M.Katju, R.K.Mahajan, JJ. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for parties. This petition has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 24.9.1993 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) and for a mandamus directing the respondent No. 2 to appoint the petitioner as Sub-Divisional Magistrate in Uttar Pradesh.
(2.) The controversy in the case is very short. The petitioner as well as the respondent No. 3 both appeared in the Combined State Services Examination, 1990 and both belong to backward caste. In the merit list sent by the Public Service Commission, the petitioner is at Sl. No. 76 while the respondent No. 3 is at Sl. No. 97 as is evident from Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Thus, it is evident that the petitioner is more meritorious than the respondent No. 3. However, strangely enough the respondents have appointed the petitioner as a Sales Tax Officer and have given the respondent No. 3 the better post of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, although the petitioner's first choice was P.C.S.
(3.) In our opinion, the action of the respondents is arbitrary and hence violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Since the petitioner and respondent No. 3 both belong to backward class, and the petitioner had filled his form as backward caste candidate (as is evident from Annexure-2 to the writ petition), hence the petitioner cannot be treated as Inferior in merit to the respondent No. 3. When petitioner is at Sl. No. 76 and the respondent No. 3 is at Sl. No. 97. we fail to understand as to how the petitioner could be given the post of Sales Tax Officer and how the respondent No. 3 could be given the better post of Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Therefore. In our opinion, the action of the respondents is wholly arbitrary.;