P K BHASIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in the two writ petitions are practising advocates at Delhi. the High Court of Delhi (respondent No. 3) issued an advertisement (AnnexureB-l) in December, 1987 inviting applications from practising advocates for filling upvacancies in the Delhi Higher Judicial Service (for short 'the Service'), falling in the quota of direct recruits. The vacancies advertised were four in number, two of which were stated to be reserved for Scheduled Castes and two for Scheduled Tribes; one of the vacancy of Scheduled Tribes being exchangeable to a candidate belonging to Scheduled Castes. Alternatively, it was notified that these vacancies would also be open to general category candidates, who would be considered for appointment in the event of suitable candidates not being available in the reserved category. Both the petitioners state to have applied in response to the aforesaid advertisemeril and were called for interiew on 7th October, 1988 before the Selection Committee constituted by the High Court.

(2.) The pica in both the writ petitions is that only one candidate belonging to Scheduled Castes category, namely, Shri L.D. Maul has been appointed to the Service, against one of the four advertised vacancies in September, 1989. It is alleged that no other candidate belonging to the reserved category, whether Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes, was found suitable for appointment to the Service. They contend that their performance was very satisfactory, and they have every reason to believe that they had been selected along with one other general category candidate, for appointment against the remaining three reserved vacancies.

(3.) Before proceedipg further with the contentions raised in these writ petitions, which we propose to dispose of by one common judgment as these raise common questions of facts and law, we find it expedient to set out a few facts, so as to facilitate proper appreciation of the contentions being raised in these petitions.