1999 Supreme(Raj) 706

Rajasthan High Court Full Bench
Honble SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, C.J Honble B.S. CHAUHAN, J. Honble BHAGWATI PRASAD, J.
Deepak Kumar Suthar & Another - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Others - Respondents
Full Bench Reference in Writ Petition No. 1917 of 1995
Decided On : October 21, 1999

Headnote:Service Matters and Constitution of India, Art. 14, 15 and 16 – Awarding bonous marks on the ground of residence in Urban and rural areas candidates belonging to the same district, for recruitment – Held – Any kind of weightage/advantage in public employment in any State Service is not permissible on the ground of place of birth or residence and is void ab initio. (Paras 35,39,40 & 43)

       The object being selection of the meritorious and deserving, tilting of the scale against the more meritorious by providing for weightage for being resident of the same district or being an agristic, is arbitrary, unreasonable and invalid. The incident, on the basis of which the bonus marks are provided, is inherent and uncertain but has the potentiality of converting the merit into de-merit and de-merit into merit. Such a provision must not be countenanced and deserves to be emphathetically rejected. Giving any weightage which has no relation to and connection with the merit and excellence of a candidate, is undesired and Court cannot have any hesitation to declare it invalid for the reason that it will out-strip the more meritorious candidates. There is no guarantee that a person belonging to the same district for which the posts have been advertised, or a resident of a rural area, would work with zeal and enthusiasm and would spread education in rural area. It depends upon the nature of the person and his convictions and self-imposed discipline. Such expectations are not based on any valid reason and if ``the best potential in these field is cold-shouldered for populist considerations garbed as `weightage, the victims in the long run may be the people themselves. Thus, the explanation furnished by the respondents in support of the policy decision can not be said to be valid and the Circular has been issued in flagrant violation of the Constitutional mandate and is ultravires. (Para 35)

       @CATCH-NOTE = We are of the considered opinion that the rural masses, which form 80% of the total population of this country, do not constitute homogeneous class in itself, nor can they be treated as a class. Any classification on the ground of being `rural or `urban is not permissible in our Constitutional Scheme. The object to be achieved by the Circular that it would attract the rural people to get education or after giving employment, to serve the rural population, cannot be achieved by giving those candidates any weightage. In public employment, every applicant knows that transfer is an incident of service and if he joins the service, he can be asked to serve in rural area and if he joins it voluntarily and willingly, he cannot refuse to serve in rural area, as in case of non-compliance of transfer/ posting order, he would expose himself to the disciplinary proceedings under the relevant Statutory Rules. (Para 40)

       @CATCH-NOTE = The criteria laid down as per the policy decision provided for 10% weightage to the candidates of the district for which the posts are advertised and a further weightage of 5% for an agristic. The merit list has to be prepared according to the marks obtained by him throughout his academic career. A candidate who secured throughout First Division, it could secure 64% marks in selection he would be superseded by a candidate belonging to rural area even if latter secured only 50% marks by getting 15% bonus marks, and even by a candidate belonging to urban area, who could secure 55% marks in selection. The merit of the candidate is converted into de-merit merely by an incident that he is not a resident of the district for which the posts have been advertised or an agristic. Unfortunately merit of the suitable candidate is being ignored on unconstitutional and irrelevant consideration, which may lead to total subservience and further to a large deep-malaise in the efficiency of the administration. It also leaves meritorious candidates frustrated and demoralised. Mutilation of the country on such irrelevant consideration is not permissible as it would run counter to the principle of equality which clearly provides that no person can have any weightage/ preference on the ground of place of birth or residence. The doctrine of equality enshrined under Article 16 of the Constitution provides for a dynamic concept and it cannot be let loose on considerations not permissible under the Constitutional provisions. In public employment, there has to be an effort to select most meritorious/ excellent candidates. The only limitation which this criteria can be subjected to is the reservations provided under the Constitution. The State has already protected the interests of not only of the candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other backward classes but also of women. This kind of weightage would lead to a complete go-bye to the merit of the candidates and would seriously effect the efficiency of administration/ teaching. The concept of equality cannot be permitted to be converted into an empty slogans, nor the State can be permitted to render the said doctrine nugatory on any unconstitutional criteria. (Para 42)