Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a petition filed by a member of the Scheduled Castes, who claimed that his fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution were violated when he was not selected for a stenographer position despite securing a high rank in the merit list. The petitioner participated in a recruitment process for six stenographer vacancies, where he initially ranked third in the shorthand test but was ultimately placed seventh in the final list. The petitioner argued that the reservation policy, which mandated that 18% of posts be reserved for Scheduled Castes, should have been applied, and he should have been appointed. The respondents contended that no reservation was intended for the selection process as the total strength of Class III employees exceeded the reservation percentage. The court analyzed the reservation policy and the roster system, concluding that the petitioner was entitled to appointment against the first vacancy as the roster had not been followed. The court directed the appointing authority to appoint the petitioner and retain the other candidates according to their merit positions. The petition was allowed, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the prescribed roster for reservations.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Reservation Policy - Applicability of Reservation - Constitution of India, Article 14, 16 - The petitioner contended that he should have been selected for appointment as a stenographer based on the reservation policy, despite securing the seventh position in merit. The court held that the roster system must be followed, and the petitioner was entitled to be appointed against the first vacancy as per the prescribed roster. (Paras 731 E-H; 742-A)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner was entitled to appointment as a stenographer under the reservation policy for Scheduled Castes.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petition, directing the appointing authority to appoint the petitioner against the first vacancy and retain the other candidates according to their merit positions. No order as to costs was made.
Law Points
- Reservation in appointments
- Roster system
- Scheduled Castes rights
- Fundamental rights under Constitution
