Supreme Court of India

Jitendra Kumar Singh & Anr vs State Of U.P.& Ors on 8 January, 2010

Author: S S Nijjar

Bench: Tarun Chatterjee, Surinder Singh Nijjar

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.74 OF 2010

(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 1952 OF 2008)

JITENDRA KUMAR SINGH AND ANR. ....APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. ......RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

Civil Appeal No.75 /2010

(@ SLP (C) No. 1967 of 2008)

WITH

Civil Appeal No.79 /2010

(@ SLP (C) No. 1959 of 2008)

WITH

Civil Appeal No.80 /2010

(@ SLP (C) No. 7739 of 2008)

WITH

Civil Appeal Nos.76-78 /2010

(@ SLP (C) Nos. [deleted] of 2008)

WITH

Civil Appeal No.81 /2010

63. As noticed earlier, the learned Single Judge despite taking note of the averments made in the supplementary counter affidavit by the State, erroneously issued directions to recalculate the vacancies reserved for outstanding sportspersons. It was specifically pointed out that a separate advertisement had been published for recruitment on the post reserved for outstanding sportsperson. It was also pointed out that all the posts available in the category of sportsmen were filled up in the subsequent selection. No post remained unfilled. Therefore, the conclusion of the learned Single Judge that the (29 SICP) + (5 PC) i.e. 34 posts ought not to have been deducted from the available 1478 posts for the purposes of calculating the number of vacancies available to the general category, was factually erroneous. It is not disputed before us that the principle of horizontal reservation would also apply for filling up the post reserved for outstanding sportsperson. It is also not disputed before us that there could have been no carry forward of any of the post remaining unfilled in the category of outstanding sportsperson. As a matter of fact, there was no carry forward of the vacancies. They were filled in accordance with the various instructions issued by the Government from time to time. In our opinion the Division Bench erred in law in concluding that since the advertisement did not mention that a separate selection will be held, for the post reserved for sportsmen, the same would not be permissible in law. The deduction of 34 posts for separate selection would not in any manner affect the overall ratio of reservation as provided by law. Furthermore, there is no carry forward of any post. The separate selection is clearly part and parcel of the main selection. In view of the factual situation, we are of the opinion, that the conclusions recorded by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench with regard to the 34 posts reserved for the outstanding sportsmen category i.e. (29 SICP) + (5 PC) also cannot be sustained.

64. Therefore, the aforesaid appeals filed by the State and the Director General of Police are allowed. The direction issued by the learned Single Judge in the final paragraph as well as the directions issued by the Division Bench in modification of the order of learned Single Judge are set aside.

........................................J (TARUN CHATTERJEE) .........................................J (SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR) NEW DELHI, JANUARY 08, 2010.

unable to find any such judgment

2) In the case of Harpal Kaur Chahal vs. Director, Punjab, Instructions, Punjab 1995 (Suppl) 4 SCC 706, the Honble Apex Court had clearly laid down the law that when the recruitment is sought to be made, and the last date has been fixed for receipt of the applications, and only such of those candidates who possessed all the qualifications and requirements as on that date alone are eligible to apply for and to be considered for recruitment according to rules,

3) Further in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Hitendra Kumar Bhatt 1997 (7) JT 287 the Honble Apex Court had clearly laid down the law that a cut-off date by which all the requirements relating to qualifications have to be met, cannot be ignored in an individual case. There may be other persons who would have applied, had they known that the date of acquiring qualifications was flexible, but they may not have applied, because they did not possess the requisite qualification on the prescribed date. Relaxing the prescribed requirements in the case of one individual may, therefore, cause injustice to others.

If you give further details then I can advise you further.

FROM THIS SCANT INFORMATION I CAN NOT OFFER MUCH HELP.

Quantum of Reservation in Direct Recruitment

2.1 There shall be a reservation of 15 per cent for the members of the Scheduled Castes,

7.5 per cent for the members of the Scheduled Tribes and 27 per cent for the members of the Other

Backward Classes in the matter of appointment by direct recruitment to civil posts and civil services

on all India basis by open competition.[36011/33/1981-Estt.(SCT) 5/10/1981]

Reservation in PSUs, Autonomous Bodies etc

.[O.M.No.39/40/74(SCT)(I) dated 30/09/1974 ]

In India, State and Central government departments like railway, banks, police, army, navy, air force and etc are regularly appoint candidates having sports activity. In which they basically recruit those applicants who represented the District, State, National and International events in South Asia Federation Games, Olympics, USIC Championship, Asian Games, Federation Cup, Commonwealth Games, Word Cup and Others. Candidates have gradation certificate from competent sports authority will be eligible to apply under sports category.

You can refer to the following citations decided by CAT

P. Prahladan vs Superintendent Of Post Offices ... on 19 June, 2002 CAT Ernakulam

Swarnjeet Kushwaha vs Union Of India Through General ... on 20 November, 2013

CAT Allahabad

Sanjeev Kumar Singh Son Of Sri Amar ... vs State Of U.P. Through Its ... on 22 December, 2006

Allahabad High court

Amit Chaudhary vs State Of U.P. And Others on 21 September, 1999

Allahabad high court.