Back
2020 Supreme(MP) 132
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Ajay Kumar Mittal, Vijay Kumar Shukla, J.
Pinki Asati - Appellant
Versus
State Of M.P. And Others - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 19126 of 2019, 19630 of 2019, 19643 of 2019, 19644 of 2019, 19831 of 2019, 19942 of 2019, 19952 of 2019, 20106 of 2019, 20170 of 2019, 20212 of 2019, 20218 of 2019, 20375 of 2019, 20384 of 2019, 20418 of 2019, 20421 of 2019, 20538 of 2019, 20544 of 2019, 20586 of 2019, 20983 of 2019, 21169 of 2019, 21236 of 2019, 21276 of 2019, 21319 of 2019, 21473 of 2019, 21477 of 2019, 21482 of 2019, 21529 of 2019, 21993 of 2019, 22024 of 2019, 22840 of 2019, 22847 of 2019, 23510 of 2019, 24711 of 2019, 19300 of 2019, 19108 of 2019, 20208 of 2018, 24914 of 2018, 22237 of 2019, 1567 of 2020
Decided On : 29-04-2020
Suyas Mohan Guru, Advocate, Kailash Chandra Ghildiyal, Advocate, Manas Mani Verma, Advocate, Amit Seth, Advocate, Bramha Nand Pandey, Advocate, Shailesh Tiwari, Advocate, Jubin Prasad, Advocate, Sanjay Kumar Agrawal, Advocate, L.C. Patne, Advocate, Swapnil Ganguly, Advocate, Brijesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate, Ashish Choubey, Advocate, Brijendra Kumar Mishra, Advocate, Praveen Kumar Pandey, Advocate, Arun Kumar Singh, Advocate, Ashok Kumar Gupta, Advocate, Amit Khatri, Advocate, Anshuman Singh, Advocate, Chandra Kant Patne, Advocate, Harshmeet Hora, Advocate, Pawan Kumar Dwivedi, Advocate, Nitin Singh Bhati, Advocate, Gopi Chourasiya, Advocate, Rajneesh Sharma, Advocate, Brahmendra Prasad Pathak, Advocate, Himanshu Mishra, Advocate, Prashant Singh, Advocate, Anshul Tiwari, Advocate, Shobha Menon, Advocate, Rahul Choubey, Advocate, Naman Nagrath, Advocate, Akash Choudhary, Advocate, Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, Advocate, A.S. Raizada, Advocate, Manish Kholia, Advocate, Shivam Mishra, Advocate, Aditya Narayan Shukla, Advocate, Kabeer Paul, Advocate, Parag S Chaturvedi, Advocate, Pramod Kumar Thakre, Advocate, Rahul Rawat, Advocate, Ashish Shroti, Advocate, Vibudhendra Mishra, Advocate, K.S. Jha, Advocate, Rakesh Pandey, Advocate, Avinash Zarger, Advocate, Himanshu Chouhan, Advocate, Bharat Kumar Dubey, Advocate, Kamalnath Nayak, Advocate, Saurabh Singh Sengar, Advocate
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 15(3) and 16(1) - Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Special Provision for appointment of Women) Rules, 1997 - Reservation in public service - Court examined legality of revised select list of Assistant Professors where female candidates from reserved category were allotted unreserved seats. The court addressed the contention whether candidates from reserved categories could migrate to open categories based on merit - Held that horizontal reservation is watertight and compartmentalized, preventing such migration - The earlier select list contravened provisions of the 1997 Rules by selecting OBC (Female) candidates over general female candidates for Unreserved Female categories. (Paras 24, 25, 40, 43)
Findings of Court:
The revised select list quashed due to the unlawful selection of candidates violating the principles of horizontal reservation - A fresh list adhering to proper allotment rules is to be prepared.
Issues: The primary issues were the legality of the select list and the distinction between horizontal and vertical reservations in the context of recruitment.
Ratio Decidendi: It was found that the candidates from the reserved category cannot be allotted seats in the unreserved category based on merit as the reservation is compartmentalized; the provisions of the 1997 Rules mandate a distinct procedure for making selections.
Result: The writ petitions were disposed of with directions for a fresh merit list to be drawn.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. legality of obc candidates migrating to general category (Para 1 , 2 , 4) |
| 2. horizontal reservations must be strictly enforced (Para 6 , 8 , 10 , 12 , 33) |
| 3. supreme court verdicts support strict adherence to reservation rules (Para 11 , 19 , 20 , 22 , 27) |
| 4. vertical vs horizontal reservation clarified (Para 25 , 35 , 38) |
| 5. court quashes illegal list, mandates fresh allotment based on rules (Para 39 , 40 , 43) |
JUDGMENT
Vijay Kumar Shukla, J. - In this batch of writ petitions, invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have assailed the legality of the revised Select List issued by the M.P. Public Service Commission, Indore [for short, "the MPPSC"], whereby private respondents, who submitted their candidature against reserved category in Other Backward Class Female (OBCF) for the post of Assistant Professors in different subjects, have been selected and allotted Unreserved Female (UNRF) posts/seats, however the petitioners have been kept in waiting list denying selection. Thus, in the obtaining factual matrix, the petitioners have agitated their grievance in the present batch of writ petitions, wherein the following issue has cropped up for consideration :
Whether a candidate having opted to participate in a competitive examination as a reserved category candidate, can be permitted to migrate to General Category in UNRF category ? In other words, a candidate who opts to take up a competitive examination not as a General Category, but as a reserved category candidate belonging to Scheduled Castes (SC)/Scheduled Tribes (ST)/Other Backward Classes (OBC) falling under special category of female (horizontal seat) competing amongst the candidates of her category, if obtains marks higher than the candidate of a General Category, whether such candidates can be permitted to be allotted "Open Category - UNRF" Seat/post ?
2. Regard being had to the commonality of controversy, the writ petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by common order. For the sake of convenience, the facts from W.P. No.19126/2019 (Pinki Asati vs. State of M.P.) are adumbrated herein. Before adverting to the issue, it is condign to refer the pleadings and submissions canvassed on behalf of the petitioners, respondents and interveners as well, in W.P. No.19126/2019.
3. The Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission issued an advertisement, dated 12-12-2017, called as "Assistant Professor Examination - 2017" for the post of Assistant Professors in various disciplines. Three types of vacancies were advertised. We have taken example of post in the subject of Geography from the case of Pinki Asati (W.P. No.19126/2019). The first was of backlog posts, in which there was no post for the "unreserved category". The second type of posts were the posts which fell vacant due to promotion/superannuation, in which there were total 36 posts, out of which 16 posts were meant for unreserved category and 5 posts out of said 16 posts of unreserved category were reserved for Female Unreserved Category (UNRF) under the 33% reservation provided in the M.P. Civil Services (Special Provision for appointment of Women) Rules, 1997 [hereinafter referred to as "1997 Rules"]. The third type of posts were newly created posts in which there were total 40 posts out of which 20 posts were for unreserved category and 7 posts out of said 20 posts of unreserved category were reserved for Female Unreserved Category (UNRF). Thus, out of total 36 posts of Unreserved Category (UNR), 12 posts were reserved for the UNRF, as mandated in the 1997 Rules. At this juncture it is useful to refer the relevant part of the advertisement which is extracted hereunder :
4. The petitioner appeared in the Assistant Professor Examination - 2017 conducted by the MPPSC for the post of Assistant Professor (Geography) as an unreserved candidate. The petitioner has arraigned respondent Nos.3 to 5 as party, who were selected against the post reserved fo
