Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1673 (ALL)

LALTA PRASAD v. STATE OF U. P.

2002-11-14

M.KATJU, RAKESH TIWARI

body2002
M. KATJU, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition had initially been filed directing respondents to appoint the petitioner as backward Class candidate to the post of Sub-Registrar on the basis of the U. P. Combined state/upper Subordinate Services Examination, 1990, conducted by the respondents. By an amendment application, the petitioner challenged the order dated 27/30. 11. 2000 passed by the respondent No. 1 rejecting the representation of the petitioner. The petitioner claimed to be a backward Class candidate. The U. P. Public Service Commission issued an advertisement dated 6/12. 1. 1990, Annexure-1 to the writ petition advertising several posts in the pay scale of Rs. 1,640-2,900. The categories of the post are mentioned in para 3 of the writ petition. ( 2 ) IT has been alleged in para 5 of the petition that the petitioner duly appeared in the aforesaid combined State Services Upper Subordinate Service Examination as Backward Class candidate. The written examination was held in the month of April/may, 1991. The petitioner claimed that he was declared successful in the written examination against the vacancy reserved for backward Class candidate. He was also directed to appear before the Interview Board on 2. 7. 1992 vide letter dated 27. 5. 1992, Annexure-2 to the petition. The final result was declared on 10. 8. 1992 vide Annexure-3. The name of the petitioner was not mentioned in the list of selected candidates. He has alleged that his name is in the waiting list for the post of Sub-Registrar. In para 10 of the petition, it is stated that three candidates belonging to Backward Class were allocated Sub- Registrar posts, namely, Umesh Kumar, Lal Sahab Yadav and Chhedi Lal Yadav. In para 11, it is stated that 15% posts were liable to be reserved for Backward Class candidates. It is also alleged that four posts of Sub-Registrar for Backward Class candidates were available but the respondents have advertised only 3 posts of Sub-Registrar for Backward Class candidates. The petitioner made representation dated 12. 1. 1995 which is Annexure-4 to the writ petition. It is alleged in para 12 of the petition that due to non-joining on the post of sub-Registrar of 2 selected candidates, two posts of Backward Class candidate remained unfilled and according to 15% reservation, one post will be treated unfilled. The petitioner made representation dated 12. 1. 1995 which is Annexure-4 to the writ petition. It is alleged in para 12 of the petition that due to non-joining on the post of sub-Registrar of 2 selected candidates, two posts of Backward Class candidate remained unfilled and according to 15% reservation, one post will be treated unfilled. Hence it is alleged that three posts of Backward Class candidates of Sub-Registrar were not filled by the Commission. Hence the petitioner claimed that he should be given appointment against one of such posts. ( 3 ) IN para 4, it is stated that according to the waiting list prepared by the respondent on 18. 12. 1995, the name of the petitioner figured at serial No. 6 and the name of one Shailesh kumar Yadav was placed at serial No. 1 but he declined to Join the post of Sub-Registrar as he had been selected as Deputy Superintendent of Police in 1989. The second candidate Hari shanker Yadav was selected as Naib Tahsildar. Hence he also declined to join as Sub-Registrar. Similarly, Bhim Singh Yadav was selected as Assistant Consolidation Officer and hence he too declined to join the post of Sub-Registrar. The petitioner immediately made representation vide annexures-5 to 8 to the appropriate authority but to no avail. The petitioner has relied on the decisions of this Court in Ram Naresh v. State of U. P. and Jai Narain Ram v. State of U. P. , copies of which are Annexures-11 and 12 to the writ petition. ( 4 ) THE petitioner prayed that he should be appointed against one of the vacant posts of sub-Registrar in Backward Class category. ( 5 ) A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 3. In para 4, it is stated that there were only three vacancies of Sub-Registrar earmarked for the Backward Class category candidates. On the basis of the aforesaid examination, the names of 3 candidates in backward caste category were duly recommended by the Commission. Later on the Commission after receiving proposal from the Government had done the process of reshuffling for the posts which were unfilled due to non-joining. The proposal also included one post of Sub-Registrar of backward Class category. On the basis of the aforesaid examination, the names of 3 candidates in backward caste category were duly recommended by the Commission. Later on the Commission after receiving proposal from the Government had done the process of reshuffling for the posts which were unfilled due to non-joining. The proposal also included one post of Sub-Registrar of backward Class category. Thus, the Commission after reshuffling recommended Shailesh Kumar yadav, a Backward Class candidate, for the aforesaid post being higher in merit than the petitioner who was at a lower place in the merit list. Hence the petitioner could not be selected on the said post even after reshuffling. In para 6 of the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the commission never prepares a separate waiting list. Only on demand of the Government, it sends substituted names after the process of reshuffling which is done on the basis of the candidates respective merit. In para 7, it is stated that against the three posts of Sub-Registrar belonging to backward Class category 3 names were allocated viz. , Umesh Kumar, Lal Sahab Yadav and chedi Lal Yadav. Later on the Government informed that one Umesh Kumar did not join the post and demanded a substitute name in place of Umesh Kumar. In para 8 of the counter-affidavit it is stated that on the number of vacancies category-wise reservation were provided solely by the State Government as per the existing rules. The Commission acts only upon the requisition received from the Government. The Government had recommended only s. K. Yadav for the remaining one vacancy of Sub-Registrar in Backward Class category and he has been appointed. The Commission acts only upon information/requisition provided by the government and reshuffling is done by the Commission only when the Government asks for it. This has already been done by appointing S. K. Yadav and now there is no other proposal of the government/ department. Moreover, it is stated that any such further proposal would be time-barred according to the provisions of existing G. O. dated 31. 1. 1994, copy of which is annexure-C. A, 1. ( 6 ) IN our opinion, since there is no proposal of the Government/ Department, the petitioner cannot be appointed. The petition also deserves to be dismissed, as it is highly belated. 1. 1994, copy of which is annexure-C. A, 1. ( 6 ) IN our opinion, since there is no proposal of the Government/ Department, the petitioner cannot be appointed. The petition also deserves to be dismissed, as it is highly belated. It may be noted that the examination in question and interview were held in 1992 arid the result was declared on 10. 8. 1992 vide Annexure-3. This writ petition has been filed in 1999 after seven years of the declaration of the result. Hence, we arc not inclined to exercise our discretion under article 226 of the Constitution in this case, The petition is dismissed. .