HIRA LALversusDISTRICT JUDGE, GHAZIABAD & OTHERS

                                                                            739·

                                tURA LAL

                                      v.

           DISTRICT JUDGE, GHAZIABAD & OTHERS

                                April 1l, 1983
              (R.S. PATHAK AND RANGANATH MISRA, JJ.)

      U.P. State SubJrdinate Service-Reservation for Scheduled Castes-
Appointments should be made in acco ·Janee with rost~r prescribed.

       The petitioner, a'member of the Scheduled Castes, secured the 7th            C -
po~ition  in the test and interview held for filling up six vacancies in the post
of stenographer and was not selected for appointment. The State Govern-
ment had, by-an order, directed that 18 per cent of the post~ in the subordi-
nate services should b;! reserved for Scheduled Ca;)te3 whenever recruitment was
to be made through competition and also provided that in the roster register
Of every 25 vacancies, the Jst 7th, 13th, 19th and 25th vacancies should be         n
reserved for Scheduled Castes. The stand taken by the respondents was that
while making selection to the six: vacancies in question, no reservation had been
intended to be made in view of the position that the post of stenographer was
covered under Class 111 service and the total strength of CJass III employee:; as
on the relevant date was 132 and there were as many as 28 among them
belonging to the SchedJled Castes which was more than 21 per cent. The
petitioner contended that the direction regarding reservation should have beeb.     J.;
applied and he should have be~n selected for appointment.

       Allowing the petition,

       HELD : That more than 21 per cent of the posts in Grade II[ service
 were beiog manned by people belonging to -scheduled Caste> at the relevant         F
 time is no anS.\'er to the prescription of the roster. It is not known whether
 some of the recruits of earlier years already in service belonging to the
 Scheduled Castes had come on the basis of overall merit:without reference to
 reservation. When six vacancies were being filled up at a time in one yeai,
 if the roster was to be followed, one of the po~ts would indisputably have
 gone to the candidate of the Scheduled Castes. As per the roster, the petitioner
·was entitled to be appointed against the first vacancy. [731 E-H; 742-A]           G
       ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 4007 of 1982

       (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)
                                                                                    H
       R.K. Jain for the Petitioner.

       Prithvi Raj and Mrs. S. Dikshit for the Respondent.
       740                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [198312 s.c.R.

             The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
  A
            RANGANATH MISRA, J. Petitioner, who offered himseli as a
   · cand;date for one of the posts of Stenographer in Hindi, in the estab-
     lishment~of District Judge.at Ghaziabad in tbe State of Uttar Pradesh,
     has come with this petition u_nder Article 32 alleging the violation
 B of his fundamental _rights enshrined in Arts. 14 and 16 of the Con·
     stitution. He has pleaded that he is a member of the scheduled castes
     and the State Government by a general order in March, 1965 had direc-
     ted that "in services subordinate to U.P. Government for recruitment
     through competition" 18'/;, of the posts should be reserved for members
     of the scheduled castes. He further alleged that when six vacancies
 C in the post of Stenographer in Hindi were advertised to be filled up
     and he offered himself as a candidate, he was examined in shorthand
     test on April 17, 1982, and was shown in the third place in the list
    of successful candidates published on April 24, 1982 and was called
    to an interview on May I, 1982. According to.him, in the final list
 D of successful candidates his position was shown as no. 7 and, there-
    fore, he was not selected. He complains that he was downgraded
    from the third place without justification, and if the Government
    order of reservation of 18% had been kept in view, he should have
    been selected even if he secured the seventh place in the merit list.
                                                                                ,
 E      In the return to the rule, the Additional District Judge of
    Ghaziabad has indicated that the petitioner had secured eighth place
    in shorthand test and his name figured as no. 3 in the list
    of sucessful candidates as it has been drawn up in alphabetical
   ·order. At the interview he improved his position and was ultimately
 F shown as no. 7. In the selection no reservation had been intended
    to be made in view of the position that the post of Stenographer is
    covered under Class III service and t!ie total strength of Class III
    employees in the judgeship of Ghaziabad as on May 1, 1982, was 132
    and there were as many as 28 among them belonging to the scheduled
    castes which came to more than 21%-3% above the reservation.
 G An assertion was made that the process of recruitment had been fair
    and bona fide.

            A rejoinder bas been filed by the petitioner accepting the
      position that "the written test and the interview were done without
'11
      any "ma/a fide" but reiterating the contention that direction regarding
      reservation should have been applied and the petitioner appointed
      on selection.
           Hil\A v. DISTT. JUDGE GHAZIABAD (Ranganath Misra, J.)        741

          It is not the case of the answering respondent that reservation
    indicated in Government order of 1965 was not applicable to the             A
    relevant recruitment and the assertion of the petitioner that in the
    previous years provision of reservation was implemented has also not
    been disputed. The scheme in the Government order contemplates a
     roster ·register for every 25 vacancies and prescribes the following
    mode:
                                                                                B
         (1) 1 reserved for scheduled castes,

~        (2) 2-6 unreserved.
A         (3) 7 reserved for scheduled castes.                                  c
          (4) 8-12 unreserved.

          (5) 13 reserved for scheduled. castes.

          (6) 14· l 8 unreserved.                                               D
          (7)   19 reserved for scheduled castes.

          (8) 20-24 unreserved.

          (9)   25 reserved for scheduled castes.                               E
          Paragraph 2 of the Government order states : "if in any
>   particular year there are only two vacancies, no more than one
    should be considered reserved and if there is only one, that should
    be considered unreserved; the reservation shall be valid up to
    three years". When six vacancies were being filled up at a time in          F
    one year, if the roster was to be followed, one of the posts would
    indisputably have gone to the candidate of the scheduled castes.
    The stand taken in the counter-affidavit that more than 21% of the
    posts in the Grade III cadre of the judgeship were being manned by
    the people belonging of the scheduled castes at the relevant time is no     G
    answer to the prescription of the roster. It is not known whether
    some of the recruits of earlier years already in service belonging to the
    scheduled castes had come on the basis of overall merit without
    reference to reservation.
                                                                                H
           On this premise, if the provision of reservation had to be kept
    in view, the petitioner was bound to have been recruited. We allow
      )le petition. As per the roster, be was entitl~d to be appointed
    742                   SUPRBMB C:OuRT REPORTS          (1983] 2 s.c.R.

    against the first vacancy. We, therefore, direct the appointing
A   anthority to appoint the petitioner in that vacancy .and five out of
    the six who are respondents 3 to 8 before us. according to their
    position in final merit list shall be retained.

          We make no order as to costs.

    H.L.C.                                            Petition allowed.




                                                                            ,