Reservation in Certain Services not to exceed 50 percent of total posts

State of U.P and Anr vs. Pawan Kumar Tiwari and Ors

Filed under: Uttar Pradesh Public Service (Reservation for Physically Handicapped Dependants of Freedom Fighters
and Ex-Servicemen) Act, 1993
Uttar Pradesh Public Service (Reservation for Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribes and Other Backwards Classes) Act, 1994
Appellant: State of U.P and Anr
Respondent: Pawan Kumar Tiwari and Ors
Citation: AIR2005SC658, 2005 (1) AWC 363 (SC), 2005(1)ESC96, [2005(1)JCR147(SC], 2005(1)JKJ [SC], JT2005(1)SC150,2005(2) SLJ 386 (SC), (2005)2 UPLBEC1285
Court: In the Supreme Court of India
Judges: R.C. Lahoti, G.P. Mathur and A.K. Mathur

Facts

In the year 1997, the State Public Service Commission, pursuant to the requisition made by the State Government on the advice of the High Court of Uttar Pradesh, advertised 93 posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division) in the Uttar Pradesh Judicial Service.

Keeping in view the provisions for reservation, mandated by the U.P. Public Service (Reservation for Physically Handicapped, Departments of Freedom Fighters and Ex-Servicemen) Act 1993 and U.P. Public Service (Reservations for Schedule Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other backward Classes) Act 1994, certain posts were reserved.

To the extent of the percentage of reservation, as contemplated by the two Acts mentioned above, there was no controversy. However, a controversy arose on the application of the percentage as against the total number of posts. Pawan Kumar Tiwari belonged to general category. 46 selected candidates in the general category were appointed. There were 3 candidates in the waiting list.

He was at the top of the waiting list but was denied appointment. Aggrieved he filed a Writ Petition in the High Court which was allowed directing the State of U.P. to issue a letter of appointment to him. The State then filed this appeal against the order of the High Court.

Observations of the Court

The Court examined the rule of rounding off the reservation percentage, according to which if the decimal part was one-half or more, its value would be increased to one and if it was less than half then its value would be ignored. Therefore, 46.50 should have been rounded off to 47 and not to 46 as has been done.

If 47 candidates would have been considered for selection in the general category, Pawan was sure to find a place in the list of selected meritorious candidates and hence entitled to appointment. Moreover the total number of vacancies was 93 and consequent upon the allocation of reservation and calculation done by the State, the number of reserved seats would be 47, leaving only 46 available for general category candidates.

Meaning thereby, the reservation would exceed 50% which would be unconstitutional. It was stated that the total number of reserved seats could not exceed 46 out of 93. The appeal was therefore dismissed.