Allahabad HC Quashes Rejection Of 54th-Ranked OBC Enforcement Constable Applicant, Orders Fresh Review Of Relevant Vacancies

The petitioner’s name appeared at Serial No. 54 in the OBC select list prepared following the 2004 recruitment for Enforcement Constables.

He claimed that 30 advertised OBC vacancies remained unfilled and relied on an advertisement provision concerning 25% of vacancies arising during the selection year.

He also relied on appointments granted to candidates Imamuddin and Bal Govind pursuant to earlier court proceedings.

After an earlier direction to reconsider his case in light of the Imamuddin judgment, the respondents rejected his representation by order dated 26.11.2012.

The petitioner challenged that rejection.

Under the U.P. Transport Department Enforcement Employees Cadre (Group ‘D’) Service Rules, 1979, Rule 30(j) defines the recruitment year as a twelve-month period commencing on 1 July; the relevant recruitment year and rules governing operation of a select list therefore bear on whether a vacancy may be filled from that list.

Inclusion in a select list does not, by itself, confer an indefeasible right to appointment, particularly where no lawful vacancy exists; nevertheless, the recruiting authority must act fairly, consider relevant material and apply the governing recruitment provisions consistently.

The advertisement’s 25% provision had to be interpreted according to its actual terms and the applicable rules; it neither automatically made every subsequent vacancy available nor could be disregarded if applicable.

The Court’s earlier order dated 26.08.2011 required genuine reconsideration of the petitioner’s claim, including the availability of a vacancy of the same selection year.

The Court did not treat the appointments of Imamuddin and Bal Govind as automatically entitling the petitioner to appointment, since their circumstances and the legal basis of the relevant vacancies could differ.

Those appointments were, however, relevant to whether the respondents had consistently applied the recruitment framework.

The petitioner’s specific assertion that 30 OBC vacancies remained unfilled, together with the respondents’ account of additional names and vacancies arising during the relevant period, required examination of the recruitment records and the vacancies’ category, timing and legal basis; a general assertion that selected candidates had joined did not resolve that issue.

The respondents also had to determine the scope of the 25% provision and address the earlier direction to reconsider the claim.

The rejection could not rest solely on the absence of an indefeasible right to appointment or on the petitioner’s serial number.

It directed the competent authority to determine the petitioner’s entitlement against vacancies of the relevant selection year, subject to his OBC category, merit position and applicable recruitment provisions, and not to reject the claim merely because his name appeared at Serial No. 54.

The authority must issue an appointment order and extend consequential benefits if the petitioner is found entitled, and must pass a reasoned order addressing merit, vacancy availability and utilisation, the 25% provision and the Imamuddin and Bal Govind cases within three months of production of a certified copy of the judgment.