DIPANKAR DATTA, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Rajasthan High Court – Appellant
Versus
Rajat Yadav – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. undisputed facts regarding recruitment process (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 2. contentions regarding recruitment rules (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 3. analysis of reservation principles and merit (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 4. arguments against category-wise shortlisting (Para 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 5. petitioners' claims on merit based inclusion (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37) |
| 6. final verdict and directive for compliance (Para 76 , 77 , 78 , 79) |
JUDGMENT :
DIPANKAR DATTA, J.
THE APPEALS
1. A Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, allowed D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7564 of 2023 and connected matters vide judgment and order dated 18th September, 20231[impugned order]. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the administration of the High Court and its Registrar2[appellants] have preferred these civil appeals by special leave.
BRIEF RESUME OF FACTS
2. The basic facts triggering the appellate proceedings before us are undisputed.
3. The Rajasthan District Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1986 were framed to regulate appointments and conditions of service in the ministerial establishments of the District Courts. Therea
Chattar Singh and Others v. State of Rajasthan and Others
Dharamveer Tholia and Others v. State of Rajasthan and Another
Janki Prasad Parimoo v. State of Jammu & Kashmir
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India
R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab
Saurav Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh
U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. V. Nitin Kumar
Vikas Sankhala & Ors. v. Vikas Kumar Agarwal & Ors.
Pradeep Singh Dehal v. State of H.P.
Gaurav Pradhan v. State of Rajasthan
Nirav Kumar Dilipbhai Makwana v. Gujrat Public Service Commission
Govt. of NCT Delhi v. Pradeep Kumar
Sadhana Singh Dangi v. Pinki Asati
Ramnaresh @ Rinku Kushwah v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Alok Kumar Pandit v. State of Assam
G. Sarana v. University of Lucknow
Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla
Madan Lal v. State of Jammu & Kashmir
K.A. Nagamani v. Indian Airlines
Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar
Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi
Ramjit Singh Kardam v. Sanjeev Kumar
Jitendra Kumar Singh v. State of U.P.
Action Committee v. Union of India
Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Sanjay Kumar Singh
Reserved category candidates who score above the general category cut-off must be treated as general candidates, ensuring merit prevails in recruitment processes as mandated by the Constitution.
Reservation policies in public employment must prioritize merit; candidates from reserved categories who qualify for general positions based on merit are to be treated as general category candidates.
Merit must govern the selection of candidates across categories, allowing migration from reserved to open categories based on superior performance.
Candidates from reserved categories can claim horizontal reservations in open categories based on merit unless explicitly prohibited by law or policy.
Merit-based selection requires inclusion of qualified candidates from reserved categories in the unreserved list at the preliminary examination stage, ensuring compliance with equality and fairness p....
The court ruled that reserved category candidates who availed age relaxation cannot migrate to general category vacancies, ensuring adherence to equal treatment principles.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.