UNION OF INDIA Vs. SATYA PRAKASH
LAWS(SC)-2006-4-16
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: DELHI)
Decided on April 05,2006

UNION OF INDIA Appellant
VERSUS
SATYA PRAKASH Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

UNION OF INDIA VS. S SHAINAMOL [LAWS(KER)-2017-2-170] [REFERRED TO]
MUKUL BISWAS VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2010-8-204] [REFERRED TO]
CHAIRMAN W B CENTRAL SCHOOL SERVICE COMMISSION VS. MUKUL BISWAS [LAWS(CAL)-2010-11-40] [REFERRED TO]
LACHHMI NARAIN GUPTA VS. JARNAIL SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2011-7-87] [REFERRED TO]
ALOK KUMAR PANDIT VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(SC)-2012-11-67] [REFERRED TO]
LAXMI KANWAR VS. STATE [LAWS(RAJ)-2013-3-30] [REFERRED TO]
NITIN KUMAR AND ORS. VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-4-254] [REFERRED TO]
RENU VASHIST VS. NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2007-2-80] [REFERRED TO]
MISTRY AMISHABEN BHAILALBHAI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2013-11-191] [REFERRED TO]
RAMANJIT KAUR SETHI VS. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL [LAWS(MAD)-2008-3-74] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. DR.MS.BEELA RAJESH [LAWS(MAD)-2013-3-231] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR VS. A.SHAINAMOL, IAS AND ANR [LAWS(SC)-2021-10-60] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. RAMESH RAM [LAWS(SC)-2010-5-7] [REFERRED TO]
AJIT SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2011-9-263] [REFERRED TO]
DR. JAGVEER SINGH AND ORS. VS. THE CHAIRPERSON, COUNSELLING COMMITTEE, ACADEMIC SECTION, AIIMS AND ANR. [LAWS(DLH)-2010-8-353] [REFERRED TO]
SATYA PRAKASH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2022-7-97] [REFERRED TO]
RAMANDEEP CHOUDHARY VS. UOI [LAWS(DLH)-2013-5-136] [REFERRED TO]
CHAITALI SIDDHANTA VS. STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS [LAWS(GAU)-2018-4-51] [REFERRED TO]
T. BEERMASTHAN VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2007-4-245] [REFERRED TO]
SUDHANSU MOSES VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY AND ORS. [LAWS(PAT)-2013-7-145] [REFERRED TO]
MD BABUL AKTAR VS. MD NAZIR HOSSAIN [LAWS(CAL)-2019-10-17] [REFERRED TO]
ABHISHEK KUMAR SINGH VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2016-8-67] [REFERRED TO]
MADAN MOHAN VS. GURU GOVIND SINGH INDRAPRASHTHA [LAWS(DLH)-2006-9-195] [RELIED ON]
SUREKHA DABAS VS. UNION TERRITORY OF PONDICHERRY [LAWS(MAD)-2007-7-43] [REFERRED TO]
M SANKAR S O A MENON VS. BHARAT HEAVY [LAWS(MAD)-2006-10-247] [REFERRED TO]
DHIRENDRA ARJUNBHAI DAFDA VS. GUJARAT HIGH COURT [LAWS(GJH)-2022-3-30] [REFERRED TO]
DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD VS. JITENDER MUNJAL [LAWS(DLH)-2018-2-52] [REFERRED TO]
KAVITA CHOUDHARY VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2006-9-35] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRA BHAN YADAV VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2008-9-179] [REFERRED TO]
NARENDRA RIDHA RAM JUNAWA VS. VADODARA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [LAWS(GJH)-2021-6-164] [REFERRED TO]
NEHA SHAMATBHAI PARMAR AND ORS. VS. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. [LAWS(GJH)-2017-4-467] [REFERRED TO]
NEELAM RANI VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2010-1-499] [REFERRED TO]
JITENDRA KUMAR SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(SC)-2010-1-5] [REFERRED TO]
A P PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION VS. BALOJI BADHAVATH [LAWS(SC)-2009-4-100] [REFERRED TO]
MANGLA RAM BISHNOI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2010-6-9] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL JAIN VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2008-7-71] [REFERRED TO]
SUHAN LATA VS. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH MINISTRY OF HOME, NEW DELHI [LAWS(CA)-2012-3-25] [REFERRED TO]
KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION VS. T BEERMASTHAN [LAWS(KER)-2008-5-17] [REFERRED TO]
SUDHANSHU MOSES VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. [LAWS(PAT)-2015-9-46] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS VS. PARMAR MAHESHKUMAR PUNJABHAI AND ORS [LAWS(GJH)-2013-4-506] [REFERRED TO]
PARMAR NILESH RAJENDRAKUMAR VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2013-9-321] [REFERRED TO]
GAUTAM DASS VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2008-1-196] [REFERRED TO]
VANDANA KANDARI VS. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2010-7-508] [REFERRED]
ANIL JAIN VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2006-11-105] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

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.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.