Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 760 (ALL)

Hari Ram Yadav v. State of U. P.

2001-07-27

S.R.SINGH

body2001
S. R. SINGH, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri Yatindra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ravi Ranjan, learned Standing counsel representing the respondents. ( 2 ) FORTY three vacancies for the posts of Village Development Officer were advertised vide advertisement dated 31. 8. 1998, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. Petitioner participated in the selection as an other Backward Class candidate and secured 48. 87% marks but was placed in the waiting list of O. B. C. candidates. It would appear that the petitioner preferred representation stating therein that two general category candidates selected did not join the since the petitioner had secured 48. 87% marks, he may be appointed against one of the vacancies resulting due to non-joining of the selected candidates. Since the authorities did not take any decision on the representation, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to forthwith consider his appointment on the post of Village Development Officer on the basis of the merits. ( 3 ) THE matter was earlier heard on 19. 4. 2001 and upon consideration of the argument that the vacancies remaining unfilled due to non-joining of candidates should be filled in by offering appointment to the petitioner, the Court directed the learned Standing Counsel to file supplementary counter-affidavit attaching thereto a copy of the merit list. A supplementary counter-affidavit has been filed by Tej Pratap Mishra, Block Development Officer, Varanasi alongwith which the listed of selected candidates belonging to all categories have been annexed as SCA-1. A perusal of the said list would reveal that the last candidate belonging to general category Pawan Kumar Mishra, had secured 47. 93% marks. The petitioner as stated herein above, had secured 48. 87% marks in the list of candidates selected in the O. B. C. category and he was placed at S. No. 14 in the list of selected candidates belonging to other backward class. ( 4 ) A perusal of the list will indicate that the O. B. C. candidates have secured 57. 41%, 53. 43%, 52. 48%, 51. 80%, 51. 25%, 51. 21%, 50. 89%, 50. 75%, 50. 25%, 49. 83%, 49. 30%, 48. 89%, 48. 89%, 48. 87%, 47. 92%, 47. 92%, 47. 67% and 47. 43% marks while general candidates secured 56. 59%, 54. 98%, 54. 41%, 53. 43%, 52. 48%, 51. 80%, 51. 25%, 51. 21%, 50. 89%, 50. 75%, 50. 25%, 49. 83%, 49. 30%, 48. 89%, 48. 89%, 48. 87%, 47. 92%, 47. 92%, 47. 67% and 47. 43% marks while general candidates secured 56. 59%, 54. 98%, 54. 34%, 53. 87%, 53. 63%, 53. 46%, 53. 27%, 53. 22%, 52. 21%, 51. 92%, 50. 73%, 50. 31%, 49. 64%, 49. 27%, 48. 77%, 48. 70%, 48. 56%, 48. 33%, 48. 32%, 48. 32%, 48. 31%, 48. 18%, 48. 07%, 47. 98% and 47. 93 marks respectively. Sri Ajai Kumar Singh who is at s. No. 1 in the list of general candidates had secured 56. 59 marks whereas Manoj Kumar Yadav had secured 57. 41% marks and yet he has been placed in the list of backward class candidates. Placement of Manoj Kumar Yadav in the list of backward class candidates is in violation of section 4 (6) of U. P. Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes) Act, 1994 (in short U. P. Act No. 4 of 1994) which provides in no uncertain terms that candidates belonging to the reserved category selected on merits would not be counted in the reserved quota. Similarly Mahendra Pratap Singh, Ramjit Ram and Ajai Kumar singh placed at S. Nos. 2, 3 and 4 of the list of backward class candidates too have secured more marks than general candidates, Brijesh Kumar Singh, Anand Kumar Mishra, Bhupendra Kumar singh and Deepak Kumar Sharma and yet they have been placed in the list of backward class candidfates. The entire list, it would appear has been prepared in utter disregard of mandate of section 4 (6) of the U. P. Act No. 4 of 1994. It may be pertinent to mention here that Anand kumar, a Scheduled Caste candidate, had secured 50. 91% marks whereas candidates at S. Nos. 11 to 25 in the list of general category candidates have secured less than 50. 91% marks. In other words Anand Kumar ought to have been placed in the list of general candidates. It may be pertinent to mention here that Anand kumar, a Scheduled Caste candidate, had secured 50. 91% marks whereas candidates at S. Nos. 11 to 25 in the list of general category candidates have secured less than 50. 91% marks. In other words Anand Kumar ought to have been placed in the list of general candidates. It would, thus, appear that the select list has been prepared in utter disregard of the provisions contained in section 4 (6) of the U. P. Act No. 4 of 1994 and it seems that the then District Development officer, Varanasi was totally unaware of the penal consequences visualised by the Act. I have no manner of doubt that had the select list been drawn in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 4 (6) of the Act and the prescribed roster, not only the petitioner but other candidates belonging to reserved category would have selected appointed on merit leaving room for candidates lower in merit for appointment in the reserved quota. That apart, the vacancies occurring due to non-joining of selected candidates ought not to have been filled in by transfer. Such vacancies should have been offered to the wait listed candidates of respective category in order of merit. ( 5 ) ACCORDINGLY the petition succeeds and is allowed. Respondents are directed to offer appointment to the petitioner forthwith and draw a fresh select list in accordance with Section 4 (6) of U. P. Act No. 4 of 1994 and appoint left out persons belonging to the reserved categories by making consequential order, if necessary by termination of services of the persons illegally appointed due to non- compliance of the provisions of the U. P. Act No. 4 of 1994 within a month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. . .