Back
2010 (1) Supreme 449
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Tarun Chatterjee and Surinder Singh Nijjar — JJ.
Jitendra Kumar Singh and ANR. — Appellant(s)
versus
State of U.P. and ORS. — Respondent(s)
Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Civil Appeal No.74 of 2010
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 1952 OF 2008)
Decided on : 08-01-2010.
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. 14078-14080 of 2008)
with
Civil Appeal No.81 /2010
(@ SLP (C) No. 19100 of 2009)
(b) Constitution of India – Article 16(4) – Carry forward rule would not be applicable in case of horizontal reservation. (Paras 33 and 62)
1992 Supp (3) SCC 217; (1998) 4 SCC 1 – Relied upon
(c) Constitution of India – Article 16(4) – Reservations should not be so excessive as to render the Fundamental Right under Article 16(1) of the Constitution meaningless. (Para 35)
1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 – Relied upon
(d) Service Law – Selection – Concession in respect of age, fee etc. by itself do not provide any indicia of open competition – Competition would start only after all the persons who fulfill the requisite eligibility conditions are short-listed – Concessions and relaxations in fee or age to the reserved category candidates is merely an aid to reservation and place the candidates at par with General Category candidates. (Paras 37 and 39)
1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 – Relied upon
(1997) 6 SCC 283; (1999) 7 SCC 120; (2004) 11 SCC 755; (2003) 7 SCC 83; (1998) 2 SCC 214; (1997)2 SCC 332; (1974) 1 SCC 87 – Distinguished
(e) Binding precedent – Isolated observations in a judgment cannot be treated as a precedent de hors the facts and circumstances of the case. (Para 43)
(1996) 6 SCC 44; (2006) 1 SCC 275 – Relied upon
(f) UP Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994 – Section 3(6) – Merely relaxation in age limit cannot deprive a reserved category candidate of the right to be considered as a general category candidate. (Para 52)
Facts of the case:
1. The dispute between the petitioners and the respondents revolves around the issue of reservation of posts for Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Women Candidates and Sportspersons.
2. An advertisement was issued on 4.5.1999 for direct recruitment on the post of Sub Inspectors in Civil Police and Platoon Commanders in PAC.
3. In response to the advertisement, more than 50,000 candidates applied for the posts. The result for the Preliminary Written Test which was held on 6.2.2000, was declared on 22.9.2000. 7325 candidates were found successful. Physical Test was held from 29.10.2000 to 6.11.2000 and 1454 candidates were found successful. The Main Written Test was held on 29.4.2001 wherein 1178 candidates were declared successful. The final result of the interview was declared on 6.7.2001, wherein 1006 candidates were declared successful. Thereafter the candidates were sent for training.
4. The appellants who were not sent for training filed these appeals.
Finding of the Court:
Merely relaxation in age limit cannot deprive a reserved category candidate of the right to be considered as a general category candidate.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
Key Points: - Relaxation in age and fee does not deprive a reserved category candidate of the right to be considered as a general category candidate if they secure more marks than the last selected general category candidate (!) (!) . - Reservations should not be so excessive as to render the Fundamental Right under Article 16(1) meaningless, and the 50% maximum limit must be maintained (!) (!) . - In case of horizontal reservation, the carry-forward rule is not applicable, and unfilled vacancies must be filled by suitable candidates of the respective category on merit (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT
SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These Appeals are directed against the common Division Bench judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 22.12.2006. By the aforesaid judgment, the High Court decided number of Appeals directed against the common judgment of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.25328 of 2001 and a number of other connected writ petitions.
3. The appellants had assailed the judgment dated 22.5.2002 of the learned Single Judge to the extent that the Writ Petition Nos.25328, 26847, 36411, 28836, 26177, 34039, 4630, 32763, 27849, 27060, 29069 of 2001 and 47528 of 2002 had been dismissed whereby the petitioners-appellants were seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to send them for training to the post of Sub Inspectors. In some of the writ petitions, a prayer had also been made for quashing the entire select list which was also declined by the learned Single Judge. In Special Appeal No.592 of 2006, the appellant who was respondent had assailed the aforesaid judgment of the learned Single Judge only to the extent the Single Judge had issued a writ in the nature of mandamus to the respondent-appellants to fill up vacancies against 2% Sports Quota from the aforesaid selection itself. In Special Appeal No.1285 of 2002, the original petitioner had challenged the judgment dated 01.10.2002 passed by the learned Single Judge (R.K.Agarwal, J.) dismissing the writ petition no.47528 of 2002 following the judgment dated 22.5.2002 of Ashok Bhusan, J. in writ petition no.25328 of 2001 and other connected matters (supra). In Special Appeal No.910 of 2005, the original petitioner had assailed the judgment dated 19.7.2005 of Sunil Ambwani, J. dismissing writ petition no.29383 of 2001 again following the judgment dated 22.5.2002 of Ashok Bhusan, J (supra).
4. The dispute between the petitioners and the respondents revolves around the issue of reservation of posts for Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Women Candidates and Sportspersons.
5. We may notice here the relevant facts before we advert to controversy in detail.
6. An advertisement was issued on 4.5.1999 for direct recruitment on the post of Sub Inspectors in Civil Police (hereinafter referred to as “SICP”) and Platoon Commanders in PAC (hereinafter referred to as “PC”). According to the respondents, the break down of the posts was 1379 Posts for SICP and 255 posts for PC. Out of these posts, 2% posts were reserved for outstanding Sportspersons. The recruitments to these posts were to be made by a separate advertisement. Apart from above, 10% of the posts were reserved for women.
7. The procedure for selection included a Preliminary Written Test consisting of 300 marks. Candidates were required to secure at least 50% marks for being declared successful and entitled to participate in further test. This was followed by a Physical Test consisting of 100 marks. Again the candidate had to secure at least 50% or more marks. The marks obtained in the Preliminary Written Test and the Physical Test were, however, not to be included for determination of final merit. Candidates who qualified in the Preliminary Written Test and the Physical Test were required to appear in the Main Written Test consisting of 600 marks, having two papers i.e. General Hindi, General Knowledge and Mental Aptitude Test. Here again a candidate who secured 40% or more marks could only be declared successful. The written test consisted of two papers- (i) Hindi language and Essay consisting of 200 marks and (ii) General Knowledge and Mental Aptitude Test consisting of 400 marks. Thereafter, the candidate was to appear for interview which consisted of 75 marks. There were, however, no qualifying marks for the interview.
8. It is common ground that in response to the advertisement, more than 50,000 candidates applied for the posts. The result for the Preliminary Written Test which was held on 6.2.2000, was declared on 22
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
