Back
2005 Supreme(All) 1241
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Hon. Yatindra Singh,j. Hon. Sunil Ambwani, J. Hon. D. P. Singh,j.
PRASHANT KUMAR - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U. P. - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petition 15116 Of 2002
Decided On : 07/19/2005
The timing of including castes in the OBC category and its impact on eligibility for reservation benefits in public service selections.
Headnote:
RESERVATION - U. P. Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes) Act, 1994 - Section 15, Section 6 of U. P. Act No. 21 of 2001 - The judgment clarifies the applicability of reservation benefits to OBC candidates in public service selections, emphasizing the importance of the last date of filling up the application form for such selections and the absence of contrary provisions in service rules, recruitment terms, or advertisements.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought the benefit of reservation as Other Backward Class (OBC) candidates in the U. P. Public Service Commission's Combined State Subordinate Civil Service Examination, 2000. The issue revolved around the timing of including their castes in the OBC category and its impact on their eligibility for reservation benefits.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed all the petitions, emphasizing that the benefit of reservation for OBC candidates is applicable only to categories or castes notified as OBCs in the U. P. Public Services Act, 1994, up to the last date of filling up the application form for the selections, provided there are no contrary provisions in the service rules, recruitment terms, or advertisements.
Issues: The main issue was the timing of including the petitioners' castes in the OBC category and its impact on their eligibility for reservation benefits in the public service selections.
Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified that the benefit of reservation for OBC candidates is contingent on the inclusion of their castes in the OBC category up to the last date of filling up the application form for the selections, subject to the absence of contrary provisions in service rules, recruitment terms, or advertisements.
Final Decision: The court dismissed all the petitions and discharged the interim orders, with no order as to costs.
( 1 ) ON a reference dated 20/3/2002 made by the Division Bench in writ petition No. 20476 of 2001, Prashant Kumar Vs. State of U. P. and others, we have framed the following questions to be decided in the matter:-
" At what stage the caste of a candidate should be entered in the Schedule-I of the U. P. Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes) Act, 1994 for him to get benefit as an OBC candidate; Should it be before the notification/advertisement of the selections, or the written test, or the oral test ( in case of oral test only), or the declaration of the result?"
( 2 ) ALL the petitioners and private respondents appeared in the Combined State Subordinate Civil Service Examination, 2000 held by U. P. Public Service Commission. The Advertisement No. A-1/e-1/2000 inviting applications for selections was published by the Commission on 7. 1. 2000. The last date of submission of the forms was 28. 1. 2000. It was extended to 8. 2. 2000. The preliminary written examination was taken on 28. 5. 2000. The main written examination was taken on 11. 10. 2000 and 17. 10. 2000. The interviews were held on 21. 4. 2001, and the final result was declared on 16. 5. 2001.
( 3 ) IN Writ Petition No. 6250 (M/b) of 2000 Pramod Kumar and another Vs. State of U. P. and others, the petitioners had claimed the benefit of the reservation as they belong to jaat community which was notified on 10. 3. 2000 as other Backward Class ( In short OBC) vide Notification amending the Schedule I appended to the U. P. Public Service (Reservation for Scheduled Caste/scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Class) Act, 1994 (in short U. P. Act No. 4 of 1994 ). A Division Bench by its judgment dated 26. 3. 2001 dismissed the petition on the ground that the petitioners had appeared as general candidates. The recruitment process had started, when the notification amending the Schedule-I was published. The petitioners had participated in the selection as general candidate. Their status could not be altered during the process of selections, and that the process cannot be bifurcated by the Court.
( 4 ) IN Writ Petition No. 23193 of 2000, Km Amrita Singh and another Vs. State of U. P. and others, the same benefit of reservation as jaat as Other Backward Class vide Notification dated 10. 3. 2001 was claimed in the same examination. The Bench hearing the matter at Allahabad relied upon the provisions of Section 15 of U. P. Act No. 4 of 1994, and held that the process for selection shall be deemed to be initiated when the written test was taken. The preliminary written test was held on 28. 5. 2000, hence the petitioners were entitled to the benefit of reservation of other Backward Class. It was observed that if there are OBC candidates, who are more meritorious than the petitioner, then obviously the petitioners can be appointed only if such more meritorious candidates are absorbed and there are still some vacancies left in the reserved category of OBC.
( 5 ) IN the cases at hand the petitioner in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 20476 of 2001, Prashanat Kumar Vs. State of U. P. and others, claims the benefit of the judgment in Km. Amrita Singhs case. The same Bench which had decided the writ petition No. 23193 of 2000, Km. Amrita Singh and others Vs. State of U. P. and others on 7. 5. 2001, found that the judgment in Pramod Kumar Singhs case by which the benefit of reservation to jaat Community, was denied to the petitioners in the same selections, was not noticed by them, and that since there is a conflict between the two Division Benches, the matter should be decided by a larger Bench. By the referring the order dated 20. 3. 2002, the Division Bench directed that in the meantime one post of Sub Divisional Magistrate shall be kept vacant.
( 6 ) BEFORE proceedings to deal with the question it would be appropriate to give in brief the facts of all the three writ petitions. In writ petition No. 20476 of 2001, the p
