Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Prem Lal Korde vs Jakir Khan on 7 July, 2021
Bench: Uday Umesh Lalit, Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2353-2354 OF 2021
(Arising out of SLP (C)Nos. 36369-36370 of 2017)
PREM LAL KORDE Appellant(s)
VERSUS
JAKIR KHAN & ORS. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
These appeals challenge (i) the judgment and order dated 04.01.2017 passed by the High Court1 in Writ Appeal No. 782 of 2016 and (ii) the order dated 03.05.2017 passed by the High Court in Review Petition No. 206/2017.
In the process of selection undertaken in the year 2008 to fill up 3741 posts of Forest Guards in the State of Madhya Pradesh, 137 Forest Guards were to be appointed in the District of Chhindwara with which we are presently concerned.
The Appellant had offered his candidature. In his application form he had specified that he belonged to “OBC Signature Not Verifiedcategory” and had also claimed the benefit as “Ex- Digitally signed by Nidhi Ahuja Date: 2021.07.10 10:58:55 IST Reason: serviceman”.
1 High Court of Madhya Pradesh 1 CA Nos. 2353-2354/2021 (@ SLP (C)Nos. 36369-36370/2017) It is common ground that according to the corrigendum issued on 05.06.2008 pertaining to said selection, it was stipulated:
:3.): Out of the advertised posts, 10% post shall remain reserved for the Ex-serviceman. This reservation shall be in total and category wise.” The Appellant was given the order of appointment on 13.09.2008 as Forest Guard after conferring upon him the benefit of the horizontal reservation meant for “Ex-
serviceman”. Respondent No.1 herein, who had also applied in the “OBC Category”, secured more marks than the Appellant. However, because of the benefit of horizontal reservation for ex-servicemen, the Appellant was appointed while Respondent No.1 was not.
Challenge was thereafter raised by Respondent No.1 by filing Writ Petition No.11821 of 2008. Initially the challenge was general in nature and was directed against the entire process of selection. However, by subsequent amendment to the petition, the selected candidates in “OBC Category” including the Appellant were made parties to the petition. As regards the Appellant, it was submitted that Respondent No.1 had secured more marks than the Appellant and as such, he was the rightful claimant in preference to the Appellant.
2 CA Nos. 2353-2354/2021 (@ SLP (C)Nos. 36369-36370/2017) In response filed by the State it was stated:
“……….. It is further clarified that as far as one Mr. Premlal Korde is concerned, he was the only candidate from OBC Category who had secured lesser marks than the petitioner got selected because he has been given further privilege of Ex-Service man. Therefore petitioner cannot compare his case even with Premlal Korde. The selection of Premlal Korde was made from OBC Category since he had applied from Ex- Service Man quota for which there was a further reservation provided.” The Single Judge of the High Court allowed the Writ Petition vide order dated 14.09.2016. It was observed that the claim made by the Appellant that he belonged to the category of “Ex-serviceman” was only with respect to the relaxation of age and, as such, the Appellant could not be given any benefit of horizontal reservation and that since the writ petitioner had secured more marks than the Appellant, the claim made by the writ petitioner deserved acceptance.
The matter was carried before the Division Bench by the Appellant by filing Writ Appeal No. 882/2016, which was dismissed by the Division Bench by its order dated 04.01.2017. The Review Petition preferred therefrom was also dismissed on 03.05.2017. These two orders are presently under challenge before us.
Heard Mr. A. K. Shrivastava, learned Senior Advocate 3 CA Nos. 2353-2354/2021 (@ SLP (C)Nos. 36369-36370/2017) for the Appellant, and Mr. Mukul Singh, learned Advocate for the State. Respondent No. 1, though served, has chosen not to enter appearance through an advocate nor did he file any response.
It is a matter of record that the Appellant belonged to the category of “Other Backward Classes” and was also an “Ex-serviceman”. He was given employment relying on 10 per cent horizontal reservation meant for “Ex-serviceman”. It was not the case of Respondent No.1 that the quota meant for “Ex-serviceman” in the vertical column of Other Backward candidates was already filled or that the Appellant was not an “Ex-serviceman”. It was also not the case that any other more deserving person who could answer the description as one belonging to “OBC Category” as well as “Ex-serviceman” had not been selected. The Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court were therefore in error in setting aside the appointment of the Appellant as Forest Guard.
It appears form the record that the Appellant worked on the post of Forest Guard from 2008 till January 2017.
We, therefore, allow these appeals with directions as under:
(a) The Appellant shall be reinstated in service as Forest Guard within four weeks.4
CA Nos. 2353-2354/2021 (@ SLP (C)Nos. 36369-36370/2017)
(b) The Appellant shall be entitled to reckon the period of loss of service occasioned as a result of the decision by the Single Judge of the High Court as affirmed by the Division Bench, towards continuity in service.
(c) The Appellant shall, however, not be entitled to actual remuneration for the period of loss of service;
(d) But the Appellant shall notionally be entitled to reckon the period of loss of service towards computation of retiral benefits, if any.
We may also observe that as a result of the reinstatement of the Appellant, the services of Respondent No. 1 need not be disturbed.
The appeals are allowed in terms indicated above but without any orders as to costs.
………………………………………………………J. [ UDAY UMESH LALIT ] ………………………………………………………J. [ AJAY RASTOGI ] ………………………………………………………J. [ ANIRUDDHA BOSE ] New Delhi;
July 07, 2021.
5 CA Nos. 2353-2354/2021 (@ SLP (C)Nos. 36369-36370/2017) ITEM NO.12 Court 3 (Video Conferencing) SECTION IV-C S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal Nos. 2353-2354/2021 (Arising out of SLP (C)Nos. 36369-36370/2017) PREM LAL KORDE Appellant(s) VERSUS JAKIR KHAN & ORS. Respondent(s) Date : 07-07-2021 These appeals were called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE For Appellant(s) Mr. A. K. Srivastava, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Akshat Shrivastava, AOR Mr. S. K. Shrivastava, Adv.
Mr. R. K. Upadhyay, Adv.
Mr. Rahul Yadav, Adv.
Mr. Ku. Swarnima Tomar, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Mukul Singh, DAG.
Mr. Sunny Choudhary, AOR Mr. B. N. Patel, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The appeals are allowed in terms of the signed order.
(NIDHI AHUJA) (VIRENDER SINGH)
AR-cum-PS BRANCH OFFICER
[Signed order is placed on the file.] 6