Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

9. Aggrieved against the aforesaid, the writ petitioners preferred Special Appeal No. 1202 of 2006 before the Division Bench. The Division Bench recorded the following conclusions:-

"In view of the aforesaid we clarify that the backlog vacancies with reference to Clause 2 of Section 3 of U.P. Act No. 4 of 1994 as amended by U.P. Act No. 1 of 2002 necessarily mean those vacancies within the reserved category which were subject matter of an earlier advertisement but remained unfilled because of non availability of suitable candidates within the reserved category after selection. It is only in respect of such vacancies that the procedure qua backlog vacancies can be adopted. We may further clarify that any vacancy in the reserved category (however old it may be), if it had not been advertised earlier and was not a part of an earlier process of selection which was completed, the same cannot be termed to be a backlog vacancy.
It is clear from that the Department has with object to complete quote on sanctioned posts has forwarded requisitions as above and has requested for the action accordingly.

Yours faithfully, Sd/-

(Gaya Prasad) Senior Staff Officer (E-2Ka) For Engineer in Chief, Irrigation Department"

19. A harmonious construction of sections 2(d), 3(2) and 3(5) would lead to the conclusion, as stated by the Division Bench, that only those vacancies can be declared backlog vacancies, within the reserved category, which were subject matter of advertisement but remained unfilled because of non-availability of suitable candidates, within the reserved category, after selection. It is only in respect of such vacancy that the procedure qua backlog vacancy can be adopted. Any vacancy, which has not been subjected to a complete process of selection, even though vacant, cannot be treated as a backlog vacancy.

21. In spite of the aforesaid requests, it appears that the posts meant for the reserved categories could not be filled. The State Government had only partly performed its duties by sending the necessary requisitions to the Public Service Commission for initiating the selection process. Thereafter, the selection process ought to have been completed as provided under the Statutory Rules. It appears that the selection process for the 367 posts was not completed. Therefore, the aforesaid vacancies could not be termed as unfilled vacancies belonging to the reserved categories. But, at the same time, it also can not be disputed by anybody that the 367 posts, which are sought to be filled by special recruitment are posts, which are meant for the reserved categories and have remained unfilled. This is evident from the letter dated 25th October, 2005 pointing out that out of the 887 posts mentioned in the letter dated 13th October, 2005, 367 posts were infact reserved category posts, which had been lying vacant and had been wrongly included in the general recruitment. Hence, a request was made to exclude the aforesaid posts from the general selection and be filled by holding a special recruitment for the reserved category candidates.

23. In our opinion, the State Government, in the present case, ought to have initiated the necessary selection procedure upon due verification of the posts available for the reserved categories. It was not sufficient to merely send the requisition to the Public Service Commission. It was necessary for the State to pursue the matter with the Public Service Commission for completion of the selection process. Otherwise, the very purpose of introducing the roster system and a running account would be totally defeated. We may reiterate here the observations made by this Court in the case of R.K. Sabharwal (supra). With regard to the operation of the roster system, in the aforesaid case, it was observed as follows:-