PREM PRAKASH versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1985] 1 S.C.R. 564 · Decided: 22-08-1984 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, A. VARADARAJAN, AMARENDRA NATH SEN · Disposal: Case Allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
n 
E 
F 
G 
H 
S64 
PREM PRAKASH 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
August 22, 1984 
[Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, C.J., A. VARADARAJAN AND 
AMARENDRA NATH SEN, JJ.] 
Delhi Judicial Service Rul.!s 1970-Vacancfes reserved for Scheduled 
Castes and Scheduled Tribes-Errors in calculating reserved l'Dcancies-If 
would prejudicially affect regularly selected Scheduled Caste 
candidate~. 
Delhi Judicial Service Rules, 1970-R.iles not amended pursuant ta 
the Adminfatrative instructions-Whether the Administrative instructions can 
pre1ail over the Rules-Whether Rules and Ad1nlnistra1ive InstructiOns can 
be read together if there is no fn,;onsistency between the two. 
Rule 18 of the Delhi Judicial Service Rules, 1970 (for short, the 
Rules) says that the Selection Committee shall prepare a list of candidates 
in order of merit and forward it to the Administrator for 
filling the 
vacancies then existing or any vacancy that may occur within a period of 
one year of the preparation of the list. 
Rule 28 of th~ Rules lays down 
that appointments made to the Service by competitive examination shall 
be subject to order regarding special representation in the :Servict: for 
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes issued by the Central Government 
from time to time. 
Paragraph 2.1 of the Brochure on "Reservation for 
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in Service:>" issued by the Central 
Government requires 
that 
15 per cent of the total vacancies arc to 
be reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates and 7! for Scheduled Tribe 
candidates. 
Paragraph 4.2 of the Brochure prescribes that the actual 
number of vacancies to be reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled 
Tribes in any recruitment should be determined on the basis of points in 
the roster and also taking into account the reservations brought Forward 
from the p'revious year. 
On 8th February, 1982, the GoVernment of India issued a Notification 
declaring that there would be no limit on the period or validity of the list 
of selected candidates prepared to the extent of declared Vacancies either 
by the method of direct recruitment or through a deparltnental competitive 
examination and that once a person is declared successful according to the 
merit list of selected candidates which is based on the declared number of 
vacancies, the appointing authority has the responsibility to appoint him 
even if the number of vacancies undergoes a change after his name has 
beed included in the list of selected .candidates. 
• 
• 
• 
• 
.. • 
• 
• 
PREM PRAkASfi v. UNION 
565 
In 1980, Respondent No. 3, High Court of Delhi notified 16 
A 
vacancies of Sub-Judges for being filled through competitive examination 
in the Delhi Judicial S...:rvice· 11 vacancies were for open candidates, 2 for 
Scheduled Castes and 3 for Scheduled Tribes which included two carried 
forward vacancies also. 
The carried forward vacancies were interchange· 
able in the sense that if candidates from Scheduled Tribes were not avai· 
]able, the vacancies could be added to the quota reserved for Scheduled 
Castes. 
The petitioners, Dal Chand Anand and Prem Prakash, wi.J.o were 
B 
members of Scheduled Caste secured 10th and 1 lth position respectively in 
the merit list of 11 candidates who qualified the examination and vivavoce 
test held in pursuance of the above notification. 
They were Serial No. 3 
Scheduled Caste c<indidates. 
Since the petitioners did not figure in the final 
1ist of - candidates selected by the Administrator, Respondent No, 2, they 
filed present writ petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution to challenge 
their exclusion and non-appointment. 
C 
Respondent No. 3 contended (1) that the petitioners were excluded 
from the selections of 1980, on account of the fact that only 11 candidates 
qualified in the examination of which 7 were geµcral canidates and there· 
fore as against 7 general candidates only 1 Schedule Caste candidate could 
be appointed; and (ii) That though the petitioners were in the merit list 
of 11 persons for the year 1980, they could not be appointed as Sub-
Judges because two Scheduled Caste candidates who were wrongly excluded 
from the re.served appointments of 1979 had to be accommodated in the 
merit list of 1980 and after adjusting them against the reserved vacancies 
of J 980, no reserved vacancies were lf"ft for the petitioners. 
Allowing the Writ Petitions, 
HELO : (1) 
The error from which the calculation of the High 
Court suffers is that the number of vacanci
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.