KUSUM Vs. STATE OF U P AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the instant petition seeking quashing of order dated 5.7.2006 issued by U.P. Police Headquarters, Allahabad. By the said order, the candidature of the petitioner alongwith two others was reconsidered by the Departmental Selection Committee for appointment on the post of Sub Inspector/Platoon Commander. The reconsideration of the candidature of the petitioner alongwith two other candidates was made in compliance of the judgment of this Court dated 24.1.2006 in Writ-A No.61688 of 2005 connected with Writ-A No.64135 of 2005. This Court in the judgment rendered in these matters, wherein petitioner herein was also one of the petitioners, directed the respondents to "reconsider and declare the result of the petitioners treating them to be members of scheduled tribe category if sufficient number of vacancies are available." The petitioners of those writ petitions had appeared for selection on the post of Sub Inspector (Civil Police)/Platoon Commander in pursuance of an advertisement dated 1.9.2001. In the application form, the petitioners disclosed their category as scheduled caste. The final result of the selection was declared on 3.9.2005. The petitioners were considered for selection under the category scheduled caste and were not selected. The petitioners, including other persons, filed above mentioned writ petitions before this Court contending that before the date of declaration of the final result, the Parliament by means of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 2002 being Act No.10 of 2003 published in official Gazette of India on 8.1.2003, notified the 'Gond' caste to which the petitioners belong as 'scheduled tribe'. It was urged that in view of the change in the status of the petitioners from scheduled caste to scheduled tribe on account of the Act of Parliament, the candidature of the petitioners should have been considered treating them to be scheduled tribe. It was further contended by the petitioners before this Court that large number of vacancies under scheduled tribe were vacant and thus, there was no difficulty in considering their candidature under the said category. The claim of the petitioners was opposed by the State on the ground that the petitioners were considered under the category under which they had applied. However, this Court placing reliance on a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Prashant Kumar Vs. State of U.P., (2005) 3 AWC 2738 held that the relevant date for considering the claim of reservation of a candidate against a particular category would be the date on which result was declared, having regard to the conditions of the advertisement and not the date of submission of the application form. It was further held that since the caste of the petitioner got altered on account of an Act of Parliament and, therefore, the case under which the petitioners fell on the date the result was declared, would be relevant. Accordingly, direction was issued to reconsider the candidature of the petitioners of those cases under the scheduled tribe category and declare the result accordingly.

(2.) When the Departmental Selection Committee reconsidered the candidature of the petitioners of those cases, including the petitioner herein, all other candidates were declared selected under the scheduled tribe category except the petitioner. The petitioner was declared unsuccessful on the ground that even under scheduled tribe category, she could not succeed.

(3.) The petitioner has filed the instant petition contending that the petitioner was called for interview in which she had performed well and number of vacancies being available under scheduled tribe category, she has wrongly been declared unsuccessful. The respondents filed counter affidavit, in which they took stand that according to the prevalent Government Orders, a candidate had to obtain atleast 40% marks, in each paper, in the written examination. Since the petitioner could not fulfill the said requirement, therefore, she had been declared unsuccessful.