IMPORTANT POINT
For selection for the post of Gram Sewak bonus marks to applicants belonging to district and rural area of the concerned district held invalid.

Headnote:Service Law-Selections post of Gram Sewak-cum-Paden Sachive-Bonus marks to applicants belonging to districts and rural area of the concerned district-Validity of-Whether giving of weightage on ground of residence in the district and rural areas by adding bonus marks is constitutional? (No)-Alleged reluctance of persons hailing from relatively forward districts to work in rural areas or remote places and tendency to migrate to urban areas-Whether acceptable? (No)-Submission made that candidates hailing from local area know the local language and dialect well which leads to good governance at grass root level-No factual details furnished-Ground urged held irrelevant.
       Held : The place of posting does not depend on the choice of the public servant. The posting and transfers could be suitably regulated in administrative interest by the competent authority if there is a will to do so. The alleged reluctance of the persons hailing from the relatively forward districts to work in rural areas or remote places and the so-called tendency to migrate to urban areas and forward districts is only a ruse to find some justification for the impugned action. We fail to understand how the candidates could avoid working in the district in which they are selected and appointed and manage to get postings in urban areas and forward districts. It is not the case of the appellants that the posts of Gram Sewaks belong to statewide cadre and they can be transferred from one district to another and even posted in urban areas. Obviously, the appointees have no option but to work in Gram Panchayat areas within the district in which they were appointed and deployed. It is not even the case of the State that the candidates belonging to other districts have a tendency to resign and vacate the office after working for some time in a backward district. No details are furnished in this regard. Obviously, therefore, the first reason given by the appellants for giving weightage to the applicants from the same district is wholly irrelevant and does not stand a moment s scrutiny. The second ground urged by the State is equally irrelevant and untenable. Most of the reasons given by us in the judgment just delivered in Teachers cases will hold good to reject this plea. No factual details nor material has been placed before us to substantiate that the spoken language and dialect varies from district to district. It will not be reasonable to assume than an educated person belonging to a contiguous district or districts will not be able to effectively communicate with the people of the district in which he is appointed or that he would be unfamiliar with the living conditions and culture of that district. He cannot be regarded as an alien in a district other than his native district. If any classification has to be done in this regard, it should be based on a scientific study but not on some broad generalization. If any particular region or area has some peculiar socio-cultural or linguistic features warranting a differential treatment for the purpose of deploying personnel therein, that could only be done after conducting a survey and identifying such regions or districts. That is the minimum which needs to be done. There is no factual nor rational basis to treat each District as a separate unit for the purpose of offering public employment. Above all, it is wrong to assume that the candidates belonging to rural areas will be better suited to serve those areas than the candidates living in nearby towns. The criterion of merit cannot be allowed to be diluted by taking resort to such artificial differentiation and irrelevant assumptions. On the material placed before us, we have no hesitation in holding that the addition of bonus marks to the applicants belonging to the same district and the rural areas of that district would amount to discrimination which falls foul of Article 14 and 16. (Paras 11 & 12)
       Accordingly, we direct as follows:
        1. The claims of the three writ petitioners who are respondents herein should be considered afresh in the light of this judgment vis a vis the candidates appointed on or after 27.7.2000 or those in the select list who are yet to be appointed. On such consideration, if those writ petitioners are found to have superior merit in case the bonus marks of 10% and or 5% are excluded, they should be offered appointments, if necessary, by displacing the candidates appointed on or after 27.07.2000.
        2. The appointments of Gram Sewaks made upto 26.07.2000 need not be reopened and re-considered in the light of the law laid down in the judgment. (Para 13)

JUDGMENT

P. Venkatarama Reddi, J.-Leave granted

2. Appeals are taken on file and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. The first five appeals are filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of Rajasthan High Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 6256 of 1999. That writ petition was filed by one Chandan Singh Beniwal who is one of the respondents herein. He was an applicant for the post of Gram Sewak cum Paden Sachive in Barmer District. The applications for the said posts were invited by various Zila Parishads to the circular issued by the State of Rajasthan (Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department) on 22.02.1999. The circular lays down, inter alia, the selection procedure including the modalities of holding written test and preparation of merit list. The said circular was issued in exercise of the power conferred on the Government under the proviso to Rule 273 of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996. Para 7 of the Circular provides for addition of certain marks to the marks scored in the written examination. 10% additional marks are to be given to the residents of State of Rajasthan, 10% for the residents of the concerned district and 5% for the residents of rural areas in that district. It appears that the result of the written examination was declared on October 30, 1999. As the said Chandan Singh could not get selected he filed a writ petition questioning the circular dated 22.02.1999 insofar as it provides for bonus marks to the applicants belonging to the districts and the rural area of the concerned district. By the time the writ petition came up for hearing before the learned Single Judge, a Full Bench of the High Court decided on 21.10.1999 in Deepak Kumar Suthar s case that giving of weightage on the ground of residence in the district and rural areas by adding bonus marks is unconstitutional. The Full Bench struck down a similar circular issued in the context of appointment of teachers in the Education Department. However, the Full Bench gave prospective effect to the judgment and also declined to grant relief to the writ petitioners for the reason that even if bonus marks were excluded, they will not stand to gain. This judgment was followed by another Full Bench which examined the validity of a similar circular in relation to the selections to the posts of teachers by Zila Parishads. It may be stated that the correctness of the later Full Bench judgment rendered on 18.11.1999 has been questioned in this Court either by the State or by the aggrieved parties. The appeals against the judgment dated 18.11.1999 have been disposed of today by us by a common judgment.

4. The judgment in Deepak Kumar Suthar s case has been applied to the selection of Gram Sewaks by the impugned judgment dated 27.2.2001. The High Court directed preparation of a fresh merit list of candidates without adding bonus marks on account of residence of any candidate. With this direction, the writ petition was disposed of on 27.02.2001. Apprehending that this judgment would affect them, many of the candidates appointed in various Zila Parishads pursuant to the impugned selection have sought permission of this Court to file SLPs. Accordingly, the permission has been granted and that is how the first five SLPs/appeals are before us.

5. SLP (C) No.17740/2001 has been filed by Zila Parishad, Bikaner against the order of the Division Bench of the High Court dated 19.12.2000 in Civil Special Appeal No.1593 of 2000. That was an appeal filed by the Zila Parishad against the judgment of learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 5 of 2000 which was disposed of on 27.07.2000. The learned Single Judge followed the judgment of the Full Bench in Deepak Kumar s case and disposed of the writ petition with a direction that "whenever respondents proceed with the selection process, they must ensure compliance of the law laid down by the Full Bench in Deepak Kumar s case".

6. In the wake of the two judgments referred to above, the State Gover

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

2002 Supreme(SC) 735

IMPORTANT POINTFor selection for the post of Gram Sewak bonus marks to applicants belonging to district and rural area of the concerned district held invalid.

Judicial Analysis

IMPORTANT POINT
For selection for the post of Gram Sewak bonus marks to applicants belonging to district and rural area of the concerned district held invalid.