2022 Supreme(MP) 5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
SUJOY PAUL, DWARKA DHISH BANSAL, JJ.
Kishor Choudhary S/o Shriram Choudhary – Petitioner
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Writ Petition Nos. 419, 542, 807, 1292, 1319, 1437, 1442, 1588, 1885, 1928, 2482, 2540, 2544, 2545, 2569, 2575, 2581, 2699, 2702, 2704, 2707, 2722, 2752, 2755, 2772, 2816, 2869, 2882, 2891, 2898, 2927, 2947, 2948, 2950, 2952, 2953, 2991, 3042, 3112, 3126, 3634, 4112, 5594, 14468 of 2021, 1918, 2410, 6972 of 2022
Decided On : 07-04-2022

Point of Law: If a reserved category candidate received more or equal marks qua UR category candidate, he will secure birth in UR category and he cannot be treated to be a reserve category candidate.

Headnote:

Madhya Pradesh State Service Examination Rules 2015 – Rule 4(3)(d) III – Service Examination 2019 – Posts for reserved category – Batch of 49 petitions – Constitutionality of sub-section (4) of Section 4 of Madhya Pradesh Lok Seva (Anusuchit Jatiyon, Anusuchit Jan Jatiyon Aur Anya Pichhade Vargon Ke Liye Arakshan) Adhiniyam, 1994 (Adhiniyam) – To declare Rule 4(3)(d) III of Amendment in Madhya Pradesh State Service Examination Rules 2015 (Examination Rules) as ultra vires.

Finding of the Court:

Since the petitioners have obtained equal or more marks than last U.R. category candidates, they were having a valuable right to secure a position in U.R. category. This right of consideration and occupying a slot in U.R. category is sought to be taken away by bringing the impugned amendment, which in our opinion is arbitrary, impermissible and irrational – only when reserved category candidate secured equal or more marks with U.R. category candidate is given birth in U.R. category in all stages of selection including preliminary and the main examination. Any other interpretation will defeat the purpose and the constitutional scheme flowing from Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of the India.

Result: Partly allowed

Law Laid down

1. Section 4 of Madhya Pradesh Lok Seva (Anusuchit Jatiyon, Anusuchit Jan Jatiyon Aur Anya Pichhade Vargon Ke Liye Arakshan) Adhiniyam, 1994 (Adhiniyam) :-

Constitutional Validity :- The provision is declared as intra vires. There is no element of unconstitutionality in this provision. It is in consonance with Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

2. Rule 4(3)(d)III of Amendment dated 17 Feb 2020 in Madhya Pradesh State Service Examination Rules 2015 (Examination Rules) :- It is declared as unconstitutional because it runs contrary to Nine Judges Bench judgment of Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney (supra) and does not have any rational and basis for depriving the reserved category candidate securing equal or more marks qua general category candidates from securing birth as U.R. candidate in all stages of selection.

Such meritorious reserved category candidate merges in open/U.R. category because of his own merit. Depriving such candidate from his entitlement to get space in U.R. category amounts to dividing a homogeneous class of U.R. category on the basis of their birth mark which is impermissible.

3. Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution :- There must be a rational between the object sought to be achieved and the impugned provision. The State has failed to establish any valid nexus between the two.

4. Change of Rule after Commencement of Selection Process :- The amended rule came into being in mid way and after commencement of Selection Process by issuance of advertisement dated 14.11.2019. Rule of game cannot be permitted to be changed to the detriment of the candidates.

5. Reason shown for impugned amendment in the Rules :- The court considered the previous judgment of Division Bench in Hemraj Rana Vs. State of M.P. (2006) 3 MPHT 477 and opined that a window is left open in Para-7 of judgment to consider the word ‘selected’ by taking aid of the Rules. When Hemraj Rana (supra) was decided, the Rule was differently worded whereas at present, unamended Rule permits the meritorious reserved category candidates to get a birth as UR category candidate.

6. Law of Precedent :- The judgment of court is precedent for the principle decided by it and not for something which logically flows from it.

7. Precedent :- Judgment should not be read as Euclid’s theorem, A singular different fact may change the precedential value of a judgment.

8. Necessary Parties :- In a selection process which is still not over and subject matter of challenge, parties going to be affected are not required to be impleaded. Moreso, when constitutionality of the Adhiniyam and Rule are subject matter of challenge.

9. Use of Word ‘Substituted’ in the latest amendment in the Examination Rules :- Since the court declared Rule 4(3)(d)III of Amendment dated 17 Feb 2020 in Madhya Pradesh State Service Examination Rules 2015 (Examination Rules) as unconstitutional, this aspect pales into insignificance and not required to be decided.

10. Constitutionality of Provision:- Efforts should be made by the Court to uphold the constitutionality. It can be declared as ultra vires if it is absolutely necessary.