VIVEK SINGH versus STATE OF U.P. & ANR.

Citation: [2016] 4 S.C.R. 276 · Decided: 26-08-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.A. BOBDE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
[2016] 4 S.C.R. 276 
VIVEK SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. & ANR. 
(CivilAppealNo. 10381 of2014) 
AUGUST 26, 2016 
[S.A. BOBDE AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.] 
Service Law - Selection under physically handicapped 
category - Backlog quota - Appellant applied under the physically 
handicapped category, in Combined State/Upper Subordinate Service 
Examination 2001 - His first preference was for the post of Deputy 
Collector and second preference was for the post of Trade Tax Officer 
- Appellant was duly selected - U.P. Public Service Commission 
appointed him as a Trade Tax Officer - Appellant filed writ petition 
seeking post Qf Deputy Collector - Meanwhile in 2011, State 
Government issued requisition for appointment on post of Deputy 
Collector to fill backlog quota for physically handicapped category 
for the year 2001-2002 - Relying on the State Governments 
requisition, appellant modified his prayer - High Court declined relief 
on ground that entire seniority list will get disturbed- Held: Direction 
to accommodate the appellant in selection year 2001-2002 would 
create difficulties in the seniority of those who have been appointed 
every year since then -Appeal accordingly dismissed - Persons with 
Disabilities (Equal Opportunity, Protection of Rights and Full 
Participation) Act, 1995. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Direction to accommodate the appellant in the 
selection year 2001-2002 would create difficulties in the seniority 
of those who have been appointed every year since then, as 
observed earlier some of the Deputy Collectors who have been 
appointed may have got promoted. [Para 12] [280-G] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 10381 
of2014. 
From the Judgment and Order dated I 0.05.2013 of the High Court 
ofJudicature, at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8334 of2004. 
Raju Ramchandran, Sr.Adv., RajivTyagi, Dwakar Kumar, Mythili 
Vijay Kumar Th all am, Vikram Aditya Narayan,Advs. for the Appellant. 
276 
VIVEK SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. & ANR. 
P. N. Misra, Sr. Adv., Ms. Archana Singh, Abhisth Kumar, Shrish 
Kumar Misra, Ad vs. for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S. A. BOBDE, J. I. On 29.01.2001, the U.P. Public Service 
Commission invited applications for filling up 800 posts through the 
Combined State/Upper Subordinate Service Examination 2001 . Amongst 
others the posts to be filled up were Deputy Collector-9 posts, Deputy 
S.P. - 67 posts and Trade Tax Officer- 12 posts. 
2. The appellant applied for selection under the physically 
handicapped category along with the necessary certificate. His first 
preference was for the post of Deputy Collector and second preference 
was for the post of Trade Tax Officer. The appellant was duly selected 
and placed at Sl.No.38 in the overall merit list. The U.P. Public Service 
Commission recommended the appellant's appointment as a Trade Tax 
Officer under the quota reserved for physically handicapped candidates. 
3. The appellant filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court 
praying for appointment on the post of Deputy Collector. However, pending 
the writ petition, he joined as a Trade Tax Officer in November, 2004. 
4. On26.11.2010, in National Federation of the Blind, U.P. Branch 
and others vs. State ofUttar Pradesh & others', the Allahabad High Court 
passed an interim order directing the State Governmentto henceforth not 
fill up any vacancy unless a reservation of3% was provided to physically 
handicapped candidates from the initial stage, i.e., from the stage of 
advertisement itself. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows:-
"As an interim measure, we fi1rther direct that henceforth, the 
State Government or its authorities shall not fill up any vacancy 
falling within the domain of the State Government or its 
instrumentalities unless from the initial stage i.e. from the stage 
of advertisement of posts for recruitment to fill up the posts, 
reservation of 3% under the Act is earmarked and 
simultaneously filled up from open recruitment process. The 
State shall ensure that not only the quota of blind persons but 
also the quota of other categories under the Act shall be filed 
up si111ulta11eously while making recruitment of various posts 
falling under the domain of the State Government and its 
ins trumen ta Ii ti es. 
'Writ Petition No.6047 (MB) of2009 
277 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
278 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 4 S.C.R. 
Accor

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