# JAi NARAIN RAM v. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS

- **Citation:** [1995] Supp. 5 S.C.R. 444
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1995-11-16
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 11314 of 1995
- **Bench:** K. Ramaswamy, B.L. Hansaria
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/jai-narain-ram-v-state-of-u-p-and-ors-13577
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

S e1vice law :
Appointment-Posts rese1ved for S. C. candidates-Public S e1vice ComC mission recommending 4 names-No waiting list maintained since there was
no request from Govemment-All the four selected candidates not joining
se1vice-Candidate within the next four in the merit list approaching the
Court-Since his tum could be covered in the four vacancies adve1tised, he
should be recommended by the Public Se1vice Commission.and appointed
by the Govemment-Directions issued-Right to appointment-Constitution
D of lndia-A1ticles 14 and 16.
E
An advertisement was issued in 1988 for filling up certain vacancies
including 15 posts in the Treasury Officers- Accounts Officers in U.P.
Finance and Accounts Service. Out of the said 15 posts, 4 were reserved
for Scheduled Caste candidates. The State Public Service Commission
recommended the names of four candidates. The appellant and. three
others could not be recommended, as there was no request from the
Government for keeping a waiting list. The appellant approached the High
Court for a writ of mandamus or. direction to the Public Service Commission to recommend his name for appointment in the Accounts Service. The
F
High Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner
was not intimated that he was selected. Aggrieved against the High Court's
order the appellant preferred the present appeal.
G
Allowing the appeal, this Court
HELD : 1.1. It is not in dispute that the appellant is a reserved
candidate belonging to Scheduled Castes. In view of the admitted position
that four posts were reserved in the Finance Department and the 4 !)elected
candidates appeared to ·have not joined the service, it is clear that the
appellant also is the 4th candidate in the order of merit would have been
H selected, had there been a requisition by the State Government for appoint444
J.N. RAM v. STATE
445
ment of the reserved candidates. (447-B-C]
1.2. Right to seek appointment to a post under Article 14 read with
Articles 16(1) and (4) is a constitutional right to equality. The State failed
to perform its constitutional duty to requisition the P.S.C. to recommend
the next qualified persons to the posts reserved for Scheduled Castes.
Under these circumstances, the denial of appointment to the appellant and
three others above him is unc::mstitutional. Therefore, the respondents are
not justified in denying the claim of the appellant for appointment to the
above post. The P.S.C. is, therefore, directed to recommend the name of
the appellant for appointment in the first category, i..e. Treasury Officers
and Accounts Officers, within a period of six weeks from the date of the
receipt of the order and the State is directed to issue order of appointment
to the appellant within a period of six weeks thereafter. (447-C-F]

## Text

A
JAi NARAIN RAM
v.
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
NOVEMBER 16, 1995
B
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.]
S e1vice law :
Appointment-Posts rese1ved for S. C. candidates-Public S e1vice ComC mission recommending 4 names-No waiting list maintained since there was
no request from Govemment-All the four selected candidates not joining
se1vice-Candidate within the next four in the merit list approaching the
Court-Since his tum could be covered in the four vacancies adve1tised, he
should be recommended by the Public Se1vice Commission.and appointed
by the Govemment-Directions issued-Right to appointment-Constitution
D of lndia-A1ticles 14 and 16.
E
An advertisement was issued in 1988 for filling up certain vacancies
including 15 posts in the Treasury Officers- Accounts Officers in U.P.
Finance and Accounts Service. Out of the said 15 posts, 4 were reserved
for Scheduled Caste candidates. The State Public Service Commission
recommended the names of four candidates. The appellant and. three
others could not be recommended, as there was no request from the
Government for keeping a waiting list. The appellant approached the High
Court for a writ of mandamus or. direction to the Public Service Commission to recommend his name for appointment in the Accounts Service. The
F
High Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner
was not intimated that he was selected. Aggrieved against the High Court's
order the appellant preferred the present appeal.
G
Allowing the appeal, this Court
HELD : 1.1. It is not in dispute that the appellant is a reserved
candidate belonging to Scheduled Castes. In view of the admitted position
that four posts were reserved in the Finance Department and the 4 !)elected
candidates appeared to ·have not joined the service, it is clear that the
appellant also is the 4th candidate in the order of merit would have been
H selected, had there been a requisition by the State Government for appoint444
J.N. RAM v. STATE
445
ment of the reserved candidates. (447-B-C]
1.2. Right to seek appointment to a post under Article 14 read with
Articles 16(1) and (4) is a constitutional right to equality. The State failed
to perform its constitutional duty to requisition the P.S.C. to recommend
the next qualified persons to the posts reserved for Scheduled Castes.
Under these circumstances, the denial of appointment to the appellant and
three others above him is unc::mstitutional. Therefore, the respondents are
not justified in denying the claim of the appellant for appointment to the
above post. The P.S.C. is, therefore, directed to recommend the name of
the appellant for appointment in the first category, i..e. Treasury Officers
and Accounts Officers, within a period of six weeks from the date of the
receipt of the order and the State is directed to issue order of appointment
to the appellant within a period of six weeks thereafter. (447-C-F]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 11314 of
1995.
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.12.92 of the Allahabad High
Court in Civil Misc. W.P. No. Nil of 1992.
R.K. Jain, M.A. Rahman and M.R. Bidsar, for the Appellant.
A
B
c
D
AB. Rohtagi, R.B. Misra and M.K. Roy for the Respondents.
E
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Leave granted.
We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the State. F
For the recruitment in the 15 posts of Treasury Officers- Accounts Officers
in U.P. Finance and Accounts Services, Sales Tax Officers (6 posts) and
Regional Audit Officers (4 posts) advertisement was made in 1988. Out of
15 posts in the Treasury Officers-Accounts Officers in U.P. Finance and
Accounts Service, 4 posts were reserved for members of the Scheduled
Castes. It would appear that as a result of Competitive examination conG
ducted by the P.S.C., the last candidate selected for these 4 posts was one
Anil Kumar Rai who secured 361 marks in written examination and 39
marks in persc iality test out of 400 marks. The P.S.C. had recommended
the names of four candidates. As a result, the appellant and three others
- one Balkesh Singh, Bali Ram Prasad, Amar Singh, who secured 347 + 53 H
A
B
c
446
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
(total 400 marks), 344 + 56 (total 400 marks), 360 + 39 (total 399 marks)
and the appellant 351+48 (total 399 marks), could not be recommended,
as there was no request by the Government for putting them in the waiting
list. Since they could not be appointed, the appellant had approached the
High Court for a writ of mandamus or direction to the P.S.C. to recommend his name for appointment in the Accounts Service. The High Court
dismissed the writ petition No. nil of 1992 by order dated December 4,
1992 on the ground that the petitioner was not intimated that he was
selected. Since there was no information that he was put in the select list,
direction could not be given to appoint him as Accounts Officer in Accounts Service.
In the counter-affidavit filed by the P.S.C., it was stated that since
four posts were reserved for the Scheduled Castes and the last candidate
Anil Kumar Rai was already selected and recommended for appointment, .
and as there was no request by the State Government for preparation of
waiting list for the vacant posts reserved for the Scheduled Castes, the
D names of the appellant and the aforestated three persons could not be
recommended for appointment. It is stated in the counter- affidavit filed
by Behari Lal, Special Secretary, Karmik Anubhag Secretariat, U.P. that
since the appellant was not recommended nor found qualified for appointment, he could not claim any appointment.
E
In para 11 of the Special Leave Petition, a specific stand has been
taken in paragraph 11 that the four candidates selected by the P.S.C.,
namely, Ram Bodh, Roll No. 22142, Serial No. 13, Lolark Ram Roll No.
442, SL No. 23, Ram Daras Chandrahas, Roll No. 2301, S~. No. 24, and
·Raja Ram, Roll No. 1787, Sl. No. 30, though selected and recommended
F
for appointment in the first category, did not join in the service. As a
consequence, 4 posts were left vacant and required to be filled up by the
reserved candidates. Since the appellant is the 4th candidate among the
candidates who were standing in the order of merit, rejection of appellant's
claim for appointment is illegal and unconstitutional.
G
H
In the counter affidavit of Bihari Lal, it is stated in para 6 thus :
"That the contents of paras 11 & 12 of the S.L.P. relates to the
Finance Deptt., therefore need no comments of answering respondent. However, it is submitted that reserved posts can be filled by
the candidates of reserved categories only."
....
J.N. RAM v. STATE
447
In other words, there is no denial of the aforestated four candidates not A
joining in the Finance Department. It is submitted that it would be filled
up by reserved candidates.
It is not in dispute that the appellant is a reserved candidate belonging to Scheduled Castes. In view of the admitted position that four posts
were reserved in the Finance Department in category 1 mentioned earlier B
and 4 selected candidates appeared to have not joined in the service, as
asserted in para 11 of the S.L.P. and not specifically denied by the respondents in the counter-affidavit in para 6 as referred to earlier, it is clear that
the appellant also is the 4th candidate in the order of merit would have
been selected, had there been a requisition by the State Government for C
appointment of the reserved candidates.
Right to seek appointment to a post under Article 14 read with
Articles 16(1) and ( 4) is a constitutional right to equality. The State failed
to perform its constitutional duty to requisition the P.S.C. to recommend
the next qualified persons to the posts reserved for scheduled castes. D
Under these circumstances, the denial of appointment to the appellant and
three others above him is unconstitutional. Therefore, the respondents are
not justified in denying the claim of the appellant for the appointment to
the above post.
The P.S.C. is, therefore, directed to recommend the name of the
appellant for appointment in the first category, i.e. Treasury Officers and
Accounts Officers, within a period of six weeks from the date of the receipt
of the order and the State is directed to issue order of appointment to the
appellant within a period of six weeks thereafter.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
G.N.
Appeal allowed.
E
F