Back
2010 (4) Supreme 675
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CJI. K.G. Balakrishnan, S.H. Kapadia, R.V. Raveendran, B. Sudershan Reddy and P. Sathasivam, JJ.
Union of India — Appellant
versus
Ramesh Ram & Ors. etc. — Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 4310-4311 of 2010
[Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.13571-72 of 2008]
with
C. A. Nos.4315-4316/2010 @ SLP (C) Nos.13297-98/2008
C. A. No.4319/2010 @ SLP (C) No. 13581 of 2008
C. A. Nos.4324-4328/2010 @ SLP (C) Nos. 14834-38 of 2008
And
WP(C) Nos. 297, 312, 336, 414, 416 & 539 of 2008
Decided on : 07-5-2010
(2006) 4 SCC 550; (1996) 3 SCC 253 – Distinguished
(b) Civil Service Examination Rules – Rule 16 – If the MRC candidates are adjusted against the Reserved Category vacancies with respect to their higher preferences and the seats vacated by them in the General Category are further allotted to other Reserved Category candidates, the aggregate reservation could possibly exceed 50 % of all of the available posts – Not permissible. (Para 29)
1992 Supp 3 SCC 217; (1998) 4 SCC 1; (1976) 2 SCC 310 – Relied upon
(c) Civil Service Examination Rules – Rule 16(2) – MRC candidates who avail the benefit of Rule 16(2) and are eventually adjusted in the Reserved Category should be counted as part of the reserved pool for the purpose of computing the aggregate reservation quotas – Seats vacated by MRC candidates in the general pool will therefore be offered to General Category candidates. (Para 32)
(d) Civil Service Examination Rules – Rule 16 – Rule 16 protects the interests of a Reserved Category candidate selected in the general (unreserved) category by giving him the option either to retain his position in the open merit category or to be considered for a vacancy in the Reserved Category, if it is more advantageous to him/her – Such a provision arrests arbitrariness and protects the interests of the Meritorious Reserved Category candidates – If such rule is declared redundant and unconstitutional vis-à-vis Article 14, 16 and 335 then the whole object of equality clause in the Constitution would be frustrated. (Para 40)
(1996) 6 SCC 36; (2006) 8 SCC 212 – Relied upon
(e) Civil Service Examination Rules – Rule 16 (1) and Rule 16 (2), Provisos – These operated in different dimensions – They are not contradictory or inconsistent with each other. (Para 47)
(f) Civil Service Examination Rules – Rule 16(2) r/w Article 14,Constitution of India – Criteria for any form of differential treatment should bear a rational correlation with a legitimate governmental objective – Rule 16(2) by making distinction between Meritorious Reserved Category candidates and relatively lower ranked Reserved Category candidates only seeks to recognize the inter-se merit between these two classes of candidates for the purpose of allocation to the various civil services with due regard for the preferences indicated by the candidates. (Para 48)
(1995) 2 SCC 745 – Distinguished
(2005) 9 SCC 742 – Referred
Facts of the case:
1.The constitutional validity of sub-rules (2) to (5) of Rule 16 of the Civil Service Examination Rules relating to civil services examinations held by the Union Public Service Commission in the years 2005 to 2007 is the subject-matter of these appeals
2.These appeals have raised an important legal question as to whether candidates belonging to reserved category, who get recommended against general/unreserved vacancies on account of their merit (without the benefit of any relaxation/concession), can opt for a higher choice of service earmarked for Reserved Category and thereby migrate to reservation category.
Finding of the Court:
Reserved Category candidates (belonging to OBC, SC or ST categories among others) who are selected on merit and placed in the list of general/unreserved Category candidates can choose to migrate to the respective reserved categories at the time of allocation of services. Such migration is enabled by Rule 16 (2) of the Civil Services Examination Rules, which is not inconsistent with Rule 16 (1) of the same or even the content of Articles 14, 16 (4) and 335 of the Constitution of India.
JUDGMENT
K.G. Balakrishnan, CJI.
1.Leave granted.
2.The constitutional validity of sub-rules (2) to (5) of Rule 16 of the Civil Service Examination Rules (hereinafter ‘Rules’) relating to civil services examinations held by the Union Public Service Commission in the years 2005 to 2007 is the subject-matter of these appeals by special leave. A three Judge Bench of this Court, by order dated 14.5.2009 has referred these cases to the Constitution Bench as it raises an important legal question as to whether candidates belonging to reserved category, who get recommended against general/unreserved vacancies on account of their merit (without the benefit of any relaxation/concession), can opt for a higher choice of service earmarked for Reserved Category and thereby migrate to reservation category.
3.Selection to three All India Services (Indian Administrative Service, Indian Foreign Service and Indian Police Service) and fifteen Group ‘A’ Services and three Group ‘B’ officers in various Government departments are made by the Union Public Service Commission (hereinafter ‘UPSC’), by conducting Civil Service Examinations periodically. Civil Service Examinations are held as per the Civil Service Examinations Rules notified in regard to each examination. The Rules for the Civil Service Examination which was to be held in 2005 by the UPSC were published by the Department of Personnel and Training (hereinafter ‘DOP&T’) vide Notification dated 4.12.2004.
4.To appreciate the issue, it will be necessary to refer to the relevant rules. The Preamble to the Rules enumerates 21 services. Rule 1 provides that the examination will be conducted by the UPSC in the manner prescribed in Appendix-I to the Rules.
4.1) Rule 2 of the Rules relates to preferences and is extracted below:
“2. A candidate shall be required to indicate in his/her application form for the Main Examination his/her order of preferences for various services/posts for which he/she would like to be considered for appointment in case he/she is recommended for appointment by Union Public Service Commission.
A candidate who wishes to be considered for IAS/IPS shall be required to indicate in his/her application if he/she would like to be considered for allotment to the State to which he/she belongs in case he/she is appointed to the IAS/IPS.
Note.—The candidate is advised to be very careful while indicating preferences for various services/posts. In this connection, attention is also invited to rule 19 of the Rules. The candidate is also advised to indicate all the services/posts in the order of preference in his/her application form. In case he/she does not give any preference for any services/posts, it will be assumed that he/she has no specific preference for those services. If he/she is not allotted to any one of the services/posts for which he/she has indicated preference, he/she shall be allotted to any of the remaining services/posts in which there are vacancies after allocation of all the candidates who can be allocated to services/posts in accordance with their preferences.”
4.2)Rule 3 relates to number of vacancies and provision for reservation and it reads as follows:
“3. The number of vacancies to be filled on the result of the examination will be specified in the Notice issued by the Commission.
Reservation will be made for candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes and physically disabled categories in respect of vacancies as may be fixed by the Government.”
4.3)Rule 15 provides for three examinations namely preliminary examination, main written examination and interview test as follows:
“15. Candidates who obtained such minimum qualifying marks in the Preliminary Examination as may be fixed by the Commission at their discretion shall be admitted to the Main Examination; and candidates who obtain such minimum qualifying marks in the Main Examination (written) as may be fixed by the Commission at their discretion shall be summoned by them for a
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
