Bhanu Pratap Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

The dispute in this writ petition relates to the inclusion of sufficient number of members of the OBCs in the wait list prepared in terms of Rule 15 (4) of the Uttar Pradesh Prosecution Officer Rules, 1991 whereby a wait list of 25% of the selected candidates was required to be prepared by the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission, and forwarded to the State Government along with the list of the originally selected candidates.

Out of the total 38 posts of Assistant Prosecuting Officers, for which selections were undertaken in the year 2012, 6 were reserved in favor of the Other Backward Classes. In terms of the stipulated horizontal reservation, 02 of these 06 posts were required to be reserved in favour of OBC women, and one post for Adolankaries among the OBCs. The 06 most meritorious candidates, belonging to the Other Backward Classes (four general and two women), were recommended by the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission, by its proceedings dated 26.02.2012, and they formed part of the list of 37 selected candidates.

Two of the OBC (general) selected candidates, i.e. Sri Sanjeev Kumar at Serial No. 14 and Sri Neeraj Kumar at Serial No. 19, did not join. Since the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission had forwarded the name of only 1 candidate belonging to the other backward classes (i.e. Sri Daood Siddiqui) in the wait list of 09 candidates, only one of the two vacancies, in the OBC category, could be filled up, and not the other.

The petitioner's complaint in this writ petition is that the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission should have included the names of 02 persons, from the Other Backward Classes category, in the list of 09 wait listed candidates forwarded to the Government, instead of 01; and, if they had done so, the petitioner, being the second most meritorious OBC candidate, (apart from the four OBC (general) candidates included in the earlier select list of 37 candidates), would have been selected and appointed as an Assistant Prosecuting Officer.

Sri Vinay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the wait list of 25% should have been computed taking the total number of posts reserved in favor of the Other Backward Classes i.e. 6 posts; when so computed, 02 OBC (general) candidates would have been included in the list of 9 wait listed candidates; and, in such an event, the petitioner's name would also have been included therein.

On the other hand, Sri B.D. Kandpal, learned counsel for the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission, would submit that the Commission was justified in sending the name of only 01 OBC (general) candidate in the list of 09 wait listed candidates to the Government and not two; since Rule 15 (4) requires a maximum of 25% of the selected candidates to form the wait list, 25% of the 03 posts earmarked for OBC (general) would come to 0.75 and should be rounded off to 01 post, 25 % of the 02 posts earmarked for OBC (women) would come to 0.5, and consequently the panel of wait listed candidates did not include the name of a OBC (woman) in the panel of 09 wait listed candidates.

As noted hereinabove, Rule 15(4) of the Rules requires the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission to prepare a wait list of a maximum of 25% of the total advertised vacancies; and, as 37 candidates were selected, the list of 37 selected candidates was forwarded, along with a list of 09 waitlisted candidates, to the Government. If, as is contended by Sri B.D. Kandpal, learned counsel for Uttarakhand Public Service Commission, that OBC (general) and OBC (women) were treated as two different categories, in the preparation of the wait list, then the list of 09 wait listed candidates, rightly, contained the name of 01 OBC (general) (Daood Siddiqui); and since 25% of the 02 posts reserved in favour of OBC (women) would only be 0.5, no OBC (woman) was included in the list of 9 wait listed candidates.

We find it difficult to accept the submission of Sri Vinay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, that 02 OBC (general) candidates should have been included in the list of 09 wait listed candidates forwarded by the Public Service Commission to the State Government. The submission of Sri Vinay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that, since two OBC (general) candidates, among the 37 selected candidates, did not join, the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission should have filled up these two posts, with the next two most meritorious OBC (general) candidates. This contention ignores Rule 15 (4) which permits a maximum of 25%, of the originally selected candidates, to be included in the panel of wait listed candidates. As 37 candidates were originally selected, 25% thereof is 09, and a panel of nine wait listed candidates was rightly forwarded by the Public Service Commission to the State Government. Accepting the submission of Sri Vinay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, would mean that, in case none of the 37 selected candidates had joined duty in the posts to which they were appointed, the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission would then have been required to recommend the next 37 candidates in the merit list for appointment to the post of Assistant Prosecuting Officers. That would violate Rule 15(4) which prescribes a maximum of 25%, of the advertised vacancies, i.e. nine posts, alone to form the wait list.

As noted hereinabove, the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission is prohibited, by Rule 15 (4) of the Rules, from sending a list of more than 25% of the total advertised posts which, in the present case, would come to 09 candidates. 25% of the entire 06 posts, reserved in favour of the Other Backward Classes, would come to 1.5; and, according to Sri B.D. Kandpal, learned counsel for the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission, it is only when the figure exceeds 1.50, is it then required to be rounded off to the next higher figure of 02; and not when it is either equal to or below 1.5.

It is unnecessary for us to dwell on this issue since, even if 02 candidates from among the Other Backward Classes are required to be included in the list of 09 wait listed candidates, the maximum which could have been included with respect to OBC (general) was only 01 (being 25% out of 04 posts). The second post, if at all, could only have set apart in favor of OBC (women) which the petitioner is, admittedly, not.

While this issue would have necessitated elaborate examination, if an OBC (woman) had invoked the jurisdiction of this Court, the petitioner, an OBC (general) candidate, cannot be heard to contend that the wait list should have consisted of two OBC (general) candidates, for, in such an event, the number of wait listed candidates, from the OBC (general) category, would have been 50% of the selected candidates (i.e. 2 out of 04), as against the maximum 25% prescribed under Rule 15(4). As the name of Sri Daood Siddiqui, an OBC (general) candidate, was included in the list of 09 wait listed candidates, it is he alone who is entitled to be appointed, from the OBC (general) category, from among the 9 wait listed candidates.

The petitioner is, therefore, not entitled to the relief sought for in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.