Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2017 Supreme(SC) 783

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. Sikri, Ashok Bhushan, JJ.
Gaurav Pradhan & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No.8351 of 2017 (Arising Out of SLP(C) No. 30603 of 2014)
With
Sachin Sharma And Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No.7656 of 2017 (Arising Out of SLP(C) No.34216 of 2014)
With
Irfan Khan – Appellants
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5305 of 2015
Decided On : 18-08-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Parties :- Rishabh Sancheti, G.M. Padma Priya, Parijata Bhardwaj, Dhruv Sharma, Jaywant Patankar, T. Mahipal, Ms. Pratibha Jain, K.L. Janjani, Pankaj Kumar Singh, Manindra Dubey, Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Umang Shankar, Ajay Choudhary, Jasmeet Singh, Milind Kumar, Advs.

IMPORTANT POINTS
Reservation can be provided by an executive order also.
Selection should be conducted as per prevailing rules and circulars.
Changing the norms after the selection process started is not permissible.

Headnote:(a) Constitution of India – Article 16(4) – Reservation – Can be provided by an executive order also. (Para 22)
       1997 Suppl. SCC 217 – Relied upon
       (b) Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 – Rule 7 r/w circular dated 24.06.2008 – Reservation – Reserved category candidates availing any reservation concession like relaxation in age, fee etc. ineligible to be considered against general candidate quota – Circular dated 24.06.2008 and Deepa E.V. holding the field when instant selection process began – Circular dated 11.05.2011 issued during selection process reversing the norm permitting reserved category candidates to migrate to general category even though availing reservation concessions like in age limit, fee etc. – Not permissible – More so, when circular dated 26.07.2017 reiterating the position of circular dated 24.06.2008. (Para 39, 46)
       C.A. No. 3609 of 2017 – Relied upon
       (2010) 3 SCC 119; (2017) 1 SCC 350 – Distinguished
       (2008) 3 SCC 512; (2013) 4 SCC 540; (2009) 2 WLC (Raj.) 454; 2011 (1) WLC 148; (1997) 6 SCC 283 – Referred
       © Interpretation – Government circular – Dated 24.06.2008 – Paragraph 6.2 – In two parts – First part debarring reserved category candidates from migrating to general category if they availed any concessions – Second part providing for adjustment of certain special category candidates against unreserved candidates if obtaining marks more than the last person of open category – Extending benefit of second part to all reserved candidates would be contradictory to first part – Contention rejected. (Para 41)
       Facts of the case:
       The Rajasthan Public Service Commission issued an advertisement dated 14.10.2010 inviting applications for selection on various posts of constables. On 25.10.2010 another advertisement was issued by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission for selection on the post of Sub Inspector of Police.
       During process of selection, the State Government issued a circular dated 11.05.2011 providing that candidates of BC/SBC/SC/ST irrespective of whether they have availed of any concession including relaxation in age shall be migrated against open category vacancies if they have secured more marks than the last candidate of open category. Single Judge of the High Court decided Special Writ Petitions taking view that circular dated 11.05.2011 is not applicable since the recruitment process had began prior to circular 11.05.2011.
       The Division Bench disposed of all the Special Appeals by modifying the judgment of Single Judge dated 27.04.2012 and 08.11.2013 to the extent that the relaxation in age having been availed by candidates of reserved category who find place in the select list on dint of merit of general/open category vacancies, deserve to be migrated against general/open category vacancies. However, candidates availing special relaxation/concessions while participating in competitive test/process of selection, if find place in select/merit list of general/open category vacancies, they are not eligible to be migrated against open/general category vacancies.
       Finding of the Court:
       The candidates belonging to SC/ST/BC who had taken relaxation of age were not entitled to be migrated to the unreserved vacancies.
       Result: Appeals allowed.

JUDGMENT

Ashok Bhushan, J. –

In these appeals appellants challenge the common judgment dated 16.01.2014 of the Rajasthan High Court deciding a batch of Special Appeals which arose out of judgment of learned Single Judge dated 27.04.2012 delivered in SB Civil Writ Petition No.15152 of 2011 and other connected matters and judgment dated 08.11.2013 in SB Civil Writ Petition No.4811 of 2013 and other connected matters. The judgment dated 27.04.2012 pertains to selection to various posts of constables whereas judgment dated 08.11.2013 pertains to selection on the post of SubInspector of Police. The judgment dated 08.11.2013 was delivered following the earlier judgment dated 27th April, 2012. A large number of Special Appeals were filed against the aforesaid two judgments which were decided by the Division Bench by a common judgment dated 16.01.2004 which judgment is subject matter of these appeals.

2. Brief facts of the case which are necessary to be noted for deciding these appeals are:

The Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 has been framed by the State of Rajasthan for recruitment on various posts in the Police Establishment. Part III of the Rules provides for recruitment and Rule 7 provides reservation of vacancies for the Scheduled Casts and the Scheduled Tribes. The State Government had from time to time issued various orders/circulars providing for reservation as well as methodology for giving effect to the reservation. Circulars dated 17.06.1996, 04.03.2002 and 24.06.2008 were issued by the State Government providing for reservation.

3. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission issued an advertisement dated 14.10.2010 inviting applications for selection on various posts of constables. On 25.10.2010 another advertisement was issued by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission for selection on the post of Sub Inspector of Police. The selection process for the posts of constables as well as post of Sub Inspector of Police comprised of the different stages. During process of selection, the State Government issued a circular dated 11.05.2011 providing that candidates of BC/SBC/SC/ST irrespective of whether they have availed of any concession including relaxation in age shall be migrated against open category vacancies if they have secured more marks than the last candidate of open category. Select list of constables was issued on 01.07.2011 whereas result of Sub Inspector of Police was issued on 25.02.2013. Various writ petitions were filed by the general category candidates where they have questioned the circular dated 11.05.2011 and preparation of select list accordingly. The case of the general category candidates was that those reserved category candidates who have taken concession of relaxation of age in competition for post of constable/SI of Police cannot be migrated to general category vacancies. Learned Single Judge decided Special Writ Petitions vide judgment dated 27.12.2012 taking view that circular dated 11.05.2011 is not applicable since the recruitment process had began prior to circular 11.05.2011. It was held that migration of reserved category candidates to open/general category can be permitted as per earlier circular dated 24.06.2008. With regard to circular dated 11.05.2011, it was held that the said circular needs to be given proper interpretation. Learned Single Judge held that only those who have taken benefit of concession of fee and not the relaxation in age during the process of selection would be allowed to migrate to open/general category if obtained equal or more marks to the last candidate in open/general category. As noted above, other group of writ petitions was decided by the Single Judge vide judgment dated 08.11.2013 following the judgment dated 27.04.2012.

4. The Division Bench disposed of all the Special Appeals by modifying the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 27.04.2012 and 08

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2017 Supreme(SC) 783

IMPORTANT POINTSReservation can be provided by an executive order also.Selection should be conducted as per prevailing rules and circulars.Changing the norms after the selection process started is not permissible.

Cases Referred (8)

IMPORTANT POINTS
Reservation can be provided by an executive order also.
Selection should be conducted as per prevailing rules and circulars.
Changing the norms after the selection process started is not permissible.