Allahabad High Court
Reetu Chaudhary vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 31 January, 2020
Bench: Bala Krishna Narayana, Ravi Nath Tilhari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1641 of 2020 Petitioner :- Reetu Chaudhary Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anshu Singh,Hemendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,M.N. Singh Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J.
Hon'ble Ravi Nath Tilhari,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos.1 and 3 and Sri M.N. Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being finally disposed of at the admission stage itself without calling for any counter affidavit.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers :-
"A) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to fill the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) under O.B.C. Category pursuance to Advertisement dated 11.9.2018 from 10% waiting list envisaged under Rule 20(3) of U.P. Judicial Service (Second Amendment) Rules, 2012.
B) Issue any suitable writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
C) Award the cost of the writ petition to the petitioner."
Briefly stated the facts of this case are that respondent no.1 issued an advertisement (Annexure-1) dated 11.9.2018 and invited applications from eligible candidates for U.P. Judicial Service Civil Judge (JD) Examination, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as "Examination, 2018" ). The total number of vacancies advertised were 610 across all categories. Out of 610 posts , 306 posts were reserved for general category, whereas 164 posts were reserved for OBC category, 128 posts for SC category and 12 posts for ST and in horizontal 122 seats were reserved for woman category. The recruitment to the post of Civil Judge Junior Division is governed by Uttar Pradesh Judicial Services Rules, 2001 (Annexure-2) (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"). The Rules were amended in the year 2012 by Uttar Pradesh Judicial Services (Second Amendment) Rules (hereinafter referred to as "the amended Rules"), a true copy whereof has been brought on record as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. The petitioner in response to the aforesaid advertisement applied under the OBC category and was allotted Roll No.007458 and her registration number was 40400135931. The petitioner appeared in the preliminary examination held on 16.12.2018. Having cleared the preliminary examination, the petitioner appeared in the Mains Examination which was conducted between 30.1.2019 and 1.2.2019. The result of the aforesaid examination was published on 13.6.2019 in which a total number of 1847 candidates were declared qualified for the last stage of recruitment. The petitioner was also declared successful and was accordingly called for interview. The petitioner had obtained 440 out of 1000 marks in the written examination and had secured 61 out of 100 marks in the interview. In the final result, which was declared by respondent no.2, the final cut-off marks for selection of candidates from OBC category was mentioned as 503, whereas the petitioner has secured 501 marks, true copy of the cut off list has been brought on record as Annexure-6 to the writ petition. About 32 candidates, who were declared successful did not attend the training and as a result thereof, 32 posts continue to remain vacant on account of non-joining of the selected candidates out of which 8 posts belong to OBC category.
It is contended that despite the fact that a large number of posts are lying vacant on account of non-joining of selected candidates out of which 8 posts belong to OBC category against which the petitioner can conveniently be adjusted but the respondent no.2 is not making any effort for filling up of the aforesaid vacant posts from among the candidates, who were selected in the Mains Examination and had appeared in the interview, but whose marks were below final cut-off marks.
It is next contended that Rule 20(3) of the Amended Rules provides that the vacancies rendered on account of non-joining of the selected candidates shall be filled up from amongst those candidates whose names have been mentioned in waiting list prepared under Rule 20(3) of the Amended Rules, but no steps have been taken by the respondents in this regard despite lapse of considerable period, though they are under a legal obligation to fill up such vacancies from amongst candidates in the waiting list. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgement rendered by another co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Nadeem Anwar v. State of U.P. and another (2016) 2 UPLBEC 1391.
He also contended that as per the information received by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005 on 15.2.2018, respondent no.2 has not prepared any waiting list as envisaged under Rule 20 sub-rule (3) of the 2nd Amendment of U.P. Judicial Service Rules, 2012.
He lastly contended that respondent no.2 may be directed to prepare a waiting list in terms of the Rule 20(3) of the Amended Rules and to fill up the vacancies rendered vacant on account of non-joining of the selected candidates within a specified period.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents despite advancing elaborate arguments, have failed to show that any waiting list as contemplated under Section 20 sub-section (3) of the Amended Rules has been prepared.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material brought on record. In order to appreciate the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, it would be useful to extract Rules 20 and 21 of the Rules hereinbelow :-
"20. List of candidate approved by the Commission.- (1) After the result of written examination is prepared, the Commission shall call for interview such number of candidates, who in the opinion of the Commission have secured minimum marks as may be fixed by the Commission in this respect.
(2) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any rules or orders, the Commission shall invite a sitting Judge of the Court to be nominated by the Chief Justice to participate in the interview of the candidates called under sub-rule (1) and the opinion given by him with regard to the suitability of the candidates shall not be disregarded by the Commission unless there are strong and cogent reasons for not accepting the opinion which reasons must be recorded in writing by the Commission.
(3) The Commission then shall prepare a final list of selected candidates in order of their proficiency as disclosed by aggregate of marks finally awarded to each candidate in the written examination and the interview.
Note-- The wait list shall be prepared category-wise, i.e. for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other categories. The wait-list shall be utilized only in case, the candidates in the select list do not join the posts and shall not utilized for any subsequent vacancies.
Provided that if two or more candidates obtain equal marks in the aggregate, the name of the candidate being elder in age, shall be placed higher:
Provided further that if two or more candidates of equal age obtain equal marks in the aggregate, the name of the candidate, who has obtained higher marks in the written examination, shall be placed higher.
21. Appointment to the service.- (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2), the Governor shall, on receipt of the list of candidates submitted by the Commission under sub-rule (3) of Rule 20, make appointment on the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) in the order in which their names are given in the list provided the Governors is satisfied that the Candidate is otherwise qualified and entitled for such appointment under these rules. (2) The select list prepared under sub-rule (3) of Rule 20 shall lapse after all the vacancies advertised or varied after due notification, are filled up."
There is nothing on record which may indicate that in terms of Rule 20(3) of the Rules, the vacancies which remain unutilised due to non-joining of 32 candidates, have been released by a subsequent recruitment.
In view of above, we dispose of the writ petition with the following directions to respondent no.2 (U.P. Public Service Commission) :-
i) That the Commission shall forward the list of wait listed candidates against each category (keeping vertical and horizontal reservation in mind) within 30 days from the date of filing of certified copy of this order before it.
ii) Further, if such posts have not been utilized in any subsequent recruitment, the Commission shall fill up the said posts strictly in accordance with the Uttar Pradesh Judicial Services Rules, 2001 which could not be filled up, in order of merit of the wait listed candidates, within a further period of 30 days and submit compliance report to the Registrar General of this Court within 75 days from today.
Order Date :- 31.1.2020 Shalini