ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question that we are required to answer in this writ petition is whether it would be inequitable to direct the Respondents to allocate to the petitioners a post in the Customs and Central Excise "group A" Service. In our opinion, on the facts of the case and in view of the decision of the Supreme court in Union of India v. Kishorilal Bablani, (1999) 1 SCC 729, the answer is in the affirmative.

(2.) THE Petitioners participated in the Civil Services Examination, 1991 conducted by the Union Public Service Commission. The number of vacancies advertised was about 950. For the sake of convenience we are considering the case of Mr. Ashok Kumar Pandey, since the facts in all the connected cases are similar. Mr. Pandey ranked 538 in the merit list of successful candidates and after undergoing necessary training, he was allocated a post in the Customs appraisers Service Group "b". The formal letter of appointment was issued on 8th february, 1993, but his date of joining was given retrospective effect from 12th october, 1992.

(3.) ACCORDING to Mr. Pandey, he came across an affidavit filed by the chairman of the Central Board of Excise and Customs in the Supreme Court from which he came to know that between 1980 and 1996 a very large number of vacancies available to the quota of directly recruited candidates was diverted to the promotee quota; that as a result, for the examination under consideration, the number of vacancies available for directly recruited candidates was not correctly calculated; and that if the correct number of vacancies were calculated, Mr. Pandey would have been allocated a "group A" service.