Tripura High Court
Smt. Sangita Tanti vs . Union Of India And 4 Ors on 22 August, 2022
Author: Arindam Lodh
Bench: Arindam Lodh
Page 1 of 7
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) No. 120 of 2021
Smt. Sangita Tanti Vs. Union of India and 4 Ors
Along with
WP(C) No. 123 of 2021
Sri Sattya Bhushan Barman Vs. Union of India and 4 Ors
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021
Sri Manoj Shil Vs. Union of India and 34 Ors
WP(C) No. 806 of 2021
Sri Nippon Deb Vs. Union of India and 34 Ors
WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
Smt. Bishu Rani Debbarma Vs. Union of India and 15 Ors
WP(C) No. 808 of 2021
Sri Niran Tripura Vs. Union of India and 9 Ors
WP(C) No. 809 of 2021
Sri Rafruchai Mog Vs. Union of India and 9 Ors
WP(C) No. 810 of 2021
Sri Kiran Debbarma Vs. Union of India and 9 Ors
WP(C) No. 811 of 2021
Sri Subham Sarkar Vs. Union of India and 30 Ors
Page 2 of 7
WP(C) No. 812 of 2021
Sri Prasenjit Ghosh Vs. Union of India and 34 Ors
WP(C) No. 813 of 2021
Sri Suman Debnath Vs. Union of India and 34 Ors
WP(C) No. 814 of 2021
Sri Atanu Nath Vs. Union of India and 34 Ors
WP(C) No. 815 of 2021
Sri Sagarmoy Ghosh Vs. Union of India and 34 Ors
WP(C) No. 147 of 2022
Sri Sumanta Rajbhar Vs. Union of India and 34 Ors
WP(C) No. 148 of 2022
Sri Suman Ahir Vs. Union of India and 34 Ors
For the Petitioner(s) : Ms. R. Guha, Advocate
Mr. M. Debnath, Advocate
Mr. D. J. Saha, Advocate
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. B. Majumder, Asstt. S.G.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH Order 22/08/2022 By way of filing the above writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the selection procedure adopted by the respondents for selection and appointment to the post of Constable Page 3 of 7 (GD) in the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF), NIA & SSF & Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles in so far as it debars a candidate from the reserved category from being adjusted against the general vacancy if the candidate has availed any relaxation irrespective of the fact that such relaxation is also available to the general category candidates.
2. Heard Ms. R. Guha, learned counsel alongwith Mr. M. Debnath, and Mr. D. J. Saha, learned counsels appearing for the petitioners of this batch of writ petitions. Also heard Mr. B. Majumder, learned Asstt. S.G. appearing for the respondents-Union of India.
3. Ms. Guha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that all the petitioners have secured higher marks than those of many general category candidates, though they are reserved category candidates.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has further submitted that if a candidate of the reserved category secures higher marks than that of general category candidates without the 'aid of any crutches', then, his/her selection should be on the basis of merit and not on the basis of the reservation and he/she shall have to be treated as a general category candidate because he/she makes it on his/her own merit and not by reason of the category to whom he/she belongs.
4. It is now well settled that when a candidate gets selected for admission or for appointment to a post on the basis of his own merit and without availing the relaxations that are available Page 4 of 7 to him, then his selection would not be taken into consideration against the reserved post.
5. Similar question was raised before a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court where the similar claim of a writ petitioner (Hemant Pokhriyal Vs. Staff Selection Commission & Ors) was disposed of in the manner as under:-
"10. In Indra Sawhney & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (1992) Supp (3) SCC 217, the Supreme Court has held as under:-
"[It] is well to remember that the reservations under Article 16(4) do not operate like a communal reservation. It may well happen that some members belonging to, say, Scheduled Castes get selected in the open competition field on the basis of their own merit; they will not be counted against the quota reserved for Scheduled Castes; they will be treated as open competition candidates."
11. A similar view has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in R.K. Sabharwal and Others v. State of Punjab and Others, (1995) 2 SCC 745; Union of India and Others v. Virpal Singh Chauhan and Other, (1995) 6 SCC 684; Ritesh R. Sah v. Dr. Y.L. Yamul and Others, (1996) 3 SCC 253.
12. This Court also finds that the examination notice in para 11(xiii) specifies that if a SC, ST, OBC and Ex-Serviceman are selected on their own merit and without any relaxed standards relatable to aforesaid categories or without consideration larger than what is provided for General category, then the candidate is not to be adjusted against the reserved vacancies.
RELAXATIONS IN MEASUREMENT OF HEIGHT AND CHEST ARE AVAILABLE TO ALL THE CANDIDATES FROM GARHWAL REGION WHETHER THE CANDIDATE BELONGS TO A RESERVED OR UNRESERVED CATEGORY. PARA 11(XIV) CLEARLY STATES THAT WHEN A RESERVED CATEGORY CANDIDATE IS SELECTED ON THE SAME STANDARD AS APPLICABLE TO A GENERAL CANDIDATE THEN HE SHALL NOT BE ADJUSTED AGAINST RESERVED VACANCIES.
Page 5 of 713. This Court is of the view that the relaxations in measurement of height and chest are available to all the candidates from Garhwal Region or other specified regions whether the candidate belongs to a reserved or unreserved category. There is specific relaxation for Scheduled Tribes, but no relaxation with regard to height or chest is provided specifically to OBCs.
14. The respondent No.1's interpretation that since the petitioner is an OBC category candidate and has availed relaxation in measurement in the standards of height and chest which is available to a Garhwali candidate, he cannot be considered in unreserved category by virtue of para 11(xiv) is untenable in law as the instructions and the clarification clearly state that when a reserved category candidate is selected on the same standard as applicable to a General candidate then he shall not be adjusted against reserved vacancies. It is only when a candidate avails relaxations that are not otherwise available to the candidates of the unreserved category that he is to be considered in his category.
15. The Office Memorandum dated 1st July, 1998 issued by the Ministry of Personnel, PG & Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training clarifies the position. It states as under:-
"3. In this connection, it is clarified that only such SC/ST/OBC candidates who are selected on the same standard as applied to General candidates shall not be adjusted against reserved vacancies."
(emphasis supplied)
16. In the present case the height and chest relaxations that have been availed by the Petitioner are available to all the candidates belonging to the Garhwal region. In fact, there are no height and chest relaxations provided for the candidates belonging to the OBC category in Clause 9(III) of the Notification and they are to be considered along with the General candidates.
17. Even the learned predecessor bench in the order dated 02nd August, 2021 had observed as under:-
"We are prima facie of the opinion that when Clause 11
(xiv) of the Examination Notice supra refers to Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), OBC and Ex- Servicemen candidates who have qualified on the basis of relaxed standards, the same refers to the relaxation by virtue of being SC, ST, OBC or Ex-Servicemen and not relaxation given to candidates from Page 6 of 7 particular States/region inasmuch as the said relaxations are available to all candidates from that region/State, even those belonging to the Unreserved category."
18. This Court respectfully agrees with the said interpretation.
IF THIS COURT WERE TO ACCEPT THE ARGUMENT OF THE RESPONDENTS IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE FACT THAT THE PETITIONER BELONGS TO A RESERVED CATEGORY INSTEAD OF WORKING TO HIS BENEFIT WOULD RATHER WORK TO HIS DISADVANTAGE."
6. After being so observed, the Delhi High Court had passed the following directions:
"20. Consequently, the present petition is allowed. However, this Court is of the view that in the present case, as training of the selected candidates has already commenced, it would not be proper to direct the respondents to re- draw the result in its entirety. After all, it is settled law that the prospective declaration of law is a devise innovated by the Apex Court to avoid re- opening of settled issues and to prevent multiplicity of proceedings. Even the High Courts in exercise of their equity jurisdiction without applying the doctrine of prospective over- ruling, indisputably can grant a limited relief. [See: P.V.George and Others vs. State of Kerala and Others, (2007) 3 SCC 557; Somaiya Organics (India) Ltd. and Another vs. State of U.P. and Another, (2001) 5 SCC 519; Gaurav Tripathi vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2009 SCC OnLine All 1608 and Baburam vs. C.C. Jacob and Others, (1999) 3 SCC 362.]
21. Accordingly, this Court directs that the present judgment would have prospective effect i.e. it would not disturb the list of selected candidates till date. However, the vacancies that remain to be filled, shall be filled in accordance with the revised list, that should be prepared in accordance with the law declared by this Court in the present judgment. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition along with pending application stands disposed of."
7. It is pertinent to mention herein that all the petitioners of this batch of writ petitions hail from Tripura, one of the North-
Page 7 of 7Eastern states and relaxations that have been availed by the petitioners are also availed by all the general category candidates belonging to the state of Tripura.
8. The subject in dispute raised in this batch of writ petitions is squarely covered by the judgment passed in Hemant Pokhriyal supra and accordingly, stands disposed of with the directions that the respondents shall appoint the petitioners against the remaining vacancies without disturbing the list of candidates till date and/or appointments already made by the respondents according to the merit list of general category candidates.
9. In view of this direction, the respondents shall prepare a revised select list accommodating the petitioners of this batch of writ petitions in the merit list of general category of candidates and appoint them against the available vacancies treating them as open competition candidates. Entire process must be completed within 2 (two) months from today.
10. In sequel, the present batch of writ petitions stands allowed in the above terms.
JUDGE Snigdha