LexPUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, UTTARANCHAL versus MAMTA BISHT AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[201 OJ 7 S.C.R. 289 PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, UTTARANCHAL v. MAMTA BISHT AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 5987 of 2007) JUNE 03, 2010 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.] Service Law: A B Selection - Of Civil Judge (Junior Division) in the State c of Uttaraf?chal - Reservation policy adopted by the State· - Vertical reservation [i.e. social reservations in favour of SC, ST and OBC under Article 16(4)] and horizontal reservation [i.e. special reservations in favour of physically handicapped, women, etc., under Articles 16(1) or 15(3)] - Application of 0 horizontal (special) reservation in favour of women - Discussed - Extent of difference between horizontal (special) reservation and vertical (social) reservation re-iterated - Constitution of India , 1950 - Articles 15(3) and 16(4). Selection - Select list challenged by unsuccessful E candidate - Writ petition filed - Held: The writ petition could not have been entertained by the High Court since the last selected candidate, -a necessary party, was not impleaded - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Writ petition - 1Non- impleadment of necessary party - Code of Civil Procedure, F 1908 - Orcjer I, Rule IX, proviso. The Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal issued advertisement inviting applications for posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division) with a clarifi(,:ation that the G reservation policy adopted by the State of Uttaranchal i.e. vertical (social) reservation in favour of SC/ST/OBC and horizontal (special) reservation in favour of handicapped, women etc. belonging to Uttaranchal ·would be applicable. 289 H 290 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 7 SC R. A Respondent no.1 applied in pursuance of the said advertisement seeking benefit of horizontal reservation in favour of Uttaranchal women. She qualified in the written examination but was not selected in the interview. 8 Respondent no.1 filed writ petition challenging the select list. The High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the appellants to appoint respondent no.1 as Civil Judge (Junior Division) in the State of Uttaranchal on the ground that horizontal reservation is also to be applied C as vertical reservation in favour of reserved category candidates (social). The High Court held that the last selected woman candidate who was given the benefit of horizontal reservation for Uttaranchal women had secured marks higher than the last selected candidate in general category; that the said candidate ought to have D been appointed against the general category vacancy and respondent no.1 ought to have been offered the appointment giving her the benefit of horizontal .reservation for Uttaranchal women. E The appellants inter a/ia contended before this Court that the writ petition ought to have been dismissed by the High Court for not impleading the necessary parties since not even a single successful candidate was impleaded as a respondent before the High Court. It was further F contended that the High Court had failed to consider the principle that if a reserved category candidate secures more marks than the last selected candidate in general category, then he is to be appointed against the general category vacancy, does not apply while giving the benefit G of horizontal reservation. Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD:1. In case respondent no.1 wanted her selection against the reserved category vacancy, the last H selected candidate in that category was a necessary party PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, UTTARANCHAL v. 291 MAMTA BISHT AND ORS. and withoLft impleading her, the writ petition could not A have been entertained by the High Court. If a person, who is likely to suffer from the order of the Court, has not been impleaded as a party, he has a right to ignore the said order as it has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. Moreso, proviso to Order I, Rule IX of B CPC provides that non-joinder of necessary party be fatal. Though the provisions of CPC are not applicable in writ jurisdiction by virtue of the provision of Section 141 CPC but the principles enshrined therein are applicable. [Paras 7 and 8] [297-B-G] c Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar & Anr: AIR 1963 SC 786; Gulabchand Chhotalal Parikh v. State of Gujarat AIR 1965 SC 1153; Babubhai Muljibhai Patel v. Nandlal, Khodidas Barat & Ors. AIR 1974 SC 2105; Sarguja Transport Service v. State D Tran
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.