Madhya Pradesh High Court
Hemraj Rana vs State Of M.P. And Anr. on 17 May, 2006
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Chief Justice
ORDER A.K. Patnaik, C.J.
1. This is the writ appeal against the order dated 24-4-2006 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 1706 of 2006 (S).
2. The facts briefly are that an advertisement 9-10-2003 was issued by the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission (for short 'the MP PSC), respondent No. 2, inviting applications for recruitment to the different posts in the State Civil Services. In the said advertisement, 91 posts were reserved for OBC category candidates and 281 posts were meant for General candidates, besides other posts reserved for SC, ST and other categories. In response to the said advertisement, the appellant who belongs to the OBC category applied and the respondent No. 2 issue admission card to the appellant for appearing in the preliminary examination. The appellant, however, did not succeed in the preliminary examination. He filed W.P. No. 1706 of 2006 (S) before this Court contending that under Sub-section (4) of Section 4 of the M.P. Lok Sewa (Anusuchit Jatiyon, Anusuchit Jan Jatiyon Aur Anya Pichhde Vargon Ke Liye Arakshan) Adhiniyam, 1994 (for short 'the Adhiniyam of 1994'), those amongst the OBC candidates who get selected on the basis of their merit will not be considered for the posts reserved for OBC candidates. The learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petition by order dated 24-4-2006. Aggrieved, the appellant has filed this writ appeal.
3. Mr. Thakur, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant had obtained 317 amrks in the preliminary examination and the cut-off marks in respect of candidates who were selected for appearing in the main examination were 325. He submitted that Sub-section (4) of Section 4 of the Adhiniyam of 1994 is clear that if a person belonging to any of the reserved categories gets selected on the basis of merit in open competition, he shall not be adjusted against vacancies meant for reserved categories but he will be adjusted against vacancies meant for General category candidates. He also cited the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Rajshri Tiwari v. State of M.P. and Ors. 2006(1) M.P.H.T. 469 (DB) : 2006(2) MPLJ 121, in which it has been held, relying on the aforesaid provision in Section 4(4) of the Adhiniyam of 1994 as well as the decisions of the Apex Court that reserved category candidates can compete for unreserved posts and in the event of their appointment to the said posts, their number cannot be added and taken into consideration for working out the percentage of reservation.
4. Mr. Hemant Shrivastava, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2, on the other hand, submitted that Sub-section (4) of Section 4 of the Adhiniyam of 1994 will apply at the time of final selection of candidates and not to the preliminary examinations conducted for screening the candidates for the main examination through the preliminary examination. He further submitted that normally by such preliminary examination, candidates numbering 15 times the number of posts advertised are called for main examination on the basis of performance in the preliminary examination and following this principle, the respondent No. 2 has called 7907 candidates for 542 posts for the main examination on the basis of the marks secured by them in the preliminary examination. On a query by the Court as to how many of these candidates who have been called for the main examination on the basis of their marks in the preliminary examination belong to OBC category, Mr. Shrivastava submitted that as many as 1365 candidates belonging to OBC category have been called for main examination.
5. Sub-section (4) of Section 4 of the Adhiniyam of 1994 on which great reliance has been placed by Mr. Thakur, is quoted herein below:
4. Fixation of percentage for reservation of posts and standard of evaluation.:
*** *** *** *** *** (4) If a person belonging to any of the categories mentioned in Sub-section (2) gets selected on the basis of merit in an open competition with general candidates, he shall not be adjusted against the vacancies reserved for such category under Sub-section (2).
The language of the said Sub-section (4) of Section 4 of the Adhiniyam of 1994 makes it clear that if a person belonging to any of the reserved categories gets 'selected' on the basis of merit in an open competition with the general candidates, he shall be adjusted against the vacancies meant for general candidates. The word 'selected' clearly indicates that Sub-section (4) of Section 4 of the Adhiniyam of 1994 will apply only at the time of final selection of candidates and not at the time of preliminary examination.
6. In the decision in Rajshri Tiwari v. State of M.P. and Ors. (supra), cited by Mr. Thakur, this Court has not held that Sub-section (4) of Section 4 of the Adhiniyam of 1994 will also apply to a preliminary examination for the purpose of screening candidates for the main examination. In the said decision, this Court has only held that the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 4 of the Adhiniyam of 1994 and Sub-clause (ii) of Clause (8) of Rule 5 of the Rules of 2001 made under the Adhiniyam of 1994 are in consonance with the interpretation of Article 16(4) of the Constitution given by the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India , that if some members belonging to reserved categories are selected in the open competition on the basis of their merit, they will not count against the quota reserved for Scheduled Castes but shall be treated as open category candidates.
7. In absence of any specific provision either in the Adhiniyam of 1994 or the Rules of 2001 made thereunder, providing that the principle in Sub-section (4) of Section 4 of the Adhiniyam of 1994 will equally apply to preliminary examinations conducted for the purpose of screening candidates for the main examination, the MP PSC would be well within its discretion to decide as to what would be the procedure which should be followed in the preliminary examination for screening candidates for the main examination. So long as such procedure followed by the MP PSC is not contrary to Article 16(4) of the Constitution, this Court cannot hold that the procedure followed by the MP PSC is ultra vires.
8. It appears from the statements produced before us by Mr. Shrivastava, learned Counsel for the MP PSC that as many as 1365 candidates belonging to the OBC category have been called for the main examination on the basis of their performance in the preliminary examination. Assuming that all the 281 posts meant for the general candidates are filled up by 281 out of these 1365 candidates belonging to OBC category, there still remain 1185 candidates belonging to OBC category who would compete for 91 posts reserved for OBC category candidates. There are, therefore, sufficient number of OBC candidates who will competing in the main examination for 91 posts reserved for OBC candidates. Obviously, the appellant who has not come within the aforesaid 1365 candidates of the OBC category called for the main examination because of his lower marks, cannot have a grievance that he should have been called separately on the basis of his performance in the preliminary examination for these 91 vacancies reserved for the OBC category candidates. We are, thus, of the view that the provisions of Article 16(4) of the Constitution are also not, in any way, violated by the procedure followed by the MP PSC.
9. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in the writ appeal and we accordingly dismiss the same.