H.K.SEMA, J. - (1.) THESE appeals have been preferred by the Union of India aggrieved by the judgment and orders dated 10-9-2002 (in Civil Appeal Nos. 5505- 07/2003) arid 29-4-2003 (in Civil Appeal No. 7004/2003) of the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi in Civil Writ Petition Nos. 3561/99, 3562/99, 867/2000 and 2751/2000 respectively. For brevity, we are taking facts from Civil Appeal No. 5505 of 2003. The respondent belongs to Other Backward Class (OBC). Reservations were made for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and OBC category candidates in Civil Services Examination (CSE) Rules, 1996. The respondent appeared from the reserved quota of OBC. The Union Public Service Commission (Commission) recommended in all 739 candidates, out of which 2 candidates were withheld and 737 candidates were recommended one to one for appointment against the vacant posts from various categories.
(2.) THE following chart would make clear the manner in which the different categories of jobs were to be allocated to different categories of candidates. JUDGEMENT_1815_AIR(SCW)_2006Html1.htm The chart shows that against the OBC category total 174 candidates were recommended for 174 vacancies. In these appeals we are concerned only with OBC category candidates. From the OBC category, three candidates were included in the general merit list. 36 OBC category candidates were also included in the general merit list on the recommendation of the Commission. However, a preference was given from the relaxed quota, reserved for the OBC category candidates. Despite 174 vacancies earmarked for the OBC category candidates, and the candidates were recommended for 174 vacancies, only 138 OBC category candidates were provided with the job and the rest 36 OBC category candidates (respondents) had been denied job. By way of illustration, a candidate whose name figured at Sl. No. 620 in the merit list had been provided with a job but the respondent herein who was at Sl. No. 606 in the merit list had been denied the job. We have heard Mr. T. S. Doabia, learned Senior counsel for the Union of India, Mr. L. Nageswar Rao, Sr. Adv., Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv. and Mr. Gopal Prasad learned counsel for the respondents.
(3.) THE principal contention of Mr. T. S. Doabia is that since there were only 174 vacancies in the OBC category in various services and posts, certain candidates belonging to that category and recommended by the Commission for appointment against the vacancies for OBC category candidates in services/posts could not be allocated to any services/posts due to lack of vacancies. It is his further contention that the quota reserved for the OBC from the relaxed standard exhausted due to the preference opted by the OBC candidates who were recommended by the Commission from open category i.e. on merit. Per contra, it is contended by Mr. Nageswar Rao, Ranjit Kumar and Gopal Prasad that such submission is contrary to the note appended to Rule 2 of the Civil Services Examination Rules, 1996 (in short the Rules) which says that if he/she is not allotted to any one of the services/posts for which he/she has indicated preference he/she shall be allotted to any of the remaining services/posts in which there are vacancies after allocation of all the candidates who can be allocated to a service/ post in accordance with their preferences.;