advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Sunday, August 28, 2016

Service matter - physically handicapped category along with the necessary certificate. His first preference was for the post of Deputy Collector and second preference was for the post of Trade Tax Officer. The appellant was duly selected and placed at Sl.No.38 in the overall merit list. = The appellant filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court praying for appointment on the post of Deputy Collector. However, pending the writ petition, he joined as a Trade Tax Officer in November, 2004.=reservation which must be provided for, as a matter of law has been duly provided by the State which has in fact determined the roster point which was calculated for the number of posts that ought to have been reserved from the year 1997-1998 to 2009-2010 and have accordingly made appointments. It is another matter that the appellant has not been appointed thereto. In any case, we agree with the observation of the High Court that a direction to accommodate the appellant in the selection year 2001-2002 would create difficulties in the seniority of those who have been appointed every year since then, as observed earlier some of the Deputy Collectors who have been appointed may have got promoted. no merit in the appeal

                                                                  REPORTABLE

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION



                       CIVIL  APPEAL No.10381 OF 2014





VIVEK SINGH                             ...APPELLANT

                             VERSUS

STATE OF U.P. & ANR.                         ...RESPONDENTS


                                 1 JUDGMENT



S. A. BOBDE, J.

On 29.01.2001, the U.P. Public Service Commission invited  applications  for
filling up 800 posts through the Combined  State/Upper  Subordinate  Service
Examination 2001.  Amongst others the posts to be filled up were Deputy
Collector – 9 posts, Deputy S.P. – 67 posts  and  Trade  Tax  Officer  –  12
posts.
2.           The  appellant  applied  for  selection  under  the  physically
handicapped category  along  with  the  necessary  certificate.   His  first
preference was for the post of Deputy Collector and  second  preference  was
for the post of Trade Tax Officer.  The  appellant  was  duly  selected  and
placed at Sl.No.38 in the overall  merit  list.   The  U.P.  Public  Service
Commission recommended the appellant’s appointment as a  Trade  Tax  Officer
under the quota reserved for physically handicapped candidates.
3.          The appellant filed a writ petition before  the  Allahabad  High
Court praying for appointment on the post  of  Deputy  Collector.   However,
pending the writ petition, he joined as a Trade  Tax  Officer  in  November,
2004.
4.          On 26.11.2010, in National Federation of the Blind, U.P.  Branch
and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & others[1], the Allahabad High  Court
passed an interim order directing the State  Government  to  henceforth  not
fill up any vacancy unless a reservation of 3% was  provided  to  physically
handicapped candidates from the initial  stage,  i.e.,  from  the  stage  of
advertisement itself.  The relevant portion of the order reads as follows:-
“As an interim  measure,  we  further  direct  that  henceforth,  the  State
Government or its authorities shall not fill up any vacancy  falling  within
the domain of the State Government or its instrumentalities unless from  the
initial stage i.e. from the stage of advertisement of posts for  recruitment
to fill up the posts, reservation of 3%  under  the  Act  is  earmarked  and
simultaneously filled up from open recruitment  process.   The  State  shall
ensure that not only the quota of blind persons but also the quota of  other
categories under the Act shall  be  filed  up  simultaneously  while  making
recruitment  of  various  posts  falling  under  the  domain  of  the  State
Government and its instrumentalities.

Accordingly, the Government of U.P. shall issue a circular within  one  week
from today.  We may caution the State Government that non-compliance of  the
order passed by this Court today shall amount to contempt of this Court  and
this Court may proceed suo moto against  those  who  are  at  fault  in  not
filling the vacancies of blind and disabled persons under the Act.”

This was in view of the Persons with Disabilities
(Equal Opportunity, Protection of Rights and Full Participation)  Act,  1995
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).
5.           The  High  Court  cautioned  the  State  Government  that  non-
compliance of the Order would amount to contempt of Court.  In pursuance  of
this Order, the State Government carried out the following exercise:
            On 13.1.2011 in pursuance of the aforesaid exercise,  the  State
Government issued  a  requisition  to  the  Public  Service  Commission  for
selection of suitable candidates belonging  to  the  physically  handicapped
category for appointment on  5  posts  of  Deputy  Collector  by  a  special
recruitment drive to fill up the backlog quota.  In the said letter, 1  post
of Deputy Collector for the year  2001-2002  i.e.  the  year  in  which  the
appellant had appeared and was declared successful was also directed  to  be
filled up.
6.          In the pending writ petition, the appellant modified his  prayer
and claimed that since 1 out of the 5 posts of Deputy Collector  was  to  be
filled up under the special recruitment  drive  for  physically  handicapped
category, included the post for  the year 2001-2002 in which  the  appellant
appeared and was selected, he is entitled to be selected therein.
7.          The High Court accepted that the post of  Deputy  Collector  for
selection in the year 2001-2002 was amenable to reservation  for  physically
handicapped category under the horizontal  quota  of  3%.   The  High  Court
noted the contention of the State that for the year  2001-2002,  1  post  of
Deputy Collector for  physically  handicapped  category  was  identified  as
backlog; that however does not mean that the appellant  is  entitled  to  be
appointed on that post.  The High Court reiterated the settled  position  of
law that reservation for the  physically  handicapped  category  was  to  be
provided as a matter of law and that such reservation was to be made on  the
basis of total sanctioned  strength  and  not  on  the  basis  of  available
vacancy of a recruitment year.  However, the Court declined  relief  to  the
appellant on the ground that if the appellant is adjusted against  the  sole
vacancy  for  the  year  2001-2002,  the  entire  seniority  list  will  get
disturbed.  The High Court proceeded to hold that in the year 2001-2002  all
the 9 posts for which requisition was made were  filled  up.   However,  the
High Court also noted that in the year 2010 it was found that 1 post out  of
9 could have been reserved for physically handicapped candidates.
The appellant could not be given appointment in that recruitment year  since
the posts were filled up.  In particular, the High Court observed that  many
recruitments have taken  place  between  2001-2002  till  the  date  of  the
decision of the High Court on 10.05.2013  and  if  the  appellant  is  given
appointment with retrospective effect from 2001-2002, the  entire  seniority
position of the recruitment of that year as well  as  the  subsequent  years
will get  disturbed.   The  High  Court  noted  that  the  gap  between  the
recruitment year and the
year in which the appointment was claimed was more
than 10 years and since then recruitments  have  taken  place  almost  every
year.
8.          Before us, Mr. Raju Ramchandran, learned senior counsel for  the
appellant argued that the High Court has accepted the legal  entitlement  of
the appellant and yet did not grant any relief.  It was submitted  that  the
appellant is entitled for relief in view of the  clear  requirement  of  the
law.  On the other hand, it was submitted on behalf of the  State  that  the
State carried out an exercise in pursuance of the interim Order of the  High
Court in the case of National Federation of the Blind,  U.P  Branch  (supra)
where the Court directed the State Government not to  fill  up  any  vacancy
unless from the stage of the advertisement  itself,  reservation  of  3%  is
earmarked for the physically  handicapped  candidates.   The  State  further
carried out an exercise  to  determine  the  roster  points  on  which  such
reservation would be available as follows:-
|Exam/    |Total    |Total   |Roster     |Category|Remarks     |
|Selection|requisiti|no. of  |point for  |        |            |
|year     |on       |filled  |Physical   |        |            |
|         |vacancies|vacancie|Handicapped|        |            |
|         |         |s       |           |        |            |
|1997-98  |20       |20      |0          |        |The         |
|         |         |        |           |        |requisition |
|         |         |        |           |        |for more    |
|         |         |        |           |        |than 33     |
|         |         |        |           |        |vacancies   |
|         |         |        |           |        |had not been|
|         |         |        |           |        |sent in any |
|         |         |        |           |        |Selection   |
|         |         |        |           |        |Year.  By   |
|         |         |        |           |        |clubbing all|
|         |         |        |           |        |the         |
|         |         |        |           |        |requisitione|
|         |         |        |           |        |d posts on  |
|         |         |        |           |        |the basis of|
|         |         |        |           |        |roster the  |
|         |         |        |           |        |vacancies   |
|         |         |        |           |        |had been    |
|         |         |        |           |        |identified  |
|         |         |        |           |        |and         |
|         |         |        |           |        |accordingly |
|         |         |        |           |        |5 vacancies |
|         |         |        |           |        |are         |
|         |         |        |           |        |calculated  |
|         |         |        |           |        |for filling |
|         |         |        |           |        |up by       |
|         |         |        |           |        |backlog for |
|         |         |        |           |        |various     |
|         |         |        |           |        |categories  |
|         |         |        |           |        |of physical |
|         |         |        |           |        |handicapped |
|         |         |        |           |        |candidates. |
|1998-99  |20       |40      |01         |P.B.    |            |
|1999-00  |10       |50      |-          |        |            |
|2000-01  |09       |59      |-          |        |            |
|2001-02  |15       |74      |01         |P.D.    |            |
|2002-03  |--       |93      |-          |        |            |
|2003-04  |19       |93      |-          |        |            |
|(Spl.    |         |        |           |        |            |
|Apptt.)  |         |        |           |        |            |
|2004-05  |--       |93      |-          |        |            |
|2005-06  |14       |107     |01         |Perma-  |            |
|         |         |        |           |nent    |            |
|         |         |        |           |disabili|            |
|         |         |        |           |ty      |            |
|2006-07  |08       |115     |-          |        |            |
|2007-08  |22       |137     |01         |P.B.    |            |
|2008-09  |14       |151     |-          |        |            |
|2009-10  |32       |183     |01         |P.D.    |            |
|Total:   |183      |183     |05         |        |            |

9.          It was pointed out on behalf of the  State  that  for  the  year
2000-2001 in which 9 vacancies for Deputy  Collector  arose,  there  was  no
roster point for the persons with disability.  Such a point is available  in
the next year i.e. 2001-2002.  Therefore, in any case  the  appellant  could
not have
been considered for the 9 vacancies which arose in the
year 2000-2001.  It is pointed out on behalf of the State that as  a  result
of the aforesaid exercise, 5 vacancies are calculated  for  filling  up  the
backlog and have been filled up in accordance
with the roster.
10.   Mr. Ramchandran contested this position by
submitting that the exercise has been carried out by the  State  from  1997-
1998 as is apparent from the  chart.   According  to  Mr.  Ramchandran  this
could have been carried out  from  1995  in  which  case  according  to  his
calculation the roster point could have  been  shifted  to  accommodate  the
appellant.  It is not possible to agree with this point since  the  exercise
was undertaken in pursuance of the Order of the  High  Court  and  the  year
1997-1998 was taken as the starting point  since  that  is  the  first  year
after the Act came into force on 01.01.1996.
11.   We are satisfied that the reservation which must be provided  for,  as
a matter of law has been duly provided  by  the  State  which  has  in  fact
determined the roster point which was calculated for  the  number  of  posts
that ought to have been reserved from the year 1997-1998  to  2009-2010  and
have  accordingly  made  appointments.   It  is  another  matter  that   the
appellant has not been appointed thereto.
12.      In any case, we agree with the observation of the High  Court  that
a direction to accommodate the appellant in  the  selection  year  2001-2002
would create difficulties in the seniority of those who have been  appointed
every year since then, as observed earlier some  of  the  Deputy  Collectors
who have been appointed may have got promoted.
13.   Lastly, we see no merit in the appeal and it is
hereby dismissed.
                                                  …………………….…..........….. J.
                                                                   [S.A.
BOBDE]



                                         ..............................………J.
                                                            [ASHOK BHUSHAN]
NEW DELHI,
AUGUST 26, 2016




-----------------------
[1]    Writ Petition No.6047 (MB) of 2009


No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.