list of selected candidates in August, 1992. 
Altogether 358 posts in various categories were filled up. The candidates 
belonging to the Backward Classes were entitled to get reservation in 
selection in respect of 57 posts in various categories, out of a total number 
, of 358 posts. The posts in each category of service are filled up by choice 
of the candidate and the person who secured higher position in the merit list 
would opt for U.P. Civil (Executive) Service and those who cannot get the 
higher and important category of service have to be satisfied with posts in 
services of lesser importance. In each category of service posts were reserved 
for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe, Backward Classes and handicapped 
persons etc. The candidates belonging to SC/ST and Backward Classes get 
selected to the seats (posts) earmarked for general candidates. The U.P.S.C. 
treats such candidates in the general category and allot them to various 
services depending upon the rank secured by them in the select list and SC/ 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
ST and B.C. Candidates, who got lower rank in merit lists of general 
F 
candidates would get only posting in lesser important service. However, the 
SC/ST and B.C. Candidates who got selection to the posts reserved in each 
category even though they secured lesser rank in the whole select list would 
get appointed to reserved posts in each category. This mode of appointments 
caused serious injustice to candidates who applied for post in the reserved 
category, yet they got selection to the general seats (posts) as they were 
G 
meritorious and were entitled to get selection along with the general 
candidates. However, their merit and ability did not pay any dividends as they 
got appointment only to lesser important posts. 
The said anomaly is easily discernible from t

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