- (1.) P. C. Verma, J. By means this petition, the petitioner seeks writ of mandamus or order setting aside the result dated 31- 7-2003 of Uttaranchal Judicial Service, Civil Judge (Junior Division) Examination, 2002 and also seeks writ of direction to summon and declare the merit list and marks of the Main Examination/inter view of the candidates selected in the main examination before the Court so as to make the process of selection transparent.
(2.) THE petitioner filed the writ peti tion framing the following questions of law : (a) Whether granting reservation more than what is prescribed in the notification that is 37%, is unconstitutional and has been done to adjust candidates which would otherwise have not quali fied if taken in general category. (b) Whether the selection of candi dates in excess of the posts no tified that is 42 instead of 35 is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution (c) Whether the increased vacancies should have included both re served and general category as against the selection made of only candidates of reserved cat egory ? (d) Whether the selection of abovementioned roll numbers of the general candidates in the cat egory of Uttaranchal Mahila (re served category) is arbitrary ? (e) Whether the selection process suffers from malpractices and ar bitrariness and has been done based on the whims and fancies of the authorities in order to suit their own convenience and can didates ? (f) Whether the entire process of se lection as in the instant case lacks transparency where the merit list has been deliberately not suppressed? Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the State of Uttaranchal, vide notification No. 2 (Exam.) 2002-03 dated 07-06-2002 advertised 35 posts for Uttaranchal Ju dicial Service Civil Judge (Junior Divi sion) Examination, 2002. The peti tioner is a domicile of Uttaranchal. She applied in accordance to the rules pur suant to the aforesaid advertisement. The petitioner appeared in the prelimi nary examination held by the respond ent No. 3 and was declared successful on 13-2-2003 being roll number 02885 in Uttaranchal Mahila Category. The petitioner further appeared in the main examination and in the same also de clared successful in the result published on 22-6-2003. Thereafter she appeared for the interview on 23-7-2003 but in the final result which was declared on 31-7-2003 the name of the petitioner was not amongst the selected candidates of Uttaranchal Mahila Category. The number of candidates selected was 42 as against 35 which was initially ad vertised. It is alleged by the petitioner that it is surprising that most of the can didates belongs to the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and OBC Cat egory do not belong to Uttaranchal and have been appointed instead of domi ciles of Uttaranchal. The petitioner also alleged that the entire process of selec tion has been made by respondent No. 3 without following the due process of law and its own guidelines and notifi cation for reservation dated 18-7-2001. Out of total 42 candidates so selected, only 23 candidates are in general cadre, whereas 19 candidates have been selected in the reserved category, which shows that the entire process was malafide and against the settled princi ples of law. The petitioner, by way of amendment application, seeks to amend the writ petition, which was al lowed on 30-9-2005 and the petitioner was permitted to incorporate the amendment during the course of day. By way of amendment the petitioner alleged that five seats were horizontally reserved against general category for Uttaranchal Mahila but only four can didates of the Uttaranchal Mahila Gen eral Category have been selected viz Km. Monika Mittal (Roll No. 7658, SI. No. 24), Km. Neelam (Roll No. 0465, SI. No. 25), Anju Shree Juyal (Roll No. 3482, SI. No. 27) and Preetu Rani (Roll No. 12524, SI. No. 28 ). It is also al leged by the petitioner that the action of the respondents reducing the seats - reserved for Uttaranchal Mahila Gen eral Category is absolutely illegal in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Indra Sawhney versus Union o/ India and others, re ported in 1992 Supp. (3) SCC 217 as well as law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 816 of 2002 (M/b ). Km. Shikha Agarwal versus State of Uttaranchal and others, decided on 16-4-2003. The petitioner further alleged that one can didate, namely Neetu Joshi (Roll No. 12320 SI. No. 9) was selected by vir tue of her own merit as general cat egory candidate but she was counted against five seats reserved for the Uttaranchal Mahila General Category and as such one more candidate belonging to Uttaranchal Mahila General Category should have been selected.
(3.) ON 01-9-2003 the petitioner filed supplementary affidavit deposing therein that the candidates declared successful in written (main) examina tion, arbitrarily or giving any reason to that effect, have been given benefit of the benefit prescribed for woman cat egory of Uttaranchal State. Km. Neelam Bahuguna Roll No. 00465, Anju Shree Juyal Roll No. 03482 and Monika Mittal Roll No. 07658 have been given benefit as mentioned above only with a liberal heart for illegally selecting them as Judicial Officers Uttaranchal. Respondent No. 3-Uttaranchal Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) has filed counter affidavit. It has been alleged in the said counter affidavit that no irregu larity or illegality has been committed in conducting the examination of selec tion of Civil Judge (Junior Division) in Uttaranchal Judicial Service finally de clared on 30-7-2003 either in law, or in procedure. The alleged substantial questions of law, as framed in the writ petition, are absolutely baseless and misconceived. In reply of question (a) the re spondent No. 3 denied that more than 37% reservation has been given in the selection. The quota of Uttaranchal woman, dependent of freedom fighter and ex Army personnel has been granted as horizontal reservation and they have been adjusted against their category as such it does not increase the fix percentage of reservation. The horizontal reservation has been. given according to the Government Order No. 1144/karmik 2001-53 (1)/2001 dated 18th July 2001 and requisition received from the government on that behalf. In reply of question (b) the respond ent No. 3 stated that it is wrong to say that 42 candidates have been selected against 35 vacancies. Initially, 35 vacan cies were notified as per requisition and as there was a possibility that this number may increase or decrease during the se lection process, thus in column No. 2 of the advertisement a specific note was mentioned that the number of vacancies can increase or decrease. After the adver tisement since 7 more vacancies arose and the requisition to this effect was also received by the commission, selection of the total number of vacancies i. e. 42 has been made. In reply of question (c) of the writ petition, the respondent/commission submitted that the relevant reservation has been given in the same ratio in the increased number of vacancies as ap plicable. The respondent/commission in re ply of question (d) submitted that those candidates having role numbers 00465, 03482 and 07658 are the candidates of Uttaranchal Woman Category and the same was mentioned in their applica tion forms. At the time of preliminary examination they have not submitted their domicile certificates, as such in the result of preliminary exam they were shown in general category. Subsequently, they submitted their respective certifi cates and after securing place in merit of Uttaranchal Women Category, they have been declared successful in this category. Regarding questions (e) and (f) the respondent/commission stated that the allegations are baseless and highly objectionable. No malpractice or illegality has been committed in the entire selection process by the respondent. The respond ent No. 3/commission replied that the petitioner appeared in the interview held on 23-7-2003 and could not stand in merit of the successful candidates of the Uttaranchal Women Category. It is submitted that only 5 seats were horizontally reserved against general category of Uttaranchal Women and the petitioner could not secure place on merit within five seats as such she has not been selected. The Commission described the position of reservation and granted to the can didates, which is as under :- Total vacancies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42. Vertical reservation 1. Scheduled Caste 19% = 8 2. Scheduled Tribe 04% = 2 3. Other backward classes 14% =6 Horizontal reservation 1. Uttaranchal Mahila , 20% = 8 2. Freedom Fighter 02% = NIl 3. Ex Military Personnel 02% = 1 4. Handicapped person 03% = NIl It is also contended in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent/ Com mission that the women candidates selected under this quota has been adjusted in their respective category of vertical reservation. The Commission further stated that the position regarding the reservation as shown by the petitioner is correct but the position of result as shown therein is wrong and incorrect. It is stated that according to the rule and government orders, if any candidate relating to reserved category secures place on merit in general category, he shall be adjusted in the general category and on that ground the quota of that category shall not be reduced. In the present matter, since the candidates having Roll No. 2041 Ajay Chaudhary, Roll No. 101 Arvind Kumar and Roll No. 175 Varun Kumar have secured place on merit in general category and they have been adjusted in gen eral category as such cannot be treated to have been selected against their cat egory. The respondent / Commission denied the contents of paragraph 2 (11) of the writ petition. However, it is stated that the candidates selected under hori zontal category have been adjusted in their vertical category according to the quota. Similarly the three women candidates, namely, Neelam Bahuguna, Anjushri Juyal and Monika Mittal have been adjusted in general category as a candidate of Uttaranchal Women category.;