YASHWANT UPADHYA Vs. EXCISE COMMISSIONER ALLAHABAD AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Thirty posts were sought to be filled up pursuant to the Notification dated 7.5.83. The petitioner was selected and placed in the list of Selection Committee at Serial No. 17. Admittedly, 25% of the posts were reserved for Scheduled Caste, 15% for other backward community and 3% for Political sufferers. Thus, a total reservation worked out to 43% while calculating the said percentage on the basis of the said Notification against 30 posts, the Scheduled Caste works out to 7.5, for other backward community 4.5 and that of political sufferers 0.9. The respondents had calculated 7.5 as 8, 4.5 as 5 and 0.9 as one and thus out of total number of posts, 14 candidates, namely, 8 from Scheduled Caste. 5 from backward ' community and one from Political sufferers, were adjusted against reserved category, while 16 candidates were appointed against the general category. This has been challenged in this writ petition by Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. According to him, by reason of such calculation, the maximum limit for reserved category was exceeded. Further, from such calculation it appears that reservation for backward community has exceeded more than 4.5 and fraction is limited to the extent of .5, (point five), which is not a complete unit. If four posts are accommodated against 4.5, in that event appropriate percentage works out to less than the prescribed limit of the reserved category. However, the petitioner contends that he is interested only in one post. If one post is allotted to the general category in that event, the petitioner being at SI. No. 17 shall be accommodated. He has relied on few decisions given on the roster and contends that on the roster the calculation of 43% of reserved category appears to be wrong. Relying on the decision cited by him, he contends that by such calculation, the maximum limit of reserved category may not be exceeded. On this ground, the petitioner claims that the writ petition should be allowed and the petitioner should be accommodated by absorbing in the general category.

(2.) Sri V. K. Rai, brief holder for the State, on the other hand, contends that since a fraction comes in the figure and is .5, (point five), it should be next higher and when it is less than 0.5, then it should be lower. Therefore, the figure 7.5, is calculated to the next higher figure 8 for the Schedule Caste. Similarly figure 4.5 is calculated as 5 for backward community and 0.9 has been taken as one for the political sufferers. He also relied on a decision as discussed hereafter in support of his contention, in which it has been ruled that in case of fraction the higher number has to be taken. According to him, the writ petition should be dismissed.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for both the parties at length.