Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service ... vs Unnati Jain D/O Hari Prasad Gupta on 20 November, 2021
Bench: Akil Kureshi, Rekha Borana
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 856/2020
1. Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer
2. Chairman, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer
----Appellants
Versus
1. Unnati Jain D/o Hari Prasad Gupta, R/o Plot No. 15,
Shivaji Nagar, Housing Board, Dungarpur
2. Sheetal Patel D/o Badrinath Patel, R/o Near Jain
Temple, Vpo Kanba, Kanwa Dungarpur
3. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Department Of Treasuries And Accounts Dta,
Secretariat Jaipur
----Respondents
Connected With
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 398/2021
State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department
Of Treasuries And Accounts Dta, Secretariat, Jaipur
----Appellant
Versus
1. Unnati Jain D/o Hari Prasad Gupta, R/o Plot No. 15,
Shiavji Nagar, Housing Board, Dungarpur
2. Sheetal Patel D/o Badrinath Patel, R/o Near Jain
Temple Vpo Kanba, Kanwa Dungarpur
3. Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer
4. Chairman, Rajasthan Public Service Commission Ajmer
----Respondents
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 868/2020
1. Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission,
Ajmer.
2. Chairman, Rajasthan Public Service Commission,
Ajmer.
----Appellants
(Downloaded on 22/11/2021 at 09:39:08 PM)
(2 of 20) [SAW-856/2020]
Versus
1. Nilesh Kumar Jain S/o Shri Bhagwati Lal Jain, R/o
116, Opp. New Sabji Mandi, Near Swastik Education
Center, Patrakar Colony, Dugarpur.
2. Mayuri Bhavsar D/o Bharat Chandra Bhavsar, R/o
Bankora Tehsil Aaspur Distt. Dugarpur.
3. Monika Patidar D/o Harish Chandra Patidar, R/o
Jogpur Tehsil Galiyakot, Distt. Dungarpur.
4. Parveen Patidar S/o Shri Shivram Patidar, Gowari
Tehsil Sagwara, Distt. Dungarpur.
5. Mintal Chouhan S/o Shri Jaswant Singh Chouhan, R/o
Opp. No. 6 School Gokuldham Surya Nikunj, Tehsil
Dugarpur.
6. Harshvardhan Singh Rajawat S/o Himmat Singh
Rajawat, R/o Near Police Line Gate, Panchayat Samiti
Quarter No. 33, Tilak Nagar, Dugarpur.
7. Khushveer Singh Chouhan S/o Shri Narendra Singh
Chouhan, R/o 437, Pragati Nagar, Dungarpur.
8. Yugal Pahad S/o Shri Kailash Chandra Pahad, R/o
2/10 Shivji Nagar, Dungarpur.
9. Priyanka Patidar D/o Shri Vitthal Patidar, R/o Mpo
Chokhala, Tehsil Bagidora, Distt. Banswara.
10. Hemant Patidar S/o Shri Jetendra Patidar, R/o Vpo
Chokhala, Tehsil Bagidora, Distt. Dungarpur.
11. Kunal Kamra S/o Shri Dhenesh Punjabi, R/o Flat No.
107, Gokulshree Complex, Wadiya Colony, Ratitalal,
Banswara.
12. Yakeen Jain S/o Manmal Jain, R/o Vpo Arthuna, Tehsil
Gadi, Distt. Banswara.
13. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Department Of Treasuries And Accounts Dta,
Secretariat Jaipur.
----Respondents
Connected With
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 341/2021
State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
(Downloaded on 22/11/2021 at 09:39:08 PM)
(3 of 20) [SAW-856/2020]
Department Of Treasuries And Accounts Dta, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Nilesh Kumar Jain S/o Shri Bhagwati Lal Jain, R/o
116, Opp. New Sabji Mandi, Near Swastik Education
Center, Patrakar Colony Dungarpur.
2. Mayuri Bhavsar D/o Bharat Chandra Bhavsar, R/o
Bankora, Tehsil Aaspur District Dungarpur.
3. Monika Patidar D/o Harish Chandra Patidar, R/o
Jogpur Tehsil Galiyakot District Dungarpur.
4. Pareveen Patidar S/o Shri Shivram Patidar, Gowari
Tehsil Sagwara District Dungarpur.
5. Mintal Chouhan S/o Shri Jaswant Singh Chouhan, R/o
Opp. No. 6 School Gokuldham Surya Nikunj, Tehsil
Dungarpur.
6. Harshvardhan Singh Rajawat S/o Himmat Singh
Rajawat, R/o Near Police Line Gate, Panchayat Samiti
Quarter No. 33, Tilak Nagar Dungarpur.
7. Khushveer Singh Chouhan S/o Shri Narendra Singh
Chouhan, R/o 437, Pragati Nagar Dungarpur.
8. Yugal Pahad S/o Shri Kailash Chandra Pahad, R/o
2/10, Shivji Nagar, Dungarpur.
9. Priyanka Patidar D/o Shri Vitthal Patidar, R/o Mpo
Chokhala, Tehsil Bagidora District Dungarpur.
10. Himmat Patidar S/o Shri Jetendra Patidar, R/o Vpo
Chokhala Tehsil Bagidora District Dungarpur.
11. Kunal Kamra S/o Shri Dhenesh Punjabi, R/o Flat No.
107, Gokulshree Complex, Wadiya Colony, Ratitalal,
Banswara Rajasthan.
12. Yakeen Jain S/o Manmal Jain, R/o Vpo Arthuna, Tehsil
Gadi District Banswara.
13. Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission
Ajmer.
14. Chairman, Rajasthan Public Service Commission
Ajmer.
----Respondents
(Downloaded on 22/11/2021 at 09:39:08 PM)
(4 of 20) [SAW-856/2020]
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Mirza Faisal Baig
Dr. Ganesh Parihar, AAG with
Mr. Ashish Yadav
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vigyan Shah through VC
Mr. Harendra Neel
Mr. Akshit Gupta
Mr. Raghunandan Sharma
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Judgment
20/11/2021
DB Civil Misc. Appln. No.551/2020 in DBSAW No.856/2020
DB Civil Misc. Appln. No.173/2021 in DBSAW No.398/2021
DB Civil Misc. Appln. No.552/2020 in DBSAW No.868/2020
DB Civil Misc. Appln. No.192/2021 in DBSAW No.341/2021
These applications are filed by the appellants State
Government as well as Rajasthan Public Service Commission
(for short 'the RPSC') seeking condonation of delay caused in
filing the respective appeals. For the reasons stated in these
applications and those made out before us during course of the
arguments, delay is condoned. The applications are disposed
of.
D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) Nos.856/2020,
398/2021, 868/2020, 341/2021:-
These appeals arise out of the common judgment of the
learned Single Judge dated 20.12.2019 passed in Civil Writ
Petition No.12691/2017(in case of Nilesh Kumar Jain and Ors.
Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr.), Civil Writ Petition
No.12688/2017(in the case of Unnati Jain and Anr. Vs. State of
Rajasthan and Ors.) and Civil Writ Petition No.13422/2017(in
the case of Naveen Kumar Khandal and Ors. Vs. State of
Rajasthan and Ors.).
(Downloaded on 22/11/2021 at 09:39:08 PM)
(5 of 20) [SAW-856/2020]
Brief facts are as under:-
Part 10 of the Constitution of India pertains to Scheduled
and Tribal Areas. Article 244 contained in the said Part pertains
to Administration of Scheduled Areas and Tribal Areas. Clause
(1) of Article 244 provides that the provisions of the Fifth
Schedule shall apply to the administration and control of the
Scheduled Areas and Scheduled Tribes in any State other than
the States of Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram. For
these States as per Clause (2) of Article 244 special provisions
are contained in Sixth Schedule. Schedule V as referred to in
clause (1) of Article 244 contains the provisions as to the
administration and control of Scheduled Areas and Scheduled
Tribes. Part B of Schedule V pertains to administration and
control of Scheduled Areas and Scheduled Tribes. Clause 4
contained in Part B pertains to establishment of Scheduled
Tribes Advisory Council. Clause 5 pertains to law applicable to
Scheduled Areas. Sub-clause (1) thereof gives special powers
to the Governor by publication of notification to provide that
any particular Act of Parliament or of the Legislature of the
State shall not apply to a Scheduled Area or any part thereof.
Sub-clause (2) of Clause 5 authorizes the Governor to make
regulations for the peace and good government of any area in
a State which is for the time being a Scheduled Area.
In exercise of powers under proviso to Article 309 of the
Constitution the State Government had framed the Rules called
The Rajasthan Scheduled Areas Subordinate, Minsterial and
Class-IV Service (Recruitment and other Service Conditions)
Rules, 2014 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the said Rules').
Sub-rule (3) of Rule 1 of the said Rules provides that the Rules
(Downloaded on 22/11/2021 at 09:39:08 PM)
(6 of 20) [SAW-856/2020]
shall apply to entire establishments of the Subordinate,
Ministerial and Class-IV services of various departments
created in the Scheduled Areas within the State for
appointments to posts in connection with the affairs of the
State. Part-III of the Rules pertains to recruitment. Rule 6
contained in Part-III pertains to method of recruitment. Sub-
rule (1) of Rule 6 envisages recruitment to various posts in the
Scheduled Areas by direct recruitment or promotion as
provided under the Rules. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 pertains to
existing employees of the Government belonging to Scheduled
Areas and provides that such persons shall have one time
option for their absorption by exercising option within one
month from the date of receipt of the communication from the
appointing authority. The person so absorbed would not have
the right to be transferred and/or deputed outside this closed
cadre. Rules 8 to 11 of the said Rules provide for reservation in
favour of different categories in the vacancies in the Scheduled
Areas. Rule 13 requires the appointing authority to determine
the actual number of vacancies occurring during the year.
Part-IV of the said Rules pertains to procedure for direct
recruitment. Perusal of the Rules contained in this part would
show that such recruitment would be for the vacancies arising
for direct recruitment within the Scheduled Area. Part-V lays
down the procedure for recruitment by promotion. Here again
the Rules envisages such promotion to be made within the
cadre of the employees of the Scheduled Area.
Part-VI of the said Rules pertains to appointment,
probation and confirmation. Rule 31 contained in the said Part
pertains to appointment to the service and referes to selection
(Downloaded on 22/11/2021 at 09:39:08 PM)
(7 of 20) [SAW-856/2020]
of the candidates under Rule 25 and promotion under Rule 29
of the Rules and provides that the persons so appointed shall
be transferable from one place to the other within the
Scheduled Areas and further provides that a person so
appointed cannot be transferred outside this closed cadre in
any capacity which also includes deputation and reverse
deputation.
Perusal of these Rules leaves no manner of doubt that for
the purpose of recruitment, transfer and promotion the specific
cadres in the Scheduled Area are treated separately from the
rest of the employees of the State Government in similar
cadres. In other words the recruitment and promotion to the
vacancies in specified cadres in Scheduled Area would be an
independent exercise. Their transfer liabilities are confined to
Scheduled Area. For greater emphasis Rule 31 provides that a
person so appointed cannot be transferred outside this closed
cadre in any capacity which would also include deputation and
reverse deputation.
The RPSC at the request of the State Government
initiated the process of recruitment to the vacancies in the
cadres of Junior Accountant and Tehsil Revenue Accountant for
specified number of vacancies both in Scheduled Areas and
Non-Scheduled Areas by issuing an advertisement on
18.09.2013. The corrigendum was issued on 31.10.2014 as per
which 3207 posts of Non-Scheduled Areas and 290 posts of
Scheduled Areas were notified. The petitioners Nilesh Kumar
Jain and others and Unnati Jain and another (of Civil Writ
Petition No.12691/2017 and 12688/2017 respectively) belong
to Scheduled Areas and had applied for Scheduled Area posts
(Downloaded on 22/11/2021 at 09:39:08 PM)
(8 of 20) [SAW-856/2020]
in response to such advertisement. Petitioners Naveen Kumar
Khandal and others (of Civil Writ Petition No.13422/2017)
belong to Non-Scheduled areas and had applied for the
vacancies for such regions. This recruitment process ran into
multiple controversies and hurdles with which we are not
directly concerned.
Eventually the RPSC recommended selected candidates
for appointment to the State Government in the year 2017.
The appointment orders were issued on or around 30.06.2017.
All the petitioners of all three petitions before the learned
Single Judge were selected and offered appointments. The
controversy arose since the petitioners Nilesh Kumar Jain and
others and Unnati Jain and another were adjusted against Non-
Scheduled Area vacancies and posted outside the Scheduled
Areas, whereas the petitioners Naveen Kumar Khandal and
others were posted within the Scheduled Areas. All these three
groups of petitioners approached the High Court. The case of
Nilesh Kumar Jain and others and Unnati Jain and another was
that they could not have been posted against the vacancies of
Non-Scheduled Area. They ought to have been selected and
appointed on the vacancies notified for Scheduled Area and
accordingly they should have been so posted within such areas.
The case of Naveen Kumar Khandal and others was that they
belong to the Non-Scheduled Area and they could not have
been posted within the Scheduled Area.
The State and the RPSC appeared and took a stand that
the petitioners were selected against the general posts and
cannot claim posting only against the vacancies for Scheduled
Area as a matter of right. It was pointed out that these
(Downloaded on 22/11/2021 at 09:39:08 PM)
(9 of 20) [SAW-856/2020]
candidates of Scheduled Area had scored sufficient marks to be
selected against open area vacancies. In order to
accommodate maximum number of candidates from Scheduled
Area these more meritorious candidates were adjusted against
the posts of Non-Scheduled Area.
The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment did
not approve the measures taken by the State Government and
RPSC in this regard. After referring to Rule 31 of the said Rules
the learned Judge opined that the action of the authorities in
shifting the Scheduled Area candidates to Non-Scheduled Area
is illegal and contrary to the spirit of the Rules. Eventually the
writ petitions were disposed of with the following directions:-
"10. The State Government and the RPSC are therefore
be required to correct the list accordingly and
henceforth not to intermingle the candidates of TSP
with non-TSP candidates as the selections for the post
of Junior Accountant under the advertisement
governing this case, are over and appointments have
already been made. Any candidate whose candidature
would be affected on account of the re-framing of the
list would not be ousted and an appointment shall
remain saved as it is not his/her fault. These directions
would therefore be for future selections alone.
11. Keeping in view the mandate of Rule 31 of the
Rules of 2014,it is now directed that the State
Government shall post the petitioners who are from
TSP area only in accordance of Rule 31 in the TSP area
and the petitioners will continue to have their status of
being of TSP category.
12. These writ petitions accordingly stand allowed. The
exercise for posting the petitioners in TSP area shall be
conducted within a period of 3 months. This judgment
passed shall be treated as judgment in rem and shall
apply to all the candidates of TSP category who have
been posted in non-TSP area. The natural corollary
would be that all those candidates who have been
posted in TSP area but belong to non-TSP category
shall be shifted out of TSP.
13. All pending applications shall stand disposed of.
(Downloaded on 22/11/2021 at 09:39:08 PM)
(10 of 20) [SAW-856/2020]
14. A copy of this order be placed in each connected
petition."
As per this judgment and the operative portion of the
judgment, the directions for adjustment of candidates of
Scheduled Areas and Non-Scheduled Areas who were posted in
Scheduled Areas would apply in rem and would cover all
similarly situated candidates whether they had approached the
High Court or not.
This judgment has given rise to four appeals. Appeal
Nos.341/2021 and 398/2021 are filed by the State Government
to challenge the judgment of the learned Single Judge in case
of Nilesh Kumar Jain and others and Unnati Jain and another.
Appeal No.856/2020 and 868/2020 are filed by the RPSC to
challenge the same judgment in relation to the same petitions.
There is no challenge to the judgment of learned Single Judge
insofar as it relates to Writ Petition No.13422/2017 filed by
Naveen Kumar Khandal and others who happened to be Non-
Scheduled Area candidates posted in the Scheduled Area.
Appearing for the appellants learned counsel raised following
contentions:-
(1) The principle adopted by the authorities was just and
proper. Since petitioners Nilesh Kumar Jain and others and
Unnati Jain and another were found to be meritorious, they
were first adjusted against the vacancies of Non-Scheduled
Area. This enabled the State Government to accommodate
larger number of candidates of Scheduled Area who but for this
devise could not have been appointed.
(Downloaded on 22/11/2021 at 09:39:08 PM)
(11 of 20) [SAW-856/2020]
(2) This policy is neither illegal nor arbitrary nor opposed to
any other Rule. The learned Single Judge should not have
disturbed the methodology adopted by the authorities.
(3) It was argued that the judgment of the learned Single
Judge would adversely affect large number of persons who
were not joined as respondents. For non-joinder of necessary
parties the petitions should have been dismissed.
(4) It was lastly contended that applying the ratio to all
selected candidates in the cadre whether they have approached
the High Court or not would create an administrative chaos.
On the other hand learned counsel Mr. Vigyan Shah
appearing for the original-petitioners opposed these appeals
raising following contentions:-
(1) The selection and posting in the Scheduled Area
presents certain obvious advantages. The petitioners
who were found to be more meritorious candidates
cannot be deprived of such benefits under the guise that
they were adjusted against Non-Scheduled Area
vacancies. The decision of the Supreme Court in the
case of R.K. Sabharwal and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab
and Ors., (1995) 2 SCC 745 could not be applied in
such a scenario. In this context he relied on the decision
in the case of Union of India Vs. Ramesh Ram and
Ors. (2010) 7 SCC 234. He also relied on a Division
Bench judgment of this Court in the case of State of
Rajasthan Vs. Poonam Sharma (DBSAW
No.815/2019) decided on 29.08.2019.
(2) All the petitioners clearly indicated their reference for
being accommodated within the Scheduled Area. If at all
(Downloaded on 22/11/2021 at 09:39:09 PM)
(12 of 20) [SAW-856/2020]
less meritorious candidates should have been sent out
but not the petitioners.
(3) The outcome of this decision did not result into adverse
consequences against any of the selected candidates
learned Single Judge has not provided for terminating
services of anyone.
Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties
and having perused the documents on record we find that the
said Rules envisage a separate and what is referred to a closed
cadre for specified class of employees of the State Government
within the Scheduled Area. The recruitment and promotions are
separately governed within such cadres. Existing employees of
the State Government belonging to these areas were given one
time option. Option once exercised would prevent them from
claiming posting or even deputation outside the Scheduled
Area. To the new recruits as per Rule 31 the transfer liabilities
would be within the Scheduled Area. This would mean that
they would not be posted even on deputation outside the
Scheduled Area. For promotion also they would be competing
with the candidates in the feeder cadre within the Scheduled
Area. We have also noticed that the reservation is applied
separately within this closed cadre. The advertisement which
the State Government issued also specified vacancies
separately for Scheduled Area and Non-Schedule Area. The
application form which a candidate had to fill up also required a
declaration that he/she belongs to a scheduled category or not.
In such background the question is, could the petitioners
be adjusted against the vacancies of Non-Scheduled Area only
on the ground that they were found to be more meritorious
(Downloaded on 22/11/2021 at 09:39:09 PM)
(13 of 20) [SAW-856/2020]
and they should therefore be adjusted against such vacancies.
In case of R.K. Sabharwal (supra) a Constitution Bench of
the Supreme Court had held that number of reserved category
candidates appointed or promoted in non-reserved post as a
result of competition cannot be taken into account to work out
against the prescribed percentage of reservation. The reserved
points indicated in the roster have still to be filled exclusively
from reserved category candidates. This judgment thus laid
down the principle that a candidate though may belong to a
reserved category, if he is found meritorious so as to merit
selection without the aid of reservation, such appointment
would not go to reduce the number of reserved vacancies and
such vacancies will be filled up through reserved category
candidates. In our opinion this principle cannot be applied in
the present scenario. Firstly the two streams of selection
namely the vacancies notified for Scheduled Area and those for
Non-Scheduled Area were separate and distinct. Secondly and
more importantly even if the State administration thought that
these petitioners were meritorious and could merit selection
without the protective shield of Scheduled Area limited
competition, the choice whether to be adjusted against
scheduled vacancies or non-scheduled vacancies could not
have been thrust upon them. As persons belonging to
Scheduled Area and as candidates who were found meritorious
warranting selection and appointment, the State administration
had to respect their choice of being accommodated against
Scheduled Area vacancies. Appointment in the Scheduled Area
carries certain obvious advantages such as limited transfer
liability and competition for promotion within the closed cadre.
(Downloaded on 22/11/2021 at 09:39:09 PM)
(14 of 20) [SAW-856/2020]
The meritorious selected candidates of Scheduled Area cannot
be deprived of such advantages in the guise that they merit
appointment in Non-Scheduled Area. We have noticed that
even existing employees of the State Government were given
option to be absorbed in Scheduled Area cadres.
Learned counsel for the original-petitioners was justified
in relying on the decision in the case of Ramesh Ram
(supra). This was a Constitution Bench judgment in which the
reserved category candidates who were found more
meritorious, were left at a disadvantageous position in
selection of All India Services. In this background after
referring to the decision in the case of R.K. Sabharwal
(supra) it was observed that this principle would not imply
that if a candidate himself wishes to avail a vacancy in
reserved category he shall be prohibited from doing so.
As rightly pointed out by the counsel for the original-
petitioner a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Poonam
Sharma (supra) had occasion to deal with somewhat similar
situation. It was a case in which meritorious reserved category
candidates were treated as general category candidates and
this resulted into denial of the benefit of reserved seat in
concerned subject while the question of allocation of the
division of choice arose. The Division Bench referring to and
relying upon the decision in case of Ramesh Ram (supra)
held and observed as under:-
"13. The issue of giving weightage and- as far as
possible- giving effect to the preference of a
candidate who secures a high ranking in the merit
list, while allocating a cadre (much in the same
manner as the allocation of the preferred division, as
in this case), was a subject matter of a Constitution
Bench ruling of the Supreme Court in Union of India
(Downloaded on 22/11/2021 at 09:39:09 PM)
(15 of 20) [SAW-856/2020]
Vs. Ramesh Ram & Ors., (2010) 7 SCC 234. In that
decision, the Court resolved the conflict between
different judgments. The question was whether a
merited reserved category candidate (MRC), pushed
up into the general category merit list and treated as
an open merit candidate, can be placed at a
disadvantageous position vis-a-vis a reserved
category candidate in regard to allocation of cadre,
especially when the less merited candidate is granted
the cadre of his/her choice. The Supreme Court
observed as follows:-
"32. There is an obvious distinction
between qualifying through an entrance test
for securing admission in a medical college
and qualifying in the UPSC examinations since
the latter examination is conducted for filling
up vacancies in the various civil services. In
the former case, all the successful candidates
receive the same benefit of securing ad-
mission in an educational institution.
However, in the latter case there are
variations in the benefits that accrue to
successful candidates because they are also
competing amongst themselves to secure the
service of their choice. For example, most
candidates opt for at least one of the first
three services [i.e. Indian Administrative
Service (IAS), Indian Foreign Service (IFS)
and Indian Police Service (IPS)] when they
are asked for preferences. A majority of the
candidates prefer IAS as the first option. In
this respect, a Re- served Category candidate
who has qualified as part of the general list
should not be disadvantaged by being
assigned to a lower service against the
vacancies in the General Category especially
because if he had availed the benefit of his
Reserved Category status, he would have got
a service of a higher preference. With the
obvious intention of preventing such an
anomaly, Rule 16 (2) provides that an MRC
candidate is at liberty to choose between the
general quota or the respective Reserved
Category quota.
***********
36. We must also take note of the fact that when MRC candidates get adjusted against the Reserved Category, the same creates corresponding vacancies in the General Merit List (since MRC candidates are on both lists). These vacancies are of course (Downloaded on 22/11/2021 at 09:39:09 PM) (16 of 20) [SAW-856/2020] filled up by general candidates. Likewise, when MRC candidates are subsequently adjusted against the General Category [i.e. without availing the benefit of Rule 16 (2)], the same will result in vacancies in the Re- served Category which must in turn be filled up by Wait Listed Reserved Candidates. Moreover, the operation of Rule 16 does not result in the ouster of any of the candidates recommended in the first list. Many of the wait-listed candi- dates are accommodated in the second stage, and the relatively lower ranked wait-listed candidates are excluded. It is pertinent to note that these excluded candidates never had any absolute right to recruitment or even any expectation that they would be recruited. Their chances depend on how MRC candidates are adjusted.
37. In the impugned judgment, the High Court had reasoned that allocation to a particular post cannot be distinguished from allocation to a service for the purpose of reservation. However, the High Court had not considered the fact that in the CSE examination, the candidates are not competing for similar posts in one service but are instead competing for posts in different services that correspond to varying preferences.
38. Furthermore, the impugned judgment did not appreciate the possibility that when an SC/ST/OBC candidate qualifies on merit (i.e. without any relaxation/concession) there can be a situation where a lower ranked OBC candidate gets allotted to a better service in comparison to a higher ranked SC/ST/OBC candidate sim- ply because the higher ranked OBC candidate performed well enough to qualify in the General Category. Such a situation is anomalous. As we have already discussed, the High Court's reliance on the decision of this Court in Union of India v Satya Prakash (supra.), is not tenable since it dealt with the effect of Rule 16 (2) as it existed prior to the amendment notified on 4.12.2004.
***********
72. We sum up our answers-:
(i) MRC candidates who avail the benefit of Rule 16 (2) and adjusted in the reserved category should be counted as part of the (Downloaded on 22/11/2021 at 09:39:09 PM) (17 of 20) [SAW-856/2020] reserved pool for the purpose of computing the aggregate reservation quotas. The seats vacated by MRC candidates in the General Pool will be offered to General category candidates.
(ii).....
(iii)....
(iv) The reserved category candidates "belonging to OBC, SC/ ST categories" who are selected on merit and placed in the list of General/Unreserved category candidates can choose to migrate to the respective reserved category at the time of allocation of services.
Such migration as envisaged by Rule 16 (2) is not inconsistent with Rule 16 (1) or Articles 14, 16 (4) and 335 of the Constitution."
14. In the light of the ruling in Ramesh Ram (supra), it is no longer open to the State to contend that allocation of cadre or division, according to the preference sought from candidates, at the initial stage of the recruitment process, is a pure administrative matter. What is in issue is the fairness of the process of allocation."
So far as the broad principles adopted by the learned Single Judge are concerned we are therefore in agreement with the same. However before closing two issues need to be dealt with. First is that with respect to non-joinder of candidates likely to be affected by outcome of the petitions. In this context counsel for the appellants had relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases Nair Service Society Vs. T. Beermasthan and Ors., (2009) 5 SCC 545 and Prabodh Verma and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others AIR 1985 SC 167. However, are not inclined to disturb the decision of the learned Single Judge on this ground. Our reasons are as follows:-
(1) Though strenuously argued before us by Mr. Vigyan Shah counsel for the original-petitioner there is no getting away from the fact that the outcome of this petition may as a (Downloaded on 22/11/2021 at 09:39:09 PM) (18 of 20) [SAW-856/2020] consequence eject some of the Scheduled Area candidates outside the Non-Scheduled Area. If the original-petitioners argue that being absorbed in the Scheduled Area vacancies presents certain obvious advantages, this would necessarily mean that these candidates would be placed at somewhat disadvantageous positions. However this ground of non-joinder is raised by the Government orally before us for the first time without either raising in writ petition or apparently orally before the learned Single Judge or without pleading in the appeals before us. Further, the original-petitioners would not be in a position to identify those Scheduled Area candidates who would have to be sent out if the petitions were to be allowed. This would depend on the relative merit of the candidates in the said group. More importantly this litigation is going on since quite some time and is in public domain. The petitions were filed in the year 2017 and decided towards the end of the year 2019. These appeals are also pending before the Division Bench since nearly two years by now. At no stage these rival candidates have made any attempt to join themselves in the litigation. Not only before the learned Single Judge but even after the learned Single Judge allowed the petitions, none of these candidates have made any attempt to intervene. If they were perturbed by the outcome of the decision at the hands of the learned Single Judge, they should have exercised their own options. Within the cadre it is impossible to believe that the decision of the learned Single Judge and the pendency of the appeals filed by the State authorities is not known to all concerned. At this belated stage therefore we are not inclined (Downloaded on 22/11/2021 at 09:39:09 PM) (19 of 20) [SAW-856/2020] to reverse the decision of the learned Single Judge only on this ground.
There is one area arising out of the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge which requires modification. We have noted that the learned Single Judge has effectively given following three directions:-
(i) That the petitioners would be absorbed in Scheduled Area vacancies.
(ii) As a result sufficient number of candidates in the Scheduled Area would be posted in Non-Scheduled Area.
(iii) Those petitioners who belong to Non-Scheduled Area and posted in Scheduled Area would be transferred out.
These directions we do not intend to disturb. However the problem arises when the learned Single Judge has held that these directions shall be seen as having been issued in rem and would apply to all similarly situated candidates whether they had approached the High Court or not. For variety of reasons this could not and should not have been done. Firstly this will lead to a major administrative overhaul. Secondly there may be certain advantages in serving in Non-Scheduled Area such as greater exposure and better career progression prospects. It is for the candidate concerned to weigh his or her option and the option to be absorbed within the Scheduled Area alone in the present set of facts could not have been thrust upon such candidates.
For such reasons while disposing all these appeals and upholding the principles applied by the learned Single Judge, it is provided that directions would be confined to the petitioners before the Court alone. This would include the directions in (Downloaded on 22/11/2021 at 09:39:09 PM) (20 of 20) [SAW-856/2020] case of Naveen Kumar Khandal and others though the State administration has not filed appeals against the judgment. The State Government may not be objecting to the directions issued by the learned Single Judge in favour of those petitioners, nevertheless extending such directions to the non-
petitioners in the present case is not approved.
With these modification and clarification all the appeals are disposed of. The judgment of the learned Single Judge is modified to this extent.
(REKHA BORANA),J (AKIL KURESHI),CJ KAMLESH KUMAR/N.GANDHI/64-65, 66-67 (Downloaded on 22/11/2021 at 09:39:09 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)