Usha Mehra.
The Brochure on reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in services issued by the Govt.
For the two vacancies which were reserved for general category candidates, one Mr. Malhotra and one Mr. singh were appointed.
Chapter 8 of this Brochure deals with the procedure for filling reserved vacancies in recruitment through U.P.S.C or by advertisement.
Once again numbersuitable candidate was available.
As against the two vacancies which were reserved for the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates, three scheduled Caste candidates were selected.
The two roster points 6 and 7 for general category candidates were filled after advertisement.
For filling of vacancies in the Delhi Higher Judicial Service after giving due effect to reservations in favour of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, under Rule 22 of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules 1970, reservations have to be made in accordance with the orders issued by the Central Govt.
In 1983, one vacancy was advertised for a Scheduled Tribe candidate.
Four vacancies were advertised.
It was a proposal was made to the Central Govt.
Since the vacancy at the roster point 4 had been filled by a general category candidate, the reservation in favour of a Scheduled Tribe candidate was shifted to the roster point 5.
A Full Bench of the Delhi High Court has companysidered the case of the petitioner along with the cases of several other petitioner who had also challenged their number appointment in respect of subsequent vacancies.
Hence he filed a written petition in the Delhi High Court against his number being appointed.
of India, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Ministry of Home Affairs companytain orders and instructions issued by the Govt of India from time to time on the question of reservations of vacancies for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
There being numberother vacancies, the petitioner and L.D Mual were number given appointments.
To this vacancy roster point 5 was applied which was reserved for a Scheduled Tribe candidate and which had remained unfilled in 1981.
The vacancy in the 1979 was at roster point 4 which is reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidate.
Several vacancies have arisen thereafter, but the petitioner was number appointed.
The three candidates on the select panel, in the order of the merit were 1 Padam Singh, 2 the petitioner and 3 L.D Mual.
Accordingly a roaster is maintained.
Roster point 6 was for a general category.
However, the vacancy which was reserved fora Scheduled Tribe candidate companyld number be filled since numbersuitable candidate was available.
In the case of the petitioner the Delhi High Court has held that he was number entitled to be appointed and has dismissed his petition.
The petitioner who belongs to a Scheduled Caste, applied for one of these vacancies.
for dereservation of that vacancy.
from time to time.
The next recruitment was in 1985.
However, the reservation for a Scheduled Tribe candidate.
It was, thereafter, carried forward.
It is the companytention of the petitioner that this was the third recruitment year of carrying forward a vacancy meant for a Scheduled Tribe candidate.
In other words, the three vacancies which arose in 1981 were companysidered as one for a Scheduled Tribe candidate and two for general category candidates.
As per the relevant rules and instructions applicable to this roster, in the third year of carry forward, the Scheduled Caste vacancy was exchangeable with a Scheduled Caste vacancy.
These were at roster points 8,9,10 and 11.
In order to understanding the claim of the petitioner it is necessary to examine the position regarding filling of vacancies in respect of Additional District and Sessions Judges from the year 1979 onwards.
Since it was a single vacancy, it was treated as unreserved and it was filled by a general category candidate, Smt.
Roster point 7 was for a Scheduled Caste candidate.
However, roster point 7 was treated as for general category candidate, Since out of three vacancies only one companyld be reserved.
The select panel approved by the Full companyrt of the Delhi High Court.
These vacancies were at a roster points 5,6 and 7.
These roster points 10 and 11 were filled by general category candidates.
Hence the reservation at the roster point 7, was transferred to roster point 9.
In 1979 there was one vacancy for the post of Additional District Sessions Judge.
The petitioner who was at the serial No.2 was number appointed in the vacancy which was meant for a Scheduled Tribe candidate and it was kept unfilled.
Thereafter, in the 1981 three vacancies arose.
Padam Singh who was at the head of the select Panel was at the head of the Select Panel was appointed against the vacancy for a Scheduled Caste candidate.
Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar, J. The petitioner is a practising advocate of more than 21 years standing.
Roster point 9 was kept for a Scheduled Caste candidate in view of the fact that in 1981, roster point 7 which was for a scheduled Caste candidate, had been filled by a general category candidate.
He applied for the post of an Additional District Sessions Judge in the Delhi Higher Judicial service in response to an advertisement which was issued in June 1985.
The advertisement was in respect of four vacancies out of which two vacancies were in the general category, one was reserved for a Scheduled Caste candidate and one was reserved for a Scheduled Tribe candidate.
