AMIT B SEJU Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is filed by two petitioners who belong to scheduled caste. The challenge in the petition is to an action of the respondents imposing 100% cut in appointment by unilaterally abolishing all the 72 posts of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector, which were vacant in the year 1994, instead of imposing only 10% cut as per the Government Resolutions and instructions issued from time to time. The main ground of challenge is that the respondent-authorities have not imposed any cut on the post of (i) Regional Transport officer, (ii) Assistant Regional Transport Officer, and (iii) Motor Vehicle Inspector. The say of the petitioners is that the action is discriminatory and also victimizing the persons belonging to the cadre of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspectors. The petitioners also challenge the action of the respondent-authorities of not carrying forward the backlog of two posts reserved for scheduled caste category in the cadre of Assistant Motor Inspectors, which according to them resulted into deprivation of the petitioners from being considered though the petitioners are not only eligible, but were also on the waiting list. The say of the petitioners is that the posts were existing due to non-filling of the required number of posts in the cadre of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector in the scheduled caste category during the last recruitment made pursuant to the advertisement issued in the year 1985.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the present proceedings are set out in para 4 of the petition, wherein it is stated that the respondents had issued advertisements Nos. 27 and 28 dated 30-11-1985 through Gujarat Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as "G.P.S.C."). Applications were invited for 52 posts of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector. A copy of the advertisement dated 30-11-1985 is produced at Annexure 'A' to the petition. A perusal to advertisement No. 28 reveals that out of 52 posts, 8 posts were reserved for Scheduled Caste, 15 posts for Scheduled Tribe and 3 posts for Socially and Economically Backward Class (S.E.B.C.). The petitioners have asserted that the respondent-authorities have filled in only 4 posts belonging to scheduled caste category and thus, there was a backlog of 4 posts of the scheduled caste category. It is then stated that the respondents then issued another advertisement on 30-4-1993 through G.P.S.C., inviting applications for 19 posts. A copy of that advertisement is at Annexure 'B', wherefrom it is clear that 17 posts were to be filled in from the candidates belonging to scheduled tribe category and 2 posts were to be filled in from the candidates belonging to scheduled caste category. The petitioners have also stated that the petitioners had applied pursuant to the said advertisement and after selection, the names of the petitioners were placed at serial Nos. 1 and 2 in the waiting list. It is also stated that the petitioners had all the reasons to believe that they will be considered for appointment as there was a backlog of 4 posts from the posts advertised in the year 1985 and as their names were appearing at serial Nos. 1 and 2 in the waiting list, but it seems that the petitioners were deliberately kept away from the appointment.

(3.) Thereafter, the respondents issued another advertisement on 3-6-1993 through G.P.S.C., inviting applications for 94 posts of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspectors. A copy of the said advertisement is also produced at Annexure 'C' to the petition. Out of these 94 posts, 8 posts were meant for the candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste, 16 posts for Scheduled Tribe and 11 posts for O.B.C. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners having been selected in the year 1993 and wait-listed at serial Nos. 1 and 2, were required to be considered for being appointed, more particularly when there were unfilled vacant posts for reserved for scheduled caste. The petitioners have also mentioned that the petitioners reliably learnt that respondents gave appointment to the first candidate selected to the said post in pursuance of the advertisement dated 30-4-1993 (Annexure 'B') in the month of March, 1995 and second appointment was given to the candidate at serial No. 2 only in January, 1996. Therefore, the petitioners were not able to make any representation to the respondent- authorities earlier. It is the case of the petitioners that they were meeting the concerned officers and making oral inquiries as regards their appointment. As per the say of the petitioners they had also periodically visited and requested officers, more particularly after issuance of advertisement at Annexure 'C', to give them appointment as they were listed at serial Nos. 1 and 2 of the waiting list prepared pursuant to the advertisement dated 30-4-1983 (Annexure 'B'), which was to be operative till 6-9-1996.