Case Note & Summary
The dispute pertained to recruitment to 15 posts of Treasury Officers-Accounts Officers in the Uttar Pradesh Finance and Accounts Services, 6 posts of Sales Tax Officers, and 4 posts of Regional Audit Officers, for which an advertisement was issued in 1988. Out of these 15 posts, 4 posts in the Treasury Officers-Accounts Officers category were reserved for members of the Scheduled Castes. The Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission conducted a competitive examination and recommended four candidates for the reserved posts. The last selected candidate, Anil Kumar Rai, secured 361 marks in written examination and 39 marks in personality test, totaling 400 marks. The appellant, a Scheduled Caste candidate, along with three others, had secured competitive marks but could not be recommended because the State Government had not requisitioned a waiting list. The appellant's name was not included in the select list, and the High Court dismissed his writ petition on 4 December 1992, on the ground that he was not intimated that he was selected. In the Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, the appellant specifically asserted in paragraph 11 that four selected candidates, namely Ram Bodh, Lolark Ram, and Raja Ram, had not joined the service, leaving four reserved posts vacant. The counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State did not specifically deny this assertion; it merely stated that reserved posts can be filled by reserved candidates only. The Public Service Commission's counter-affidavit stated that since four posts were already recommended and there was no request for preparation of a waiting list, the names of the appellant and others could not be recommended. The State's counter-affidavit claimed that the appellant was not recommended and therefore could not claim appointment. The Supreme Court examined the constitutional right to equality in public employment under Article 14 read with Articles 16(1) and 16(4) of the Constitution of India. The Court observed that the State had failed to perform its constitutional duty to requisition the Public Service Commission to recommend the next qualified persons to the posts reserved for Scheduled Castes. Since the appellant was the fourth candidate in the order of merit and the selected reserved candidates had not joined, the denial of appointment to the appellant was held unconstitutional. The Court directed the Public Service Commission to recommend the appellant's name for appointment as Treasury Officer/Accounts Officer within six weeks from the date of receipt of the order, and directed the State to issue the appointment order within six weeks thereafter. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Right to Equality in Public Employment - Reservation for Scheduled Castes - Articles 14, 16(1), 16(4), Constitution of India, 1950 - The appellant, a Scheduled Caste candidate, ranked fourth in merit for reserved posts of Treasury Officers/Accounts Officers; four selected reserved candidates did not join, leaving reserved vacancies unfilled, but the State did not requisition a waiting list from the Public Service Commission; the High Court had dismissed the appellant's writ petition on the ground that he was not intimated about selection; the Supreme Court held that the State's failure to requisition the next qualified reserved candidates violated the appellant's constitutional right to equality and directed the Public Service Commission to recommend the appellant's name within six weeks and the State to appoint him within six weeks thereafter - Held that reserved posts can be filled only by reserved candidates and that the right to seek appointment under Articles 14 read with 16(1) and 16(4) is a constitutional right to equality (Paras 1-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant, a Scheduled Caste candidate, was entitled to be recommended for appointment to reserved Treasury Officer/Accounts Officer posts when the State failed to requisition a waiting list and the selected reserved candidates did not join the posts
Final Decision
The appeal was allowed. The Supreme Court directed the Public Service Commission to recommend the name of the appellant for appointment in the first category, i.e., Treasury Officers and Accounts Officers, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The State was directed to issue order of appointment to the appellant within a period of six weeks thereafter. No costs.
Law Points
- Right to seek appointment to a post under Article 14 read with Articles 16(1) and (4) is a constitutional right to equality
- State has constitutional duty to requisition Public Service Commission to recommend next qualified persons to posts reserved for Scheduled Castes
- denial of appointment to a meritorious reserved candidate when reserved vacancies remain unfilled is unconstitutional
- reserved posts can be filled only by reserved candidates
- absence of waiting list requisition by State cannot defeat claim of next meritorious reserved candidate
