Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 324 (ALL)

Yogendra Kumar Tripathi v. U. P. S. R. T. C.

2017-01-24

ABHINAVA UPADHYA

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Krishna Mohan Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has come up to this Court for quashing the order dated 21.3.1998 by which the representation of the petitioner was rejected and also to quash the selection and appointment in pursuance of the selection held in the year 1989 of the reserved category candidates in excess of 50% quota. 3. At the very out set it ought to be noted that the appointments of candidates, which has been sought to be quashed are not made party in this writ petition. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that pursuant to an advertisement dated 5.5.1989 for the post of Mechanic 50% temporary posts were advertised. The requirement was that on 1.4.1989 the applicants must not exceed 30 years of age and the reservation on the post was prescribed as per the reservation made applicable pursuant to various Government Orders. The petitioner along with others participated in the aforesaid selection and he was placed at serial no.9 in the merit list. But the petitioner was not given appointment and no reason was assigned for the same and, therefore, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court being Writ Petition No.35904 of 1997 and the same was disposed of by order dated 28.10.1997 directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the impugned order has been passed on 21.3.1998 rejecting the claim of the petitioner. 5. The ground for rejecting the claim of the petitioner is that after the selection process was initiated a ban was imposed by the State Government on appointments, which was circulated by order dated 22.1.1990, which is filed as Annexure-CA2 to the counter affidavit. 6. While deciding the representation of the petitioner it has been held that since the ban was imposed, no further appointments can be made and during the selection process only 8 vacancies of general category were available and till serial no.8 appointments were granted before the imposition of ban. The petitioner was at serial no.9 and, therefore, due to imposition of ban, the appointments could not be made. 7. The petitioner was at serial no.9 and, therefore, due to imposition of ban, the appointments could not be made. 7. Sri Krishna Mohan Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that merely because of imposition of ban by the State Government, the selection process, which had already commenced could not have been stopped. That apart, it is further argued that the quota of reservation has wrongly been applied and more than 50% posts were filled up by reserved category, which is impermissible in law. The third contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had been denied appointment only on account of imposition of ban and wrong calculation of posts for reserved category. Further, it is submitted that the appointments on reserved category were made even after the lifting of ban and also during the ban and, therefore, the petitioner has been discriminated. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A.P. Aggarwal Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 600 and also in the case of Virender S. Hooda and others Vs. State of Haryana and another, reported in (1999) 3 SCC 696 . The aforesaid decisions have been relied to impress upon the Court that if a candidate was wrongfully denied appointment, the Court must consider directing the authorities to appoint. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon a decision in the case of N.T. Bevin Katti Vs. Karnataka Public Service Commission reported in 1990 (3) SCC 157 to contend that the rules and regulations at the time of initiation of selection process must be applied and not subsequent rules that may have been passed with regard to on going selection process with regard to reservation. 10. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.K. Misra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 11. The issue for consideration in this writ petition at this juncture is that the posts were advertised in the year 1989 and the selection process was initiated in 1990. A ban of the State Government was imposed immediately after the select list was prepared and the petitioner's name finds place at serial no.9. 12. 11. The issue for consideration in this writ petition at this juncture is that the posts were advertised in the year 1989 and the selection process was initiated in 1990. A ban of the State Government was imposed immediately after the select list was prepared and the petitioner's name finds place at serial no.9. 12. It is not disputed by the parties that a ban was imposed by Circulation Letter dated 22.1.1990, which is filed as Annexure-CA2 to the counter affidavit. In the said order it has clearly been mentioned that the ban would be applicable even in such selection process where the select list has been prepared. An exception is carved out in the said ban order that the selection of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes and other reserved categories would not be affected by the said ban. 13. In the counter affidavit a clear stand that has been taken is that the appointments till serial no.8 in the select list of general category have been made and the other appointments could not have been made from the general category due to imposition of ban by the State Government. Since the relaxation was given in the ban order, the appointments of reserved category can be made as large number of vacancies were lying vacant in that category. 14. After considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the selection is of the year 1989 pursuant to the advertisement. Advertisement clearly indicates that the said selection are for temporary posts. 15. It is not disputed that the ban was imposed in the year 1990. It is also not disputed that none of the candidates of the general category were appointed after imposition of ban beyond serial no.8, which in the counter affidavit is stated to be the vacancies available the appointments were made from the reserved category. Such appointments were made on account of relaxation in the ban order itself. 16. The life of select list is stated to be only one year or till the next selection is held. It is nobody's case that after the said selection no further selection were ever held. 17. That being the case, the life of select list being only one year, now no relief can be granted to the petitioner for being considered for appointment upon a selection process held in the year 1989. It is nobody's case that after the said selection no further selection were ever held. 17. That being the case, the life of select list being only one year, now no relief can be granted to the petitioner for being considered for appointment upon a selection process held in the year 1989. 18. The case laws relied upon by the petitioner, namely, A.P. Aggarwal Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and another (supra) and Virender S. Hooda and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (supra), in my view, are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case to demonstrates that the petitioner was wrongfully denied appointment. The petitioner's name merely being in the select list, itself does not confer any right to be considered for appointment. As such, his claim was not proceeded with only because of imposition of ban, which is admitted by both the parties and said ban order has not been challenged. 19. So far as the case of N.T. Bevin Katti Vs. Karnataka Public Service Commission (supra) is concerned that will also not be applicable in the facts of the present case as in the ban order itself it is provided that so far as the reserved category candidates are concerned, the ban would not be applicable, 20. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appointments to the extent of 11 in number in the reserved category were wrongly done as in the general category only 8 appointments were made and, therefore, out of seats advertised more than 50% reservation was granted, which is not permissible in law. 21. From the advertisement it appears that 50 temporary posts were advertised and, therefore, considering 50% 11 posts being given to the reserved category, does not exceed 50% of the total seats. 22. There is no merit in the writ petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed.