STATE OF U.P. AND ANR. versus PAWAN KUMAR TIWARI AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] 1 S.C.R. 21 · Decided: 04-01-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI, G.P. MATHUR, A.K. MATHUR · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF U.P. AND ANR. 
A 
V. 
PAWAN KUMAR TIWARI AND ORS. 
JANUARY 4, 2005 
[R.C. LAHOTI, CJ., G.P. MATHUR AND A.K. MATHUR, JJ.) 
B 
Service Law: 
Reservation-Judicial service in State of UP.-Allocation of seats to 
reserved and general categories-Rounding off-Held, if part is one-half or C 
more, its value shall be increased to one, if part is less than half its value shall 
be ignored-If reservation exceeds 50%, it would be unconstitutional-
Doctrine-Rule of rounding off. 
In the State of Uttar Pradesh, 93 posts of Civil Judge (Junior D 
Division) were to be filled up. According to prescribed percentage of 
reservation 46.50 posts in the general category were to be filled up. But 
only 46 candidates in the general category were selected whereas 47 
candidates in various reserved categories were selected. The writ petition 
filed by respondent No. I, a general category candidate, having been 
allowed by the High Court, the State Government filed the present appeal. E 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. The High Court was right in holding that the figure of 
46.50 in the general category should have been rounded off to 47, and 
inserting the 3 posts reserved for freedom fighters and ex-servicemen into F 
general quota had the effect of pushing out of selection zone 3 candidates 
from merit list of general category. (23-C-D[ 
2. Besides, out of the total number of 93 vacancies, reserved seats 
could not be more than 46 otherwise the reservation would exceed 50% 
which would be unconstitutional. (24-A] 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4079 of2004. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.8.2003 of the Allahabad High 
Court in C.M.W.P. No. 38940 of 1999. 
21 
H 
22 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2005) 1 S. C.R. 
A 
Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, Garvesh Kabra and Mrs. Deepti Mehrotra for 
the Appellants. 
Lakshmi Raman Singh and Shail Kr. Dwivedi, for the Respondent No. I. 
Mrs. Shobha Dikshit, Rajeev Kr. Dubey and Kamlendra Mishra for the 
B Respondent No. 2. 
The .Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
R.C. LAHOTI, CJ. In the year 1997 the State Public Service 
Commission, pursuant to the requisition made by the State Government on 
C the advice of the High Court of Uttar Pradesh, advertised 93 posts of Civil 
Judge (Junior Division) in the Uttar Pradesh Judicial Service. Keeping in 
view the provision for reservation mandated by the U.P. Public Service 
(Reservation for Physically Handicapped, Dependants of Freedom Fighters 
and Ex-Servicemen) Act, 1993 and U.P. Public Service (Reservation for 
D Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994, 
certain posts were reserved. To the extent of the percentage of reservation, 
as contemplated by the two Acts, mentioned above, there is no controversy. 
The controversy centres around the application of percentage as against the 
total number of posts. 
E 
The percentages of reservation, as applicable and as was actually applied, 
are set out in the following table: 
Category 
Percentage 
Percentage 
Number of 
(prescribed) 
worked out to 
Posts 
F 
reserved 
General 
50% 
46.50 
46 
Scheduled 
21% 
19.53 
20 
Castes 
Other 
27% 
25.11 
26 
G 
Backward 
Classes 
Scheduled 
2% 
1.86 
Tribes 
H 
The respondent belongs to general category. 46 selected candidates in 
STATE v. P.K. TIWARI [LAHOTI. CJ.] 
23 
' 
general category were appointed. There were 3 candidates in the waiting list. A 
?. 
The respondent was at the top of the waiting list. He was denied appointment. 
Feeling aggrieved the respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court 
which has been allowed. A writ of mandamus has been issued by the High 
Court directing the appellants herein to issue a letter of appointment to the 
respondent. The State has filed this appeal by special leave. 
B 
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties we are satisfied that 
the appeal is devoid of any merit. 
The High Court has found mainly two faults with the process adopted 
by the State Government. First, the figure of 46.50 should have been rounded c 
off to 47 and not to 46; and secondly, in the category of freedom fighters and 
ex-servicemen, total 3 posts have been earmarked as horizontally reserved by 
inserting such reservation into general quota of 46 posts which had the effect 
of pushing out of selection zone three candidates from merit list of general 
category. 
D 
We do not find fault with any of the two reasonings adopted by the 
' 
High Court. The rule of rounding off based
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.