1. Recruitment for forest service posts — Reserved category candidate availing age relaxation — Dispute over eligibility for appointment against unreserved general category seats. (Para 4 , 6 , 7 )
Back
Next 
2019 Supreme(SC) 719
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. ABDUL NAZEER, INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.
NIRAVKUMAR DILIPBHAI MAKWANA – APPELLANT
VERSUS
GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION & ORS. – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5185 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.3938 of 2018
Decided On : 04-07-2019
IMPORTANT POINT
A candidate availing any of the relaxed standards for reserved category, if selected, have to be considered only against reserved post. Cannot be considered against unreserved post.
Headnote:Service law - Recruitment - Reservation - Policy of State - Availing any of the relaxed standards - If selected, have to be considered only against reserved post - Cannot be considered against unreserved post - Age relaxation granted to reserved category candidates is an incident of reservation under Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India. (Para 25, 36)
(2017) 12 SCC 680; (2018) 11 SCC 352 - Relied upon
(2010) 3 SCC 119; (2015) 16 SCC 778; (2017) 1 SCC 350 - Distinguished
Facts of the case:
The question for consideration in this appeal is whether a candidate who has availed of an age relaxation in a selection process as a result of belonging to a reserved category, can thereafter seek to be accommodated in/or migrated to the general category seat?
Finding of the Court:
A candidate availing any of the relaxed standards for reserved category, if selected, have to be considered only against reserved post. Cannot be considered against unreserved post.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether age relaxation constitutes a concession or a relaxation in standards, and whether such candidates can be migrated to general category seats. (Para 12 , 13 )
3. State policy explicitly bars candidates availing age relaxation from general category seats; Jitendra Kumar Singh is inapplicable due to differing statutory schemes. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 19 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 36 )
4. Candidates availing age relaxation under reserved category policies are deemed to have used relaxed standards and cannot be adjusted against unreserved posts. (Para 19 , 25 , 36 )
5. Appeal dismissed; parties to bear their own costs. (Para 37 )
6. Can a reserved category candidate who avails age relaxation be considered for a general category seat?
No, if the state policy stipulates that candidates availing relaxation in age, experience, or qualification are to be adjusted against reserved posts and are deemed unavailable for unreserved posts. (Para 16 , 17 , 19 , 25 )
7. Does the ratio in Jitendra Kumar Singh v. State of UP apply universally to all age relaxation disputes?
No. That judgment was based on a specific statutory scheme and government instructions in Uttar Pradesh; it does not apply where a state's own circulars or rules provide the converse. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 30 , 32 )
8. Is age relaxation at the preliminary stage considered a concession distinct from relaxation in standards for final selection?
No. Age relaxation granted at the initial qualifying stage is an incident of reservation under Article 16(4) and applies throughout the selection process, barring the candidate from general category seats. (Para 36 )
JUDGMENT
S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether a candidate who has availed of an age relaxation in a selection process as a result of belonging to a reserved category, can thereafter seek to be accommodated in/or migrated to the general category seat?
3. Brief facts of the case which are necessary for deciding this appeal are:
4. Gujarat Public Service Commission (for short 'GPSC') had issued an advertisement dated 01.03.2010 and corrigendum thereafter for 47 posts of Assistant Conservator of Forests (for short 'ACF') (Class-II) and 120 posts of Range Forest Officer (for short 'RFO') (Class-II). As per the said advertisement and corrigendum, total 84 posts were to be filled in from unreserved (general category) candidates. Out of the said 84 posts, 26 posts were reserved for women candidates, 48 posts were to be filled in from socially and economically backward classes (for short 'SEBC') category candidates. Out of 48 posts for SEBC category candidates, 18 posts were reserved for women candidates, 9 posts were to be filled in from Scheduled Caste (for short 'SC') category candidates, out of which 2 posts were reserved for women candidates. Similarly, 26 posts were to be filled in from Scheduled Tribe (for short 'ST') category candidates, out of which 8 posts were reserved for women candidates. It was also stipulated in the advertisement that 25% of the vacancies shall, as far as practicable, be filled up by appointing candidates who possess BSc degree with Forestry as the principal subject. GPSC had stipulated in the advertisement that the candidates should submit their on-line applications from 01.03.2010 to 06.04.2010. The details about the educational qualifications, age, mode of examination as well as the steps to submit the application have been narrated in the advertisement.
5. GPSC conducted preliminary test on 30.05.2010 and main written examination was held from 27.05.2013 to 02.06.2013. The result of the main written examination was declared on 21.05.2014. 505 candidates who cleared the main written examination were called for physical measurement test. Personal interviews were conducted from 16.06.2014 to 31.07.2014.
6. The appellant submitted an application in the category of SEBC. He successfully passed the examination conducted by GPSC. In the list of selected candidates published on 25.09.2014, he was shown at serial no.138.
7. It is the case of the appellant that while preparing the merit list, GPSC has ignored the judgment of this Court in Jitendra Kumar Singh and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., 2010 (3) SCC 119. Therefore, the appellant filed Special Civil Application No. 1100 of 1015 before the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Gujarat challenging correctness of the aforesaid select list.
8. The learned Single Judge by his order dated 11.06.2015 allowed the application in the following terms:
"The action of considering the meritorious reserved category candidates (who secured their position in general/open category on account of their performance) in their respective reserved category only because they availed benefit of "concession" which cannot be considered as "relaxation in merits" also set aside since it is found to be contrary to the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jitendra Kumar Singh (supra)."
9. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of the learned Single Judge, GPSC filed Letters Patent Appeal praying for setting aside of the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The Division Bench of the High Court by order dated 15.03.2017 has allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the learned Single Judge as under:
"Keeping in view the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court discussed hereinabove and in view of the discussion made by us in the aforesaid paragraphs, we are of the opinion that the State of Gujarat has framed the reservation policy by Government Resolution dated 11.2.1986
