Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

STATE OF U.P. AND ANR. versus PAWAN KUMAR TIWARI AND ORS.

Decided
4 January 2005
Judges listed
R.C. LAHOTI, G.P. MATHUR, A.K. MATHUR (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[2005] 1 S.C.R. 21 · 2005 INSC 4
Also cited as
  • (2005) 2 SCC 10 (26 citing judgments)
  • AIR 2005 SC 658 (3 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Not shown
2 other citation strings that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

Cited in 2 other Supreme Court judgments we hold.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

R.C. LAHOTI, CJ. 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 provision for reservation mandated by the U.P. Public Service (Reservation for Physically Handicapped, Dependants of Freedom Fighters and Ex-Servicemen) Act, 1993 and U.P. Public Service (Reservation for Scheduled 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 is no controversy. The controversy centres around the application of percentage as against the total number of posts.

p. 22, margin B

The percentages of reservation, as applicable and as was actually applied, are set out in the following table:

p. 22, margin E

Category Percentage Percentage Number of (prescribed) worked out to Posts

p. 22, margin E

reserved General 50% 46.50 46 Scheduled 21% 19.53 20 Castes Other 27% 25.11 26 Backward Classes Scheduled 2% 1.86 Tribes The respondent belongs to general category. 46 selected candidates in general category were appointed. There were 3 candidates in the waiting list. The respondent was at the top of the waiting list. He was denied appointment.

pp. 22–23, margin F

Feeling aggrieved the respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court which has been allowed. A writ of mandamus has been issued by the High Court directing the appellants herein to issue a letter of appointment to the respondent. The State has filed this appeal by special leave.

p. 23, margin A

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties we are satisfied that the appeal is devoid of any merit.

p. 23, margin B

The High Court has found mainly two faults with the process adopted by the State Government. First, the figure of 46.50 should have been rounded off to 47 and not to 46; and secondly, in the category of freedom fighters and ex-servicemen, total 3 posts have been earmarked as horizontally reserved by inserting such reservation into general quota of 46 posts which had the effect of pushing out of selection zone three candidates from merit list of general category.

p. 23, margin C

We do not find fault with any of the two reasonings adopted by the High Court. The rule of rounding off based on logic and common sense is: if part is one-half or more, its value shall be increased to one and if part is less than half then its value shall be ignored. 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 general category, the respondent was sure to find a place in the list of selected meritorious candidates and hence entitled to appointment.

p. 23, margin D

It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that if this principle of rounding off is to be applied then the percentage of reservation in scheduled tribe category would come to 2 by rounding off 1.86, to the nearest higher value, and in that case a candidate from scheduled tribe category and not the respondent would be entitled to appointment. We cannot agree. No candidate in scheduled tribe category has chosen to lay challenge to the selection. We are also not aware if there is any scheduled tribe category candidate available and qualified for appointment consequent upon his having participated in the process of selection. This plea of the appellants is without any foundation and hence does not deserve to be taken note of.

p. 23, margin E

' '

p. 23, margin G

There is yet another reason why the judgment of the High Court has to be maintained. The total number of vacancies was 93. Consequent upon the A allocation of reservation and calculation done by the appellants, 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. The total number of reserved seats could not have been

pp. 23–24, margin G

more than 46 out of 93. B The appeal is devoid of any merit and is dismissed.

p. 24

R.P. Appeal dismissed.

p. 24

..,,.

p. 24