Professional Documents
Culture Documents
In Deepa E.V., the appellant belonged to the OBC category and had availed age
relaxation (as was granted to OBC category candidates). Since no candidate from the
general category had secured the minimum cut-off score, the appellant filed a writ
petition before the high court to be accommodated in the general category. The high
court dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision and held
that:
The appellant, who has applied under OBC Category by availing age relaxation and
also attending the interview under the OBC Category cannot claim right to be
appointed under the General Category.
The reason, as per the court, was there is an express bar for the candidates
belonging to SC/ST/OBC who have availed relaxation for being considered for
General Category candidates. The court was reading the existing rules and
proceedings of Department of Personnel and Training, which stated that: [W]hen a
relaxed standard is applied in selecting an SC/ST/OBC candidates, for example in
the age-limit, experience, qualification, permitted number of chances in written
examination, extended zone of consideration larger than what is provided for
general category candidates, etc., the SC/ST/OBC candidates are to be counted
against reserved vacancies. Such candidates would be deemed as unavailable for
consideration against unreserved vacancies.
The proposition developed by the courts in these two judgments is that when there is
an existing policy regarding the express bar for those SC/ST/OBCs who have availed
relaxation (such as age-relaxation) in a selection process, such reserved category
candidates wont be entitled to seats in the general category, even on the basis of
merit. However, in Deepa E.V., the court had also observed: Be it noted, in the
instant case, the appellant has not challenged the constitutional validity of the
proceedings dated 1.7.1998 read with Rule 9 of the Export Inspection Agency
(Recruitment) Rules, 1980 [T]he appellant has only sought for a declaration that
Exhibit P5 (proceedings dated 1.7.1998) is not binding on the appellant. No
argument was canvassed challenging the constitutional validity of the proceedings
before the learned Single Judge or before the Division Bench of the High Court.
This observation by the Supreme Court is quite important in context of the correct
position of the law on this issue. This is because if the constitutional validity of these
proceedings had been challenged, they would have been struck down, as they are
inconsistent with a number of decisions made by the Supreme Court and the high
courts.
In the case of Jitendra Kumar Singh v. State of UP (2010), the Supreme Court was
considering the UP Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes) Act, 1994 Act (UP Act) and government order dated March 25, 1994. The
order stated: If any person belonging to reserved categories is selected on the basis
of merits in open competition along with general category candidates, then he will
not be adjusted towards reserved category, that is, he shall be deemed to have been
adjusted against the unreserved vacancies. It shall be immaterial that he has availed
any facility or relaxation (like relaxation in age limit) available to reserved category.
The Supreme Court thereby stated that a bare perusal of the order implies that there
is no express bar in the UP Act for SC/ST/OBC candidates being considered for posts
under the general category. It held:
From the above it becomes quite apparent that the relaxation in age limit is merely
to enable the reserved category candidate to compete with the general category
candidate, all other things being equal. The State has not treated the relaxation in
age and fee as relaxation in the standard for selection, based on the merit of the
candidate in the selection test i.e. Main Written Test followed by Interview.
Therefore, such relaxations cannot deprive a reserved category candidate of the right
to be considered as a general category candidate on the basis of merit in the
competitive examination. Sub-section (2) of Section 8 further provides that
Government Orders in force on the commencement of the Act in respect of the
concessions and relaxations including relaxation in upper age limit which are not
inconsistent with the Act continue to be applicable till they are modified or revoked.
The court made it clear that: With age relaxation and the fee concession, the
reserved candidates are merely brought within the zone of consideration, so that
they can participate in the open competition on merit.
In Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) popularly known as the Mandal case, the
Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court had held:
[It] is well to remember that the reservations under Article 16(4) do not operate like
a communal reservation. It may well happen that some members belonging to, say,
Scheduled Castes get selected in the open competition field on the basis of their own
merit; they will not be counted against the quota reserved for Scheduled Castes; they
will be treated as open competition candidates.
In R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab (1995), the Constitution Bench of the Supreme
Court considered the question of appointment and promotion and roster points vis-
a-vis reservation and thereby held:
No general category candidate can be appointed against a slot in the roster which is
reserved for the Backward Class. The fact that considerable number of members of a
Backward Class have been appointed/promoted against general seats in the State
Services may be a relevant factor for the State Government to review the question of
continuing reservation for the said class but so long as the instructions/rules
providing certain percentage of reservations for the Backward Classes are operative
the same have to be followed. Despite any number of appointees/promotees
belonging to the Backward Classes against the general category posts the given
percentage has to be provided in addition.
In Union of India v. Virpal Singh Chauhan (1995), the Supreme Court held that
while determining the number of posts reserved for SC and ST, the candidates
belonging to reserved category but selected/promoted on the rule of merit (and not
by virtue of rule of reservation) shall not be counted as reserved category candidates.
In Ritesh R. Sah v. Dr. Y.L. Yamul (1996), the question was whether a reserved
category candidate who is entitled to be selected for admission in open competition
on the basis of his/her own merit should be counted against the quota meant for the
reserved category or if the candidate should be treated as a general candidate. The
court reached the conclusion that when a candidate is admitted to an educational
institution on his own merit, then such admission is not to be counted against the
quota reserved for schedule castes or any other reserved category. It was held so in
the following words:
[W]hile a reserved category candidate entitled to admission on the basis of his merit
will have the option of taking admission in the colleges where a specified number of
seats have been kept reserved for reserved category but while computing the
percentage of reservation he will be deemed to have been admitted as an open
category candidate and not as a reserved category candidate.
In Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences v. Dubbasi Praveen Kumar, the division
of the Andhra Pradesh & Telangana high court held:
There cannot be any dispute with the proposition that if a candidate is entitled to be
admitted on the basis of his own merit then such admission should not be counted
against the quota reserved for Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or any other
reserved category since that will be against the constitutional mandate enshrined in
Article 16(4).
Moreover, in UP Power Corporation Ltd v. Nitin Kumar (Special Appeal No. 310 of
2015, judgment dated 19.05.2015), the division bench of the Allahabad high court,
headed by the then chief justice D.Y. Chandrachud, had held that an unreserved post
or seat/general category seat is one in which every individual, irrespective of the
category to which the person belongs, can compete in open merit. It was further
held:
The author is a final year student of B.A. LL.B (Hons.) at Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya
National Law University, Lucknow. His twitter handle is @anuragbhaskar_