SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Vibhu Bakhru, Amit Mahajan, JJ.
Ashu - Appellant
Versus
Registrar General, High Court of Delhi - Respondent
W.P.(C) 5200 of 2018 & CM Appl. 20177 of 2018 and W.P.(C) 5240 of 2018 & CM Appl. 20336 of 2018, CM Appl. 21367 of 2018 and W.P.(C) 1502 of 2019 & CM Appl. 6960 of 2019 and W.P.(C) 1623 of 2019 & CM Appl. 7477 of 2019 and W.P.(C) 299 of 2019 and W.P.(C) 6
Decided On : 02-11-2022




Discriminatory residency requirements for SC/ST candidates in recruitment processes violate constitutional equality provisions and should not prevent eligible candidates from accessing employment reservations.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 15, 15(4), 330, 332, 335, 341, and 342 - Employment reservation - The court determined that candidates from SC/ST categories from outside Delhi cannot be disqualified for failing to provide residency proof in Delhi when applying for government positions reserved for them - Such discrimination undermines the principles of equality and special provisions for marginalized communities - The decision in Deepak Kumar & Ors. v. District and Sessions Judge emphasizes that pan-India reservation rules apply in Delhi - No legal basis for requiring residency proof solely for SC/ST candidates exists, and the Notification did not stipulate such a condition. (Paras 10, 31, 38)

(B) Appellate Courts - The Supreme Court downholds that a member of SC/ST from one state does not carry benefits to another state or Union Territory, reaffirming constitutional provisions. (Paras 28, 34)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners contested their refusal for appointment as Court Attendants in Delhi High Court, based on their inability to prove residency in Delhi, despite belonging to SC/ST categories, as mandated by a Notification issued for vacancies.

Findings of Court:
The Establishment's insistence on residency proof for reservation qualification for SC/ST candidates was held unconstitutional; such candidates cannot be discriminated against in employment opportunities.

Issues: The court addressed whether SC/ST candidates from outside Delhi can be denied reservation benefits due to residency requirements in the appointment process.

Ratio Decidendi: It was ruled that SC/ST candidates cannot be disqualified based on residency requirements that were not stipulated in the hiring Notification, reaffirming principles of equality in job opportunities.

Result: Petitions allowed; petitioners are entitled to consideration for appointment without residency proof.

Table of Content
1. eligibility criteria and reservation process. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
2. constitutional provisions on reservation. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
3. impact of migration on reservation benefits. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
4. jurisdictional perspectives on reservations in union territories. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)
5. extent of benefits on residence status. (Para 28 , 29 , 30)
6. court’s direction on residency requirement for application. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38)
7. decision on the appointment of petitioners under reserved category. (Para 39 , 40)

JUDGMENT

Vibhu Bakhru, J. The common question that arises in these petitions is whether the petitioners, who belong to the reserved category (SC/ST), are ineligible to be appointed as the Court Attendant/Room Attendant (Group-C), under the reserved category, in the establishment of this Court on the ground that they are not ordinarily residents of Delhi.

2. The aforesaid question arises in the context of the selection process that was commenced by inviting online applications for the said posts by a notification dated 12.06.2017 (hereafter `the Notification').

3. In terms of the Notification, online applications were invited from Indian citizens for filling up the following posts and preparing a panel for future vacancies:

SI. No.PostLevel in Pay-matrix as per 7th CPCNo. of VacanciesTotalReservation for PH and Ex-servicemen
GenSCSTOBCPHEx-servicemen
1.COURT ATTENDANT (GROUP `C')ROOM ATTENDANT (GROUP `C')3rd-19093563
0207
-01010305

4. The essential qualifications, as stipulated in the Notification, to be eligible for applying to the said posts are reproduced below:

    "Essential Qualification:

    Matriculation pass or equivalent from a recognized Board or Industrial Training Institute Pass Certificate from a recognized Institute.

    Age:

    Age should not be below 18 years and over 27 years as on 01.01.20:17 (i.e. he/she must have been born not earlier than 02.01.1990 and not later than 01.01.1999), The upper age limit for members of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes shall be 32 years and for Other Backward Classes 30 years. The upper age limit for persons with disability, whose one leg or both legs are affected and have a minimum of 40% of physical defect or deformity, shall be relaxable by 10 years (13 years for OBC & 15 years for SC/ST). For Ex-servicemen, there is a relaxation of 3 years for Unreserved/General candidates, 6 years for OBC and 8 years for SC/ST after deduction of the military service rendered from the actual age as on 01.01.2017 subject to maximum age of 50 years. There shall be no upper age limit for persons serving in this Court and the Courts subordinate to it. The relaxation in upper age limit will not be applicable to the candidates who are working in other Govt. Departments/Public Sector Undertakings etc.

5. The Notification also specified for Reservation and provided as under:

    "Reservation:

    Consistent with maintenance of efficiency of Administration and subject to availability, 15 per cent posts for Scheduled Castes, 7.5 per cent posts for Scheduled Tribes, 27 per cent for Other Backward Classes shall be reserved. Reservation shall also be available to Persons with Disability(40% and above) and Ex-servicemen in accordance with the Rules, Orders and Notifications issued from time to time by the Government of India."

6. The eligible candidates were required to appear for a written test based on the pattern of `Multiple-Choice Question', which carried a weightage of 100 (hundred) marks. Those candidates, who qualified the written test, were required to appear for an interview subject to the condition that the number of candidates shortlisted for the interview would not be more than five times the total number of vacancies available in each category. The final merit list of the successful candidates was required to be prepared on the basis of aggregate of their performance in the written tests and int

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top