GIDLA SATYANARAYANA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, working as constable and belonging to Scheduled Caste, has applied for the post of Sub Inspector of Police, pursuant to the Notification dated 15.12.2005 issued by the respondents 1 and 2 for filling up the notified ten vacancies of Sub Inspector of Police. The written test was conducted on 14.7.2007. He participated in the selection process and was placed at Serial No. 35, based on the marks of 86 scored by him. However, he could not make it to the appointment as Sub Inspector of Police. Therefore, he filed O.A. No. 227 of 2010 before the Tribunal, praying to declare the appointment of the third respondent as illegal, invalid and consequently to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to appoint him (the petitioner) as Sub Inspector of Police under the SC quota with effect from the date on which the 3rd respondent is appointed with all other consequential benefits, including arrears of wages and seniority. His case is that once the respondents 1 and 2 have notified ten vacancies, they are bound to fill up only ten vacancies whereas they have filled up 20 vacancies to the post of Sub Inspector of Police and even though several vacancies are available, the respondents 1 and 2 have not made any appointment from the present select list; that as per the government orders a select list has to be operated till the list candidate in the select list is appointed and on that basis also, according to the petitioner, he is entitled to get appointment in the existing vacancy; that the respondents 1 and 2 ought to have notified three vacancies under the SC category and one ST vacancy in the S.T. category out of 20 vacancies but not even a single vacancy was reserved for SC category and the said notification itself is illegal and invalid; that without notification, the respondents have appointed two persons under the Ex-serviceman quota namely, Mr. Venkatesh, who obtained 86 marks and one Mr. K. Ramesh, who is placed at Sl. No. 17; that the third respondent has applied for the post under the OBC category by producing OBC certificate and subsequently he filed a case stating that he has to be considered under the MBC category and the Government considered his claim and so the Original Application was allowed even though he has not applied under the MBC category and even though there is no reservation made under the notification at all.

(2.) The respondents 1 and 2 have stiffly opposed the claim of the petitioner, by filing vivid counter affidavit. It is their contention that even though, at the outset ten vacancies were notified as 'general' category, subsequently, a press note was issued on 4.7.2007, owing to increase in the vacancies to 18, wherein they have also mentioned the post based roster as General=14; MBC=2; OBC=1 and SC=1. According to them, the total sanctioned strength of Sub Inspector of Police is 123 out of which 50% of the posts are for direct recruitment and 50% of posts are for recruitment by promotion and therefore, the direct recruitment quota comes to 61; that from 1997 to 2007, 9 SC posts were filled and there are other SC candidate in the 61 posts who have been selected in the general list and therefore, whenever there is a shortfall in the ration of 16% of SC candidates, the department has taken action to fill the shortfall vacancies earmarked to scheduled caste quota as per the said memorandum. With regard to the section of third respondent, the respondents 1 and 2 have stated that one Thiru Venkatesan selected under the Ex-serviceman cum OBC category was placed at Sl. No. 17 in the selection list and he has not been offered the appointment to the post of Sub Inspector of Police, since three O.As. 669/2007, 498/2007 and 515/2007 were filed by the individuals namely Kirtty, Gokulakrishnan and Santhi respectively and the Tribunal had directed the Department in separate interim orders to keep vacant one post of Sub Inspector of Police, till the disposal of the above O.As. After disposal of the said O.As., offer of appointment was issued to Thiru Venkatesan; further, Thiru Ramesh has been issued offer of appointment to the post of Sub Inspector of Police in the place of vacancy caused by Thiru Gopalakrishnan, General Category at Sl. No. 15 in the selection list, since he expressed unwillingness to join the post; that the Original Application No. 669/2007 filed by the third respondent C. Kirtty, praying to issue offer of appointment under the MBC category, was allowed by the Tribunal, directing the Department to issue order of appointment within one month and aggrieved over the same, the Department had filed W.P. No. 9449 of 2010, which was dismissed by this Court on 30.4.2010, further directing the Department to comply with the order of the Tribunal.

(3.) The Tribunal has dismissed the said Original Application observing that if the applicant is aggrieved by any irregularity in the process of selection, he ought to have challenged the select list making all the candidates as respondents. The Tribunal also observed that in the absence of an specific violation of roster points being established, the Tribunal was unable to give any particular direction in that regard. Aggrieved, the petitioner has come forward to file this writ petition.