IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, NAVNEET KUMAR, JJ.
Chandan, son of Late Deoki Paswan – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
L.P.A. No. 231 of 2021, L.P.A. No. 275 of 2021, L.P.A. No. 279 of 2021, L.P.A. No. 302 of 2021
Decided on : 18-10-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the appeal involves service allocation for candidates from reserved categories. (Para 1 , 3 , 5) |
| 2. the candidates claim improper service allocation despite securing higher marks. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. court discusses the constitutionality of the service allocation norms. (Para 11 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. constitutional provisions regarding equality and reservation are examined. (Para 20 , 23 , 30) |
| 5. the appeal is ultimately dismissed based on legal interpretations. (Para 63 , 65) |
JUDGMENT :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.:
1. The appeals are against the common order passed by the learned Single Judge in analogous cases, hence, all the appeals have been directed to be listed together for analogous hearing, as such, all the appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order/judgment.
2. Reference of one order is also there dated 24.08.2022 to list this case after disposal of S.L.P. (C) No. 4310 of 2022, 4443 of 2022 and 5409 of 2022.
3. It has been informed at bar that the aforesaid S.L.P. have been disposed of.
4. The appeals under clause 10 of the LETTERS PATENT is directed against the order/judgment dated 07.06.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 1428 of 2020 and other analogous cases, whereby and whereunder, the writ petitions have been dismissed seeking therein direction upon the respondents that the writ petitioners who have got higher marks and have been selected in the open merit, allotted Jharkhand Information Service, Finance Service and Planning Service but, the candidates who have lesser marks in reserved category, to which the writ petitioners belong, have been allotted Jharkhand Administrative Service, hence, in such circumstances, the direction has been sought for to consider the candidature of the writ petitioners under reserved category with a further direction to allot them Jharkhand Administrative Service cadre. The writ petitions have been dismissed declining to pass positive direction, hence, the instant appeals.
5. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petitions, which require to be enumerated, read as under:
L.P.A. No. 231 of 2021:
The Appellant/petitioner belongs to the category of Scheduled caste reserve category candidate, fulfilling the requisite criteria having claimed reservation, applied for his appointment in Pursuant to Advertisement no. 23/2016 issued by the JPSC, for Jharkhand Administrative Service, Jharkhand Finance Service and Jharkhand Education Service Class-II, Jharkhand Cooperative Service, Jharkhand Social Security Service, Jharkhand Information Service, Jharkhand Police Service and Jharkhand Planning service.
The examination was to be completed in three parts i.e. Preliminary examination, Mains examination and interview. The admit card was issued to the petitioner showing the petitioner to be of Scheduled caste reserve category candidate and after clearing all the stages of the said examination he finally selected by obtaining 611 Marks out of 1150.
The writ petitioner/appellant submitted all his credentials including the caste certificate issued by competent authority ie S.D.O., Chhatarpur. The petitioner while filling up the main examination form has indicated the preference of service; the first preference of the petitioner was Jharkhand Administrative Service, the second preference was Jharkhand Police Service and the third preference was Jharkhand Finance Service and onwards.
The final result of the selected candidates was published vide dated 21.04.2020 and the petitioner's name has been mentioned in the final result in "Jharkhand Information Service" under unreserved category.
The petitioner was surprised that one Ajay Kumar Das and Taleshwar Ravidas, who also belongs to SC category secured 576 and 584 marks in total and their name have been recommended for the “Jharkhand Administrative Service” wherea
Ajay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar [(1994) 4 SCC 401]
Anurag Patel vs. UPPSC (2005) 9 SCC 742
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Anr. vs. Sandeep Choudhary and Ors.
C.A. Rajendran vs. Union of India and Ors.
Dega Venkata Harsha Vardhan vs. Akula Venkata Harshvardhan
Dhananjay Malik v. State of Uttaranchal
Dr. Subramanian Swamy vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others
General Manager, Southern Railway, Personnel Officer (Reservation), Southern Railway vs. Rangachari
Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. v. Sanjay Dalia
K.A. Nagamani v. Indian Airlines
K.N. Nazar Vs. Mathew K. Jacob & Ors [(2020) 14 SCC 126]
K.C. Vasanth Kumar and Anr. vs. State of Karnataka
Marripati Nagaraja v. State of A.P.
Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar
Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar
Modern School v. Union of India, (2004) 5 SCC 583
Nathi Devi v. Radha Devi Gupta
Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal vs. Mamta Bisht and Ors.
Ritesh R. Sah vs. Dr. Y.L. Yamul & Ors.
R.K. Sabharwal and Ors. vs. State of Punjab and Ors.
Sardar Associates v. Punjab & Sind Bank [(2009) 8 SCC 257
State of Kerala and Anr. vs. N.M. Thomas and Ors.
Saurav Yadav and Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.
Satya Prakash vs. Union of India
Shivram A. Shiroor v. Radhabai Shantram Kowshik
State of Bihar v. M. Neethi Chandra [(1996) 6 SCC 36]
T. Devadasan vs. Union of India and Anr.
Tripurari Sharan & Anr. Vs. Ranjit Kumar Yadav
Union of India vs. Satya Praksh (2006) 4 SCC 550
Union of India v. Virpal Singh Chauhan [(1995) 6 SCC 684 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 1 : (1995) 31 ATC 813
Candidates securing higher marks than unreserved category cannot claim reservation benefits unless explicitly provided by state policy; constitutional provisions require formal policy to confer reser....
Candidates from reserved categories must prove non-reliance on eligibility relaxation to be adjusted against unreserved seats; participation without challenge limits claims.
The court affirmed that horizontal reservation must be applied correctly, ensuring merit-based selection without exceeding prescribed quotas, and upheld the applicant's claim for appointment due to i....
Employees appointed in reserved categories prior to state bifurcation are entitled to claim reservation benefits in the successor state, and arbitrary rejection of their candidatures violates constit....
Point of law: if a candidate who secured more marks than the last selected candidate, if a candidate from OBC/BC has secured more marks than the last selected candidate from open category, such candi....
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.
Court upheld that without explicit reservation for sports candidates in the recruitment advertisement, a petitioner cannot claim preferential selection based solely on sports status.
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.