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

2017 Supreme(Raj) 124

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.
Satpal son of Shri Lal Chand Saharan by caste Saharan & Anr. - Petitioners
Versus
Oriental Bank Of Commerce & Anr. - Respondents
Civil Writ Petition Nos. 6293 & 6614 of 2009
Decided On : 07-02-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. J.K. Suthar, Mr. R.S. Choudhary, Mr. Viveek Agarwal
For the Respondents: Mr. M.S. Singhvi, Mr. Deepak Chandak

Horizontal reservation for ex-servicemen is to be provided by cutting across the vertical reservation categories, and if an ex-serviceman candidate secures lesser marks than the last candidate in the vertical reservation category, the ex-serviceman candidate is to be pulled up for filling up the last seats in that category.

Headnote:

EX-SERVICEMEN RESERVATION - HORIZONTAL RESERVATION - INTERPRETATION OF RULES - APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES - APPOINTMENT OF EX-SERVICEMEN CANDIDATES - RAJASTHAN - ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE - WRIT PETITIONS.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioners, ex-servicemen belonging to the OBC category, challenged the final result of the selection process for clerical cadre in Oriental Bank of Commerce, alleging that the bank failed to provide horizontal reservation for ex-servicemen as per the advertisement and the Ex-servicemen (Re-employment in Central Civil Services & Posts) Rules, 1979.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the reservation for ex-servicemen in the clerical cadre was to be provided horizontally within the OBC category, and that the bank was required to fill 3 posts out of the 31 advertised posts under the OBC category with ex-servicemen candidates.

Issues: 1. Whether the bank correctly applied the horizontal reservation provision for ex-servicemen in the selection process. 2. Whether the petitioners, as ex-servicemen belonging to the OBC category, were entitled to be considered for appointment under the horizontal reservation.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on the principles laid down in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, Anil Kumar Garg v. State of UP, Rajesh Kumar Daria v. RPSC, and Union of India v. National Federation of the Blind & Ors. to explain the concept of horizontal reservation and its application in the context of vertical reservations. 2. The court held that the horizontal reservation for ex-servicemen was to be provided by cutting across the vertical reservation categories, and that if an ex-serviceman candidate secured lesser marks than the last candidate in the vertical reservation category, the ex-serviceman candidate was to be pulled up for filling up the last seats in that category. 3. The court found that the bank had failed to provide the horizontal reservation for ex-servicemen as per the advertisement and the Rules of 1979, and that the petitioners, as ex-servicemen belonging to the OBC category, were entitled to be considered for appointment under the horizontal reservation.

Final Decision: The court directed the bank to consider the candidatures of the petitioners for appointment on the post of Clerk under the Advertisement issued in November, 2008 and under the Ex-Servicemen OBC Category and appoint them from the date similarly situated other clerical staff has been appointed with all consequential benefits of seniority etc.

JUDGMENT :

These two writ petitions are being decided by passing a common order, as the issue involved in both the writ petitions is of similar nature.

2. The petitioners by way of these writ petitions have prayed for quashing the final result of the successful candidates in clerical cadre and to issue final select list strictly by following rules and regulations of the reservation policy and for considering their candidatures on the post of Clerk as they belong to Ex-servicemen OBC Category.

3. The facts which require consideration for disposal of the cases are that the Oriental Bank Of Commerce had issued an advertisement in November 2008 inviting applications for appointment in the clerical cadre for various States of India. For Rajasthan, there were total 143 posts, which had bifurcated in the various categories of General, SC/ST &OBC. In the advertisement, it was provided that the reservation for Ex-servicemen shall be horizontal and the horizontal reservation shall be provided category-wise, as per their own category.

4. The petitioners participated in the selection process as Ex-servicemen candidates. The written examination consisted of two parts i.e. subjective and objective examination. The subjective examination was only qualifying and the marks obtained in that examination, were not to be counted while preparing the merit list. Candidates who stood in sufficient merit, as per the cut-off, in the objective paper, were called for interview. The final merit was to be prepared on the basis of marks obtained in the objective paper as well as in the interview.

5. Petitioner Satpal, after having cleared the objective paper was called for interview on 21.04.2009 and, thereafter final result was declared wherein, in all, names of 56 candidates were included from Rajasthan but the name of the petitioner-Satpal was not included. Similarly, in the second writ petition (No.6614/2009), the petitioner Phusa Ram Beniwal was called for interview after clearing the objective paper, but his name was also not included in the select list. Both of them are from OBC Category.

6. The petitioners have asserted that the respondents have selected only 7 candidates in the entire country in the Ex-servicemen quota, which was to be 10% of the total number of posts. The assertion is on the basis of provision contained in Ex-servicemen (Re-employment in Central Civil Services & Posts) Rules, 1979 (herein after referred as ‘the Rules of 1979’).

7. The petitioners, therefore, filed the present writ petitions assailing that the action of the respondents in not including a single Ex-servicemen in total 143 posts, vacancies notified for Rajasthan, alleging that the action was not only contrary to the advertisement issued, but also in violation of the Rules of 1979. It is submitted that as the petitioners have passed the objective papers and have also appeared for interview, their aggregate marks were required to be taken into consideration for providing reservation to Ex-servicemen in the OBC Category, to which, both of them belonged. It has been stated that as many as 57 candidates from OBC Category had been given appointments, as both the petitioners were from Ex-Servicemen OBC Category, both ought to have been pulled up against the total number of 57 posts and should have been considered for appointment by placing them in the select list against the Ex-servicemen quota, which has to be filled horizontally.

8. The writ petitions were admitted and ad-interim order was passed by keeping one post reserved for the petitioners. It may be relevant to mention herein that in the advertisement, there were 31 posts reserved for the candidates belonging to the OBC Category.

9. A reply to the writ petition has been filed and it has been stated that in the OBC Category, the last candidate, which was selected, secured 146 marks. Petitioner Satpal secured 112 marks, while petitioner Phusa Ram secured 96 marks. Thus, both secured marks below the cut-off line and could not b






























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