JAI NARAIN RAM versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 444 · Decided: 16-11-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
JAi NARAIN RAM 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 16, 1995 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] 
S e1vice law : 
Appointment-Posts rese1ved for S. C. candidates-Public S e1vice Com-
C mission recommending 4 names-No waiting list maintained since there was 
no request from Govemment-All the four selected candidates not joining 
se1vice-Candidate within the next four in the merit list approaching the 
Court-Since his tum could be covered in the four vacancies adve1tised, he 
should be recommended by the Public Se1vice Commission.and appointed 
by the Govemment-Directions issued-Right to appointment-Constitution 
D of lndia-A1ticles 14 and 16. 
E 
An advertisement was issued in 1988 for filling up certain vacancies 
including 15 posts in the Treasury Officers- Accounts Officers in U.P. 
Finance and Accounts Service. Out of the said 15 posts, 4 were reserved 
for Scheduled Caste candidates. The State Public Service Commission 
recommended the names of four candidates. The appellant and. three 
others could not be recommended, as there was no request from the 
Government for keeping a waiting list. The appellant approached the High 
Court for a writ of mandamus or. direction to the Public Service Commis-
sion to recommend his name for appointment in the Accounts Service. The 
F 
High Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner 
was not intimated that he was selected. Aggrieved against the High Court's 
order the appellant preferred the present appeal. 
G 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. It is not in dispute that the appellant is a reserved 
candidate belonging to Scheduled Castes. In view of the admitted position 
that four posts were reserved in the Finance Department and the 4 !)elected 
candidates appeared to ·have not joined the service, it is clear that the 
appellant also is the 4th candidate in the order of merit would have been 
H selected, had there been a requisition by the State Government for appoint-
444 
J.N. RAM v. STATE 
445 
ment of the reserved candidates. (447-B-C] 
1.2. Right to seek appointment to a post under Article 14 read with 
Articles 16(1) and (4) is a constitutional right to equality. The State failed 
to perform its constitutional duty to requisition the P.S.C. to recommend 
the next qualified persons to the posts reserved for Scheduled Castes. 
Under these circumstances, the denial of appointment to the appellant and 
three others above him is unc::mstitutional. Therefore, the respondents are 
not justified in denying the claim of the appellant for appointment to the 
above post. The P.S.C. is, therefore, directed to recommend the name of 
the appellant for appointment in the first category, i..e. Treasury Officers 
and Accounts Officers, within a period of six weeks from the date of the 
receipt of the order and the State is directed to issue order of appointment 
to the appellant within a period of six weeks thereafter. (447-C-F] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 11314 of 
1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.12.92 of the Allahabad High 
Court in Civil Misc. W.P. No. Nil of 1992. 
R.K. Jain, M.A. Rahman and M.R. Bidsar, for the Appellant. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
AB. Rohtagi, R.B. Misra and M.K. Roy for the Respondents. 
E 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the State. F 
For the recruitment in the 15 posts of Treasury Officers- Accounts Officers 
in U.P. Finance and Accounts Services, Sales Tax Officers (6 posts) and 
Regional Audit Officers (4 posts) advertisement was made in 1988. Out of 
15 posts in the Treasury Officers-Accounts Officers in U.P. Finance and 
Accounts Service, 4 posts were reserved for members of the Scheduled 
Castes. It would appear that as a result of Competitive examination con-
G 
ducted by the P.S.C., the last candidate selected for these 4 posts was one 
Anil Kumar Rai who secured 361 marks in written examination and 39 
marks in persc iality test out of 400 marks. The P.S.C. had recommended 
the names of four candidates. As a result, the appellant and three others 
- one Balkesh Singh, Bali Ram Prasad, Amar Singh, who secured 347 + 53 H 
A 
B 
c 
446 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
(total 400 marks), 344 + 56 (total 400 marks), 360 + 39 (total 399 marks) 
and the appellant 351+48 (total 399 marks), could not be recommended, 
as there was no request by the Government for putting them in the waiting 
list. S

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