Appointments against backlog reserved vacancies exceeding the statutory reservation quota are invalid.

The Chief Medical Superintendent, P.L. Sharma District Hospital, Meerut, advertised backlog vacancies for reserved-category candidates in 2007. Satish Kumar and two others applied, were selected, and appointed as Safai Karamcharis

Subsequently, by orders dated 3 November 2007 and 16 September 2008, they were restrained from working and their appointments were cancelled on the ground that the advertised backlog vacancies were irregular and unavailable

In an earlier writ petition, the High Court directed the competent authority to examine the records and pass a reasoned final order after considering the conflicting inquiry reports

Upon reconsideration, the respondents’ representation was rejected by order dated 26 November 2010, leading to Writ-A No. 856 of 2011

The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition, principally relying on a revised vacancy chart showing six vacancies and holding that the appointments had been made against valid reserved vacancies, while also observing that the respondents had not been given notice before cancellation of their appointments

The State challenged that decision by the present special appeal. The appeal was reported to be delayed by 54 days; the delay was condoned because it was sufficiently explained

1. Whether the respondents’ appointments were validly made against backlog vacancies reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates, having regard to the sanctioned Class-IV cadre strength and the statutory reservation limit

2. Whether the absence of prior notice and hearing before restraining the respondents from working and cancelling their appointments invalidated the impugned orders

3. Whether the learned Single Judge was justified in relying on the revised vacancy chart showing six Safai Karamchari vacancies

The Court applied the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994, under which reservation must remain within the prescribed percentage and a vacancy can be treated as a backlog vacancy only where it had previously been advertised but remained unfilled

The Court further applied the principle that Safai Karamcharis formed part of the larger Class-IV cadre and could not be treated as an independent cadre for calculating reservation

Although principles of natural justice ordinarily require notice and an opportunity of hearing before adverse action affecting an appointment, the Court held that, in the circumstances of this case, the respondents’ subsequent opportunity before the Writ Court and the appellate court, together with the patent illegality in the vacancy calculation, rendered the absence of a prior hearing non-consequential

The Court found that the revised chart treated all 32 sanctioned Safai Karamchari posts as reserved for Scheduled Castes, although the total Class-IV cadre consisted of 108 posts

Applying the reservation limits of 21% for Scheduled Castes and 2% for Scheduled Tribes, the Court held that, at most, 23% of the relevant cadre could be reserved, making it legally impermissible to treat all 32 Safai Karamchari posts as Scheduled Caste backlog vacancies

The six vacancies shown in the chart therefore could not, by themselves, establish the existence of valid backlog vacancies.

The respondents also failed to demonstrate that the vacancies had previously been advertised and remained unfilled, which was necessary to qualify them as backlog vacancies

Although notice had not been given before cancellation, the Court held that the respondents had received a full opportunity during the writ proceedings and before the appellate court, and that the illegality in the reservation calculation was apparent and could not be cured by a further hearing

Accordingly, the learned Single Judge’s reliance on the revised chart was held to be erroneous

The absence of a prior notice did not alter the result in the facts of the case because the illegality was patent and the respondents had subsequently been heard

The judgment of the learned Single Judge in Writ-A No. 856 of 2011 was quashed, the State’s special appeal was allowed, and the orders cancelling the respondents’ appointments were restored

The respondents had not worked since 2008