BHAWANI SHANKAR NATH SON OF SRI C.B.YADAV Vs. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCE & PENSION, GOVT.OF INDIA, NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 4.11.2002 (Annexure-5), passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, in O.A. No. 218 of 2000 (Bhawani Shankar Nath vs. The Union of India & Ors.), whereby the original application preferred by the writ petitioner has been rejected, and he has been denied a post allegedly due to him because of his position in the combined merit list.

(2.) A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of the writ petition may be indicated. The Union Public Service Commission ('U.P.S.C for short) conducted the selection process to recommend the names for appointment to the Civil Services of the Union of India. The selection process took place sometime in 1998, and the combined merit list was published on 26.5.1999. This was followed by a modified merit list published on 31.8.1999. The recommendations had to be made, were in fact made for a total number of 470 posts. 27% of these seats were reserved for the candidates belonging to Other Backward Classes ('O.B.C for short). In other words, 114 seats were reserved for O.B.C. candidates spread over different services. The petitioner was in O.B.C. category. The petitioner was at serial no. 449 of the combined merit list, which was recommended by the U.P.S.C. to the Union of India for appointment. It is further relevant to state that the petitioner was amongst the list of 114 candidates of O.B.C. It is equally relevant to state that 28 O.B.C. candidates had made their way to the unreserved category without relaxed standards, out of whom 2 were given posts earmarked for candidates of the unreserved category as per their preferences. It appears that the petitioner had submitted representation before the Union of India which was rejected by a reasoned order of 21.1.2000 (Annexure-2), on the ground that after 26 O.B.C. candidates, who had found their way to the category of unreserved candidates without relaxation of standards, were given posts earmarked for the O.B.C. candidates, as a result of which no post was left for the petitioner. Hence this writ petition.

(3.) We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The issues are governed by Rule 2 and Rule 16 of the Civil Services Examination Rules, 1996, and are reproduced hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference: