Holding

The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s direction to reallocate posts among reserved‑category candidates based on inter‑se merit, treating each service separately, is correct and the appeals are dismissed.

Summary

In 1990 the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission conducted a combined State Services/Upper Subordinate Services examination for 358 posts, of which 57 were reserved for Backward Classes. The Commission allocated reserved‑category candidates to posts without giving due consideration to their inter‑se merit, resulting in higher‑ranked BC candidates being placed in general‑category posts while lower‑ranked BC candidates received reserved posts, causing injustice. The Allahabad High Court directed that a separate list of all selected BC candidates be prepared and that appointments be made strictly according to merit within each service, treating each service separately. The State and the affected officers appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that reallocation would disturb settled appointments and cause hardship. Relying on precedents (Ritesh R. Sah v. Dr. Y.L. Yamul & Ors., 1996 3 SCC 253 and State of Bihar v. M. Neethi Chandra, 1996 6 SCC 36), the Court upheld the High Court’s direction, held that the inter‑se merit principle must be applied, and dismissed the appeals, ordering the reallocation to be completed within three months.

Issues considered

Whether the allocation of reserved‑category candidates in a combined examination must be made on the basis of inter‑se merit and by treating each service separately.
Whether the High Court's order directing reallocation of posts among reserved‑category candidates is legally valid despite the appointments already made.
Whether the principle of reservation under the Constitution permits displacement of already appointed officers for the purpose of correcting the merit‑based allocation.

Subjects

reservationinter se meritpublic service commissionallocation of postscombined examinationbackward classesreallocationservice lawUttar Pradesh

Judgment

>
A ANURAG PATEL
v.
U.P. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND ORS.

SEPTEMBER 29, 2004

B [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.]

Service Law:

State of UP.-State Services/Upper Subordinate Services Examination-
Direct recruitment through UPPSC-Reservation-Allocation of inter se
c seniority amongst reserved candidates securing higher rank and selected on
general merit vis-a-vis the candidates standing lower in merit list but selected
against reserved vacancies-Government of U.P., Instruction dated
19.10.1992-Held, in a combined competitive examination held for more
than one service, each service should be treated separately-Authorities
concerned should prepare list ofreserved category candidates to be appointed
D
on general merit as also of those to be appointed as against the reserved
vacancies and while making appointments the inter se merit ofall candidates
.-i
belonging to reserved category should be considered and accordingly the
candidates be given option treating each service separately-The State
Government would carry out the exercise of reallocation accordingly.
E
Ritesh R. Sah v. Dr. Y.L. Yamul & Ors. (1996) 3 SCC 253 and State
of Bihar & Ors. v. M Neethi Chandra & Ors. (1996) 6 SCC 36, relied on.

CIVIL APPLLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4 794 of 1998.

F From the Judgment and Order dated 15.4.98 of the Allahabad High
Court in C.M.W.P. No. 46029 of 1993.

WITH

C.A. Nos. 4795/98, 6763 and 6764 of 2~04.
G
Rajiv Dutta, R.N. Trivedi, P.N. Misra, T.N. Singh, V.K. Singh, S.N. ~

Singh, Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, Mrs. Deepti, R. Mehrotra, Garvesh Kabra,
Shail Kumar Dwivedi, G. Venkateshwara Rao, Ms. Shweta Garg, Mohmmad
Shoeb Alam, Mis. K.L. Mehta & Co., Pradeep Misra, Himanshu Munshi, R.P.
Gupta, A.S. Pundir, Vibhakar Mishra, Pankaj Kumar and K.L. Janjani for the
H appearing parties.
888
ANURAG PATEL v. U.P.S.C. 889

The following Order of the Court was delivered : A

Leave granted in Special Leave Petition Nos. 24015 of2003 and 2197
of 2004.

In the year 1990, the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (for
short 'the U.P.P.S.C.,) conducted a combined State Services/Upper Subordinate
B
Services (Preliminary) Examination for selection to various posts such as
Deputy Collectors in U.P. Civil (Executive) Services/Dy. Superintendent of
Police in U.P. Police Services, Treasury Officers/Account Officers in U.P.
Finance and Accounts Services, Sales Tax Offocers, Asstt. Transport Officers,
District Supply Officers and various other posts. Pursuant to the advertisement c
made by the U.P.S.C., a large number of candidates appeared for selection
and the U.P.P.S.C. Published the list of selected candidates in August, 1992.
Altogether 358 posts in various categories were filled up. The candidates
belonging to the Backward Classes were entitled to get reservation in
selection in respect of 57 posts in various categories, out of a total number
D
, of 358 posts. The posts in each category of service are filled up by choice
of the candidate and the person who secured higher position in the merit list
would opt for U.P. Civil (Executive) Service and those who cannot get the
higher and important category of service have to be satisfied with posts in
services of lesser importance. In each category of service posts were reserved
for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe, Backward Classes and handicapped E
persons etc. The candidates belonging to SC/ST and Backward Classes get
selected to the seats (posts) earmarked for general candidates. The U.P.S.C.
treats such candidates in the general category and allot them to various
services depending upon the rank secured by them in the select list and SC/
ST and B.C. Candidates, who got lower rank in merit lists of general F
candidates would get only posting in lesser important service. However, the
SC/ST and B.C. Candidates who got selection to the posts reserved in each
category even though they secured lesser rank in the whole select list would
get appointed to reserved posts in each category. This mode of appointments
caused serious injustice to candidates who applied for post in the reserved

... category, yet they got selection to the general seats (posts) as they were
meritorious and were entitled to get selection along with the general
G

candidates. However, their merit and ability did not pay any dividends as they
got appointment only to lesser important posts.

The said anomaly is easily discernible from the following facts : H
890 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A The 3rd respondent i.e. Rajesh Kumar Chaurasia in C.A. No. 4784/98,
who secured 76th place in the select list, filed a Civil Miscellaneous Writ
Petition No. 46029 of 1993 before the High Court of Allahabad contending
that he was appointed as a Sales Tax Officer, although the appellant in C.A.
No. 4794/95 i.e. Nanlrn Ram (Anurag Patel) who was also a Backward Class
candidate, was appointed as a Deputy Collector, who according to the 3rd
B respondent, had secured 97th rank in the select list, a rank lower than him.
Similarly, 8 persons all belonging to Backward Classes, who find their name
in the select list filed writ petition No. 22753 of 1993 alleging that they were
entitled to get postings in higher cadre of service as the persons who secured
lower rank in the select list were given appointment to higher posts. The first
c petitioner in the writ petition i.e. Shri Rama Snaker Maurya and the 2nd
petitioner i.e. Shri Abdul Samad were at serial Nos .13 and 14 in the select
list. According to these petitioners, persons lower in rank who got appointment
in the reserve category were given postings on the ground that those posts
were earmarked for being appointed in Class II services.
D
The petitioners in these writ petitions contended that the authorities,
while making appointments, had not strictly followed the instructions issued
by the government. When the selection was made some of the candidates, .
who belonged to the backward classes, got selection in the general category
and while making appointments, these candidates for selection to the open
E merit quota were treated as general candidates and they were appointed on
the basis of the rank list prepared in the merit. As against the reserved quota,
only those candidates who had obtained the reservation and got entry to the
selection were appointed. For example, in the case ofU.P. Civil (Executive) .
Services there were altogether 20 posts, out of which 10 posts were to be
filled up by the general category candidates, 4 posts by the Scheduled Caste
F
candidat.es, 2 posts for Army displaced persons/handicapped/Emergency
commissioned/short service commissioned officers/Ex-Army men, one post
of the dependents of freedom fighters of U.P. and 3 posts for the candidates
belonging to backward classes. This being that top most post coming under
the selection, the authorities should have filled up the post according to the
G instruction issued by the government on 19th October, 1992. The instruction
was to the following effect :

"Allocation/section of the candidates successful in the combined
examinations held for more than one service ought to be made
H treating each service separately. If any candidate belonging to
ANURAG PATEL v. U.P.S.C. 891

reserved category, succeeds on merits, without availing himself/ A
herself of the facility of relaxation in norms and exemption in age
limit prescribed for the general candidates, on the basis of his
preference, he will not be adjusted against the vacancy/post of the
reserved quota. On the contrary, if any candidate belonging to the
reserved category, finds place in the selection list, after having B
availed himself/herself of the facility of relaxation in norms and
exemption in age limit prescribed for the general candidates, on the
basis of his preference, he ought to be adjusted against the vacancy/
post of the reserved quota."

It seems, the U.P.P.S.C. recommended the candidates, as regards the first C
category i.e. U.P. Civil (Executive) Services as follows, namely :

First l 0 candidates were appointed on the open merit and thereafter
three seats which were reserved for backward classes were filled up by
O.B.C. Candidates, who secured rank Nos. 38, 62 and 97. The rank list
D
prepared by the U.P.P.S.C. shows that as many as 9 candidates had secured
higher rank than the candidate No. 38, namely, Shri Ashok Chandra who got
appointment as Deputy Collector and as against candidate Shri Ramesh
Chandra Yadav, who got appointment as Deputy Collector, secured only
62nd place in the select list and there were 15 candidates belonging to
backward classes were above him in the rank list. So also the 97th rank holder E
who was the petitioner in the writ petition before the High Court and the
present appellant in C.A. No. 4794 of 1998 also get appointment as Dy.
Collector and there were several other backward class candidates in the merit
list, who secured higher marks in the selection. This anomaly happened as
the candidates above who secured higher marks than the 3rd respondent were F
adjusted against the vacancies that arose in the general category for various
other posts such as Treasury Officers/Account Officers in U.P. Finance and
Accounts Services, Sales Tax Officers, Asstt. Transport Officers, District
Supply Officers etc. The authorities should have prepared the candidates who
are to be appointed on general merit as also candidates who are to be
appointed as against the reserved vacancies and while making appointments G

- the inter se merit of the reserved candidates should have been considered and
they must have been given the option treating each service separately. As this
exercise was not followed, less meritorious candidates got appointment to
higher posts whereas more meritorious candidates had to be satisfied with
posts of lower category. H
892 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A In the matter of admission to the medical college, the same difficulty
was experienced and this Court held in Ritesh R. Sha v. Dr. Y.L. Yamul &
Ors., [1996] 3 SCC 253, in paragraph 17 of the judgment at page 261 as
follow.~:

" ..... .In view of the legal position enunciated by this Court in the
B aforesaid cases the conclusion is irresistible that a student who is
entitled to be admitted on the basis of merit though belonging to a
reserve category cannot be considered to be admitted against seats
reserved for reserved category. But at the same time the provisions
should be so made that it will not work out to the disadvantage of
c such candidate and he may not be placed at a more disadvantageous
position than the other less meritorious reserved category candidates.
The aforesaid objective can be achieved if after finding out the
candidates from amongst the reserved category who would otherwise
come in the open merit list and then asking their option for
admission into the different colleges which have been kept reserved
D
category candidates should be considered and they be allotted .seats
in whichever colleges the seats should be available. In other words,
while a reserved category candidate entitled to admission on the
basis of his merit will have the option of taking admission in the
colleges where a specified number of seats have been kept reserved
E for reserved category but while computing the percentage of
reservation he will be deemed to have b.een admitted as an open
category candidate and not as a reserved category candidate."

The same question was considered by this Court in State of Bihar & Ors.
v. M Neethi Chandra & Ors., [1996] 6 SCC 36, wherein it was held in
F paragraph 13 as follows :

" ......... However, to the extent the meritorious among them are
denied the choice of college and subject which they could secure
under the rule of reservation, the circular cannot be sustained. The
G circular, therefore, can be given effect only ifthe reserved category
· candidate qualifying on merit with general candidates consents to
being considered as a general candidate on merit-cum-choice basis
for allotment of college/institution and subject."

In the instant case, as noticed earlier, out of 8 petitioners in writ petition No.
H 22753/93, two of them who had secured ranks 13 and 14 in the merit list,
ANURAG PATEL v. U.P.S.C. 893

were appointed as Sales Tax Officer-II whereas the persons who secured rank A
Nos. 38, 72 and 97, ranks lower to them, got appointment as Deputy
Collectors and the Division Bench of the High Court held that it is a clear
injustice to the persons who are more meritorious and directed that a list of
all selected backward class candidates shall be prepared separately including
those candidates selected in the general category and their appointments to B
the posts shall be made strictly in accordance with merit as per the select list
and preference of a person higher in the select list will be seen first and
appointment given accordingly, while preference of a person lower in the list
will be seen only later. We do not think any error or illegality in the direction
issued by the Division Bench of the High Court.
c
Mr. R.N. Trivedi, learned senior counsel appearing for the Commission
submitted that in case any rearrangement is made, the sam~ persons who had
already been appointed are likely to lose their posts. Going by the counter
statement filed by the State in the writ petition No. 22753193 it appears that
altogether 358 candidates were appointed and 47 candidates belonging to D
backward classes were filled up by posts earmarked for backward classes.
Amongst the 358 candidates those who secured higher marks than the cut-
off mark for the general category also must have got selection in the general ·
category even though they belong to the backward classes. If these candidates
who got selection in the general category are allowed to exercise preference
and then appointed accordingly the candidates who were appointed in the E
reserved categories had to be pushed down in their posts and the vacancies
thus left by the general category candidates belonging to backward classes
could be filled up by the persons who are really appointed against the quota
reserved for backward classes. There will not be any change in the total
number of posts filled up either by the general category candidates or by the F
reserved category candidates.

Learned senior counsel for the Commissioner further pointed out that
all these officers have been working against the posts since the last I I years
and that many of these affected parties were not made parties to the writ
petition and if any reallocation of posts is made at this distance of time it G
will cause injustice to the affected parties. It is also pointed out by the
respondent's ·counsel that in the writ petition filed by one Amrendra Pratap
Singh i.e. writ petition No. 32346 before the Allahabad High Court, an
interim order was passed in favour of the petitioner therein and the Division
Bench directed that the appointment would be subject to the result of the writ H
894 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
·..
A petition and this order continued for some period and all the candidates were
informed that their appointments would be subject to the result of the writ
petition. Although that writ petition under review WflS dismissed, the
candidates who were appointed were aware of the proceedings pending
before the High Court. By the impugned order the High Court only directed
B reallocation of the J?OSts according to the merit prepared in the select list. The
decision rendered ih writ petition No. 46029of1993 dated 15tl1 April, 1998
was followed in the decision in writ petition No. 22753 of 1993.

In the circumstances, we do not find any merit in these appeals. The
appeals are dismissed accordingly. However, the State is directed to carry out
c the exercise of reallocation within a period of three months. The affected
officers shall be given reasonable opportunity ofbeing heard and to the extent
possible the. State sh.all give accommodation to such officers.

R.P. Appeals dismissed.

.
.

\