The main legal point established in the judgment is that women from all categories, including the reserved categories, are entitled to compete for posts reserved for General Category (Women) based on their inter-se merit. The judgment also affirmed the right of a reserved category candidate to be appointed to a General Category post based on merit.

JUDGMENT :

Ramesh Ranganathan, J.

The application, seeking condonation of the delay in preferring this appeal, is not opposed by Mr. Ghanshyam Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner, and the delay is, therefore, condoned. Delay condonation application is, accordingly, disposed of.

2. This appeal is preferred by the Uttarakhand Subordinate Service Selection Commission (for short "the Commission") aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 3820 of 2018 dated 29.03.2019. The respondent-writ petitioner filed Writ Petition (S/S) No. 3820 of 2018 seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to declare her as qualified, and to call her for verification of documents on the basis of her merit, i.e. the 54 marks secured by her, for the post of Village Panchayat Development Officer under the Uttarakhand Women category in the department of Panchayati Raj in District Uttarkashi for which the cut-off was 48 marks.

3. Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that the Commission issued an advertisement on 20.11.2015 inviting applications for recruitment for several posts in Group 'C' category, which included 196 posts of Village Panchayat Development Officer (for short "VPDO") in the Panchayati Raj department for various districts of the State. Of these 196 posts of VPDOs, 11 were earmarked for Uttarkashi district of which 04 posts were earmarked for the General Category, 04 posts were reserved in favour of General Category (Women) and the remaining three posts were reserved one each in favour of Uttarakhand Andolankari (General), the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Castes (Women) respectively.

4. The respondent-writ petitioner belongs to the Other Backward Classes category, in whose favour no reservation was provided. The respondent-writ petitioner applied for the post of VPDO as a General Category candidate and secured 54 out of 100 marks in the written examination. While the cut-off marks for General Category candidates was 62 out of 100 marks, the cut-off marks for General Category (Women) was only 48. As she secured 54 marks, the respondent-writ petitioner was not entitled to be considered for selection under the General Category, since she had secured less than the minimum cut-off marks for the said category of 62. She was, however, entitled to be considered for appointment to one of the four posts reserved in favour of General Category (Women), since she had secured 54 marks which was far more than the cut-off marks prescribed for General Category (Women) i.e. 48 marks. On the ground that the respondent-writ petitioner belonged to the Other Backward Classes, and horizontal reservation had not been provided in favour of Other Backward Classes (Women), she was held not entitled to be considered for appointment to the post reserved in favour of the General Category (Women). Aggrieved thereby, the respondent-writ petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court.

5. In the order under appeal, the learned Single Judge, relying on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney & others Vs Union of India, (1992) Supp3 SCC 217; Gurmeet Pal Singh Vs State of Punjab, (2018) 7 SCC 260; Tripurari Sharan & another Vs Ranjit Kumar Yadav, (2018) 2 SCC 656; and Alok Kumar Pandit Vs State of Assam & others, (2012) 13 SCC 516, observed that, even in terms of Section 3(6) of the U.P. Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994 (for short the "1994 Act"), if a person belonging to the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes or the Other Backward Classes gets selected on the basis of merit in an open competition with General Category candidates, he shall not be adjusted against the vacancies reserved for such category, but be considered on his merit in terms of Section 3(1) of the 1994 Act.

6. After referring extensively to the judgment of the Supreme Court, in Tripurari Sharan & another Vs Ranjit Kumar Yadav, (2018) 2 SCC 6