NAGENDRA PANDEY Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & OTHERS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE appears to be no dispute that 2% horizontal reservation is available to people, who are dependents of freedom fighters. Public Service Commission, Uttarakhand, received a requisition from the State Government, where it was provided that, on 4th July, 2002, three posts were sanctioned and, on 15th June, 2006, one post was sanctioned and, accordingly, there are four sanctioned posts. It was stated in the requisition that, out of those four sanctioned posts, one post is reserved for Scheduled Caste community and the remaining three for General category. It was stated that no post is available for dependents of freedom fighters. On receipt of the requisition, an advertisement was published, where it was indicated that the reservation policy of the State will be applied in accordance with notifications issued from time to time. It was also indicated that the policy of the State, pertaining to people being dependents of freedom fighters, will also apply. It was, at the same time, indicated that the policy of the State, pertaining to reservation for women, will also apply. It appears that, on 18th July, 2001, by way of a policy, the Government made 20% horizontal reservation for women. It also appears that 20% horizontal reservation for women was increased to 30% on 28th December, 2004, when a direction was given that attempt shall be made to fill -up those posts for three consecutive years and, only thereafter, the posts will be made available to a deserving candidate. Selection pursuant to the advertisement was completed, whereupon, the Commission made recommendation for appointment of a Scheduled Caste candidate and appointment of two General candidates. It held out in the recommendation that no suitable woman General candidate was found and, accordingly, one of the said posts has been carried forward.

(2.) IN the present writ petition, it was contended by the petitioner that, while women had horizontal reservation, so was dependents of freedom fighters, and since the petitioner held out that he belonged to the said community; there was no just reason not to consider the horizontal reservation available to the petitioner. It was next contended by the petitioner that, in any event, in accordance with the law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, no horizontal reservation could be carried forward and, accordingly, the next deserving General candidate should have had been recommended for appointment. It is the contention of the petitioner that he was the next suitable General candidate after those two, who have been recommended and, accordingly, petitioner is entitled to a direction for including the name of the petitioner in the recommendation of the Commission.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Commission submitted that, in view of the said Government Order dated 28th December, 2004, in the absence of a suitable female General candidate, the Commission had carried forward one post available for General candidates, which, according to the learned counsel, should not have been done. The learned counsel next submitted that he has brought the merit list of the candidates, who participated in the selection process, wherefrom, it does not appear that the position of the petitioner was next to those, who have been recommended for being appointed as General candidates. Accepting the said submission, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, in such circumstances, at least the person, who was next to those two who have been recommended, should have been recommended. That is right, but no direction in that regard can be given, inasmuch as, the person, who has so been deprived, has not evinced dissatisfaction in regard thereto. We, accordingly, close the matter and dispose of the writ petition hoping that, in future, the Commission will not carry forward any horizontal reservation giving due respect to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.