Back
Supreme Court Of India
Rajesh Kumar Daria - Appellant
Versus
Rajasthan Public Service Commission - Respondent
Decided On : 07/18/2007
Reservation - Selection of Candidates - Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 1955 - Rule 9(3) - Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India [1992 Supp.(3) SCC 217] - Anil Kumar Gupta vs. State of U.P. [1995 (5) SCC 173] - Horizontal reservation, vertical reservation, special reservation, social reservation, open competition, SC, ST, OBC, women candidates - 20% reservation for women as horizontal reservation within the vertical reservation - Incorrect application of reservation policy by RPSC - Excess selection of women candidates - Relief granted to specific appellants
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were candidates for selection to the posts of Munsiff - Magistrate in the Rajasthan Judicial Service. They challenged the selection list, alleging excess selection of women candidates and denial of their selection due to incorrect application of reservation policy by RPSC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that RPSC incorrectly applied the reservation policy, resulting in excess selection of women candidates and denial of selection to the appellants. However, the court decided not to disturb the entire selection list and appointments already made, granting relief only to specific appellants.
Issues: Incorrect application of reservation policy, excess selection of women candidates, denial of selection to appellants, relief to be granted
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the reservation policy for women candidates was incorrectly applied by RPSC, leading to excess selection of women candidates. However, the court decided to grant relief only to specific appellants without disturbing the entire selection list and previous appointments.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed in part, setting aside the order of the High Court and granting relief to specific appellants without disturbing the entire selection list and previous appointments.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:
The main issue in the case was the incorrect application of reservation policy by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC), which resulted in an excess selection of women candidates and the denial of opportunities to other eligible candidates (!) (!) .
The reservation policy in question included a 20% horizontal reservation for women candidates within the vertical reservation categories, as per the relevant rules (!) (!) .
The RPSC improperly applied the reservation policy by treating the women reservation as a vertical reservation rather than a horizontal reservation, leading to the over-inclusion of women candidates and the exclusion of eligible male candidates (!) (!) .
The court recognized that although the reservation policy was applied incorrectly, it would not be just to disturb the entire selection process or the appointments already made, given the circumstances and the fact that some candidates had already been serving for several years (!) .
Relief was granted only to specific appellants who had been affected by the incorrect application of reservation policy, allowing certain candidates who were initially denied appointment to be deemed selected and issued appointment letters without disturbing the existing appointments (!) (!) (!) .
The court ordered that one appellant, who had been overlooked due to the excess reservation of women candidates, be given retrospective seniority in the 2001 selection list, based on his subsequent appointment and performance, but without entitlement to monetary benefits (!) .
The appeals were allowed in part, and the order of the High Court was set aside to the extent of the relief granted to these specific appellants, ensuring justice for those adversely affected by the misapplication of reservation policy (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice related to this case.
JUDGMENT
Leave Granted.
The appellant in this appeal, as also the appellants in the connected appeal, were candidates for selection to the posts of Munsiff - Magistrate, in the Rajasthan Judicial Service. Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short RPSC), entrusted with the responsibility of selection, issued an advertisement dated 17.5.2001 inviting applications for filling up 116 vacancies of Munsiff - Magistrates. The details of the vacant posts were shown as under :
Total No. of PostsGeneral Category PostsReserve Posts
S.C.S.T.O.B.C.
Men (M)Women(W)MFMFMF
1164811154113195
The RPSC conducted the written examination followed by interviews. 261 candidates were successful. Only 97 of them could be appointed, as some vacancies earmarked for SC and ST categories could not be filled for want of suitable candidates.
2.The appellant in this appeal (Rajesh Kumar Daria) and the third appellant in the connected appeal (Mohan Lal Soni) were OBC candidates. The other five appellants in the connected appeal were general category candidates. They were not selected. According to them, women candidates were selected in excess of their reservation quota, contrary to the Rules. They contended that though the Rules provided for horizontal reservation of 20% for women categorywise, RPSC while preparing the selection list, had wrongly applied the principles of vertical reservation and had selected women in excess of the quota, thereby denying selection of the appellants and other male candidates. It was contended that they had secured higher marks than the selected women candidates and but for the excess selection of women candidates, they would have been selected. The appellants in these appeals along with some other aggrieved candidates therefore filed W.P. No.4150/2002 seeking a declaration that the selection list dated 30.12.2001, was bad in law to the extent of excess selection of women candidates and for a consequential direction to fill those vacancies with male candidates. They (writ petitioners) also sought a direction that they should be appointed if it was found that they had secured the necessary marks.
3.The said writ petition was resisted by RPSC. It contended that the process of listing the selected candidates, was in accordance with the provision for reservation. The High Court dismissed the writ petition by holding that the principles of reservation were correctly followed and applied by RPSC. The decision of the Division Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan is challenged before this Court. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned counsel for the RPSC.
4.Rule 9(3) of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 1955 (Rules for short) which is relevant, reads as follows :
"Reservation for women candidates shall be 20% category-wise in the direct recruitment. In the event of non-availability of the eligible and suitable women candidates in a particular year, the vacancies so reserved for them shall be filled in accordance with the normal procedure and such vacancies shall not be carried forward to the subsequent year and the reservation treated as horizontal reservation, i.e. the reservation of women candidates shall be adjusted proportionately in the respective category to which the women candidate belongs."
5.Before examining whether the reservation provision relating to women, had been correctly applied, it will be advantageous to refer to the nature of horizontal reservation and the manner of its application. In Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India [1992 Supp.(3) SCC 217], the principle of horizontal reservation was explained thus (Pr.812) :
" all reservations are not of the same nature. There are two types of reservations, which may, for the sake of convenience, be referred to as vertical reservations and horizontal reservations. The reservations in favour of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes [(under Article 16(4)] may be called vertical reservations whereas reservations in favour o
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
