Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SANJIV KHANNA & SUNITA GUPTA, JJ.
RAJYA SABHA RECRUITMENT CELL & ANOTHER – Appellants
Versus
JITENDER YADAV & OTHERS – Respondents
LPA No. 696 of 2015
Decided On : 07-10-2016
OTHER BACKWARD CLASS - AGE RELAXATION - APPOINTMENT - RESERVED CATEGORY - UNRESERVED CATEGORY - MERIT - SELECTION - RAJYA SABHA RECRUITMENT CELL - RAJYA SABHA SECRETARIAT - LETTERS PATENT APPEAL - WRIT PETITION - CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL - CONSTITUTION BENCH OF SUPREME COURT - ARTICLE 16(4) OF THE CONSTITUTION - ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION - ARTICLE 15(3) OF THE CONSTITUTION - ARTICLE 16(1) OF THE CONSTITUTION - ARTICLE 15(1) OF THE CONSTITUTION - ARTICLE 16(6) OF THE CONSTITUTION - SECTION 8 OF THE U.P. PUBLIC SERVICE (RESERVATION FOR SCHEDULED CASTES, SCHEDULED TRIBES, AND OTHER BACKWARD CLASSES) ACT, 1994 - GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 25.3.1994 - OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATED 1.7.1998 - OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATED 2.7.1997 - OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATED 36012/2/96-ESTT. (RES.), DATED 2.7.1997 - OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATED 01.07.1998 - OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATED 12.03.2015 - PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION UTTARANCHAL VS. MAMTA BISHT AND OTHERS - RAJESH KUMAR DARIA VS. RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION - INDIRA SAWHNEY VS. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS - R.K. SABHARWAL VS. STATE OF PUNJAB - UNION OF INDIA VS. VIRPAL SINGH CHAUHAN - RITESH R. SAH VS. DR. Y.L. YAMUL - ANIL KUMAR GUPTA & OTHERS VS. STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS - TEJ PAL YADAV VS. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS - UNION OF INDIA VS. RAMESH RAM AND ANOTHER - NAVEEN DAHIYA VS. GOVT. OF DELHI AND OTHERS - BALJIT SINGH VS. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH, CHANDIGARH & OTHERS - JITENDRA KUMAR SINGH VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER - DEEPA E.V. VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS - GUJRAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION VS. PARMAR NILESH RAJENDRA KUMAR - PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, UTTARANCHAL VS. MAMTA BISHT AND OTHERS - RAJESH KUMAR DARIA VS. RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION - INDIRA SAWHNEY VS. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS - R.K. SABHARWAL VS. STATE OF PUNJAB - UNION OF INDIA VS. VIRPAL SINGH CHAUHAN - RITESH R. SAH VS. DR. Y.L. YAMUL - ANIL KUMAR GUPTA & OTHERS VS. STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS - TEJ PAL YADAV VS. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS - UNION OF INDIA VS. RAMESH RAM AND ANOTHER - NAVEEN DAHIYA VS. GOVT. OF DELHI AND OTHERS - BALJIT SINGH VS. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH, CHANDIGARH & OTHERS - JITENDRA KUMAR SINGH VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER - DEEPA E.V. VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS - GUJRAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION VS. PARMAR NILESH RAJENDRA KUMAR
Fact of the Case:
The Rajya Sabha Recruitment Cell and the Rajya Sabha Secretariat filed an intra-Court appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent Act read with Rule 11 of the Delhi High Court Rules assailing the judgment and order dated 24th August, 2015, whereby Writ Petition (C) No. 7500/2013 filed by the respondent No. 1-Jitender Yadav has been allowed. The question raised is whether an Other Backward Class candidate or a reserved category candidate, who has gained first door access on availing age relaxation applicable to the said class of candidates, can be appointed against the unreserved or general vacancy, for he has secured better marks and a higher position in merit than the last selected candidate of the general category.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that when a reserved category candidate takes benefit of a concession because he belongs to the said category, then his appointment has to be counted as a part of the reserved pool for the purpose of computing the aggregate reservation quota, if the Rules so require and stipulate. The reservation quota pool and the general unreserved pools are two separate categories as such, with the rider that other backward classes are also part of the general pool when they do not take benefit of any concession or relaxation as they belong to a backward class. If such relaxation or benefit is claimed, unless the Rules or stipulation are to the contrary, the candidate would not belong to the general pool and would be covered under the reserved pool.
Issues: Whether an Other Backward Class candidate or a reserved category candidate, who has gained first door access on availing age relaxation applicable to the said class of candidates, can be appointed against the unreserved or general vacancy, for he has secured better marks and a higher position in merit than the last selected candidate of the general category.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a relaxation or concession in fee granted to backward classes, which is the norm and a general practice, would not bar the reserved category candidate from qualifying in the general category, for the reason that fee prescribed is not an eligibility qualification but a condition to enable a person to participate in the selection process, if he is otherwise eligible. A relaxation in age or marks secured, on the other hand, would directly relate to the prescribed eligibility qualification, which can be different for general candidates and backward classes etc. Relaxation or concession of fee is, therefore, not regarded as "relaxation" or "concession" which would affect a candidate's selection in the open competition.
Final Decision: The court allowed the Letters Patent Appeal and set aside the impugned judgment dated 24th August, 2015. The Writ Petition (C) No. 7500 of 2013 was treated as dismissed.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
1. The Rajya Sabha Recruitment Cell and the Rajya Sabha Secretariat have filed the present intra-Court appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent Act read with Rule 11 of the Delhi High Court Rules assailing the judgment and order dated 24th August, 2015, whereby Writ Petition (C) No. 7500/2013 filed by the respondent No. 1-Jitender Yadav has been allowed.
2. The question raised is whether an Other Backward Class candidate or a reserved category candidate, who has gained first door access on availing age relaxation applicable to the said class of candidates, can be appointed against the unreserved or general vacancy, for he has secured better marks and a higher position in merit than the last selected candidate of the general category.
3. In order to appreciate the controversy before us, we would like to set out the facts and circumstances giving rise to the present Letters Patent Appeal. In December, 2011, the appellant had issued advertisement No. 1/2011 inviting applications from eligible Indian citizens for different posts in the Rajya Sabha Secretariat, including the post of Staff Car Driver (Ordinary Grade). The number of posts, as advertised was 3, out of which one post was reserved for the Scheduled Caste, one for the Other Backward Classes category, and one post was for the unreserved or general category. The upper age limit prescribed to be reckoned as on the closing date of the receipt of the application i.e. 20th December, 2011, was 27 years. However, an age relaxation of up to 5 years was available in the case of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates, and 3 years if the candidate was one from the category of Other Backward Classes, not belonging to the creamy layer. Relaxation of five years was also provided if a candidate was either in Government service or in the services of the Lok Sabha Secretariat, provided he or she had completed three years of regular service as on 20th December, 2011. Similarly, relaxation of three years plus the length of military service, subject to maximum age of 45 years was provided for ex-serviceman. For candidates in regular service of the Rajya Sabha Secretariat, no upper age limit was prescribed. Candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or Other Backward Classes, who were covered by any of the other classes, those working in Government or Lok Sabha Secretariat or ex-serviceman category were eligible for grant of cumulative age relaxation under both categories. Candidates applying against reserved vacancies for the grant of benefit of certain age relaxation were required to submit a certificate in support of his/her being Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes or ex-serviceman or employee of Lok Sabha Secretariat, in the prescribed form, at the final stage of recruitment.
4. For the sake of clarity, the relevant Clause of advertisement No. 1/2011 pertaining to grant of age relaxation is reproduced below:-
“C. AGE LIMITS:
(i) Age as on closing date: For the posts of Junior Parliamentary Interpreter (English/ Hindi), Junior Parliamentary Inspector (Telugu) and Translator, the age of applicant should not be less than 18 years and not more than 30 years. For the post of Junior Proof Reader, the age of applicant should not be less than 18 years and not more than 32 years. For the remaining posts, the age of an applicant should not be less than 18 years and not more than 27 years. The age of the applicant shall be reckoned as on the closing date of receipt of application.
(ii) The upper age limit prescribed above will be relaxable up to:
(a) A maximum of five years, if the candidate belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe;
(b) A maximum of three years, if the candidate belongs to Other Backward Classes but does not belong to creamy layer;
(c) A maximum of five years, if the candidate is either in Govt. Service or in service of the Lok Sabha Secretariat provided he/she has completed 3 years of regular and co
AI
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
