Telangana High Court
Lubna Tabassum vs State Of Telangana And Another on 14 October, 2019
Author: P. Naveen Rao
Bench: P.Naveen Rao
* HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO
+ WRIT PETITION No.15675 OF 2019
% 14.10.2019
# Lubna Tabassum,
D/o.Saduddin, Age 26 yrs,
Occu : Unemployed,
C/o.Mohammed Chand Pasha,
4-51-464, B S Marg, Jagathgiri Gutta,
Qutballapur Mandal,
Medchal-Malkajgiri District & others.
.. Petitioners
And
$ State of Telangana,
Rep, through Principal Secretary,
Department of Home,
Secretariat, Hyderabad & another.
.. Respondents
! Counsel for the petitioners : Sri S. Rahul Reddy,
Counsel for respondents : Learned Government Pleader for Home for
R.1
Sri M.V.Rama Rao, Standing counsel for R.2
< Gist :
> Head Note :
? Citations:
1. (2011) 13 SCC 167
2. (2003) 4 SCC 289
3. (2007) 4 SCC 737
4. 2018 SCC Online SC 495
2
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
********
WRIT PETITION No.15675 of 2019
Between :
Lubna Tabassum,
D/o.Saduddin, Age 26 yrs,
Occu : Unemployed,
C/o.Mohammed Chand Pasha,
4-51-464, B S Marg, Jagathgiri Gutta,
Qutballapur Mandal,
Medchal-Malkajgiri District & others.
.....Petitioners
And
State of Telangana,
Rep, through Principal Secretary,
Department of Home,
Secretariat, Hyderabad & another.
.....Respondents
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 14.10.2019
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers : Yes
may be allowed to see the Judgments ?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be : Yes
marked to Law Reporters/Journals
3. Whether Their Lordship wish to : No
see the fair copy of the Judgment ?
3
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
WRIT PETITION NO.15675 OF 2019
Date: 14.10.2019
Between:
Lubna Tabassum,
D/o.Saduddin, Age 26 yrs,
Occu : Unemployed,
C/o.Mohammed Chand Pasha,
4-51-464, B S Marg, Jagathgiri Gutta,
Qutballapur Mandal,
Medchal-Malkajgiri District & others.
.....Petitioners
And
State of Telangana,
Rep, through Principal Secretary,
Department of Home,
Secretariat, Hyderabad & another.
.....Respondents
The Court made the following:
4
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
WRIT PETITION NO.15675 OF 2019
ORDER:
In pursuant to the recruitment notification dated 31.05.2018 issued by the Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board, petitioners participated in the selections to the post Code No.12 -Stipendiary Cadet Trainee (SCT) Reserve Sub Inspector of Police (AR) (Men & Women). According to petitioners they secured high marks in the written examination and also in Physical Efficiency Test (P.E.T). However, by applying an illogical normalization marks principle, they are pushed down in the merit list and not included in the final merit list. Aggrieved thereby, this writ petition is filed.
2. The facts are not in dispute. The only issue for consideration is whether, Normalization principle applied by the respondent-Board in comparing the marks secured by women in Physical Efficiency Test with that of men is valid and even if it is valid whether among the women, whether the principle is applied ?
3. On 31.05.2018 the police recruitment Board issued several notifications to make recruitment to various categories of posts including Sub-Inspector of Police (Armed Reserve). The recruitment is governed by Telangana State Police (Stipendiary Cadet Trainee) Rules, 1999 notified vide G.O.Ms.No.315 Home (Police-C) Department dated 13.10.1999. These Rules were further amended and a notification of which was issued vide G.O.Ms.No.49 Home (Legal) Department dated 10.05.2018. There would be a preliminary written examination. Candidates who qualify in the preliminary written examination would be subjected to Physical Efficiency Test and such of those candidates who clear the Physical Efficiency Test would be subjected to written examination. Based on the marks secured in the Physical Efficiency Test and written examination, final merit list is drawn.
5
4. The controversy centers around Clause 'E' (ii) under the heading 'Final Selection'. According to this Clause marks secured by men and women in Physical Efficiency Test would be normalized as per the procedure followed by TSLPRB to ensure fairness. Normalized marks of Physical Efficiency Test would be used while drawing the Final Merit List. This clause in the recruitment notification is based on amendment carried out to the recruitment Rules, notified vide G.O.Ms.No.49. Under Rule 3, Annexure I was amended concerning each of the posts which are governed by the said Rules. Sub- Paragraph 3 deals with Sub-Inspector of Police (Armed Reserve). Clause 'F' deals with selection and in this clause Normalized Principle is introduced.
5. In Physical Efficiency Test the Men have to undergo tests in five disciplines i.e., 100 Meters Run, Long Jump, Shotput, High Jump and 800 Meters Run. Women have to undergo Physical Efficiency Test in three disciplines i.e., 100 Meters Run, Long Jump and Shotput. The total marks earmarked for Physical Efficiency Test is 125. For men marks are divided equally in five disciplines and for women for 100 Meters run would carry 45 and Long Jump and Shotput would carry 40 marks each. In the final written examination there are Papers III and IV. Marks secured in Papers III and IV of final written examination alone would be considered to determine the eligibility of candidates.
6. According to learned counsel Sri Rahul Reddy, the procedure adopted by the recruitment-Board is arbitrary, amounts to gender discrimination and therefore, violative of Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Having applied relaxed standard of selection for women, there is no justification to adopt Normalization principle to compare the marks secured by men in five disciplines as against three disciplines for women and the same has no justification.
7. He would further submit that the respondent-Board, tried to justify the principle adopted by referring to other Organizations such as Railway 6 Recruitment Board, Universities and Admissions to Educational Institutions. According to learned counsel in all these Organizations, the examination is conducted in more than one session and questions may vary from session to session. Therefore, these Organizations adopt the principle of Normalization, so that no discrimination can be caused to the candidates appearing in one session with different set of questions compared to the candidate appearing in another session with different set of questions. That is not the system here. Therefore, the Normalization principle of other Organizations has no relevance.
8. He would submit that by adopting this illegal Normalization principle, the respondent-Board is only aiming to confine selection of women to 10% even though as per the merit secured by women, they are entitled to occupy higher merit and get selected to more number of posts. It would thus amount to gender discrimination on this ground also.
9. He would further submit that even according to amended Rule, it specifies the procedure followed earlier by the Board should be followed. The same is incorporated in the recruitment notification. The procedure earlier followed is different from the procedure now adopted. When the Rule is very clear i.e., to adopt procedure followed earlier, no justification is made out to adopt different procedure now, the same is illegal and it amounts to arbitrary exercise of power by the Board. He would further submit that amended Rule has not explained what is meant by Normalization. In the absence of explanation of what is meant by Normalization Principle, the principle adopted in the year 2016 ought to have been followed. He would further submit that new formula resulted in glaring breach of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The respondent-Board has not come out with rational explanation to justify the principle adopted by them.
10. According to learned counsel for petitioners, he has done detailed assessment into the principle of Normalization and also the principle of Normalization adopted by other Organizations and if alternative principle of 7 Normalization as visualized by learned counsel for petitioners was adopted by the respondent-Board, it would not have caused discrimination against women. According to learned counsel, though women have performed exceptionally well in the written examination and their assessment on physical efficiency was relatively good and only because of applying normalization principle, they are pushed down.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that the formula of Normalization is not published. It was kept as a top secret and there was no transparency.
12. Per contra, learned Standing counsel for the respondent-Board, submits that admittedly, the women were subjected to relaxed standard of selection in the Physical Efficiency Test. There is no fixed percentage of reservation and women have to compete along with men to the post of Armed Reserve Sub- Inspector. The reservation is applicable horizontally. Thus, when two sets of candidates undergo different selection process, to integrate into one merit list, it is necessary to normalize the marks secured in different environment to arrive at correct merit assessment. The statistics placed on record would disclose that compared to men, the best performance of women in three disciplines which cover both Men and Women, the performance is far low. Further they were not subjected to assessment of suitability in two other disciplines. Having regard to this disparity in assessment of physical efficiency and the fact that only three disciplines were offered to women compared to five disciplines for men, it is necessary to normalize. On detailed study of Normalization principles adopted by various Organizations including Railway Recruitment Board and in consultation with experts, the Normalization formula is arrived at. By applying the formula, the final marks secured by a candidate in the Physical Efficiency Test is determined and the marks secured in written examination are added to the marks determined in Physical Efficiency Test. Accordingly, final merit list is determined. He would submit that formula is 8 uniformly applied to all the candidates. Therefore, the allegation of discrimination has no merit.
13. He would submit that it cannot be said that there is gender discrimination. It is the case of unequal competition between men and women and therefore, it is necessary to normalize two different parameters applied to men and women to arrive at proper merit list and therefore, Articles 14, 15 and 16 are not violated, as sought to be contended by learned counsel for the petitioners.
14. Learned Standing counsel submits that it is not true to contend that there is no transparency, formula was finalized after thorough analysis of various parameters and then the formula was uniformly applied.
15. Learned Standing counsel further contended that it is not true to contend that women are eliminated and their selection is confined only to 10% reservation. According to him, 29 women were selected, out of which 13 by merit, 15 by applying horizontal reservation and one belonging to meritorious sportsperson category. Thus, the selection is not confined to10% as sought to be alleged.
16. The Chairman, Police Recruitment Board appeared in person. He has also circulated booklet containing various parameters of Normalization formula and explained in person about various parameters of Normalization principle and justified the decision of Recruitment Board in adopting the formula.
17. To appreciate the respective contentions, it is necessary to look into the amended provision that is brought about vide Notification published through G.O.Ms.No.49 dated 10.05.2018.
18. Clause 3-'F' of Annexure -I appended to the Rules govern the Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Reserve Sub-Inspector post. It reads as under :
"(F) Selection : The final selection of the candidates shall be made strictly on their relative merit as obtained by them based on their score in the Final Written Examination (Paper III and Paper IV) & Physical Efficiency 9 Test. The marks secured by Men and Women in PET shall be normalized as per the procedure followed by the TSLPRB to ensure fairness. The said normalized marks shall be used while drawing the Final Merit List. The provisions of the Telangana Public Employment (Organization of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order, 1975 and G.O.P.No.763, GA (SPF.A) Dept., dt.15.11.1975 as amended from time to time shall be applicable."
19. The recruitment notification also incorporates the same clause. The police recruitment Board made assessment of men and women candidates by applying normalization principle.
20. In Paragraph No.8 of the counter affidavit respondent-Board justifies the exercise undertaken by it. It reads as under :
"It would be pertinent to submit that the Physical tests, their number, scoring parameters and standards being totally different, performance of Men and Women in their respective PET will be comprehensively different. Women Candidates who were in consideration for RST AR posts scored an average of only 61%-which is remarkable low by 25 percent points when compared with the 86% of Women.
Similarly more than 60% of the aforementioned Women Candidates scored 86% or more in their PET whereas only 43% of the Men Candidates could surpass the Men Average Score of 61% marks even, not to speak of 86% marks (as scored by Women), such diversely distributed sets of data, one each belonging to Men and Women, for the sake of merger into a Common Merit List, have to be necessarily Normalized."
21. The Board has incorporated in their counter affidavit, the standard required by men candidates and women candidates in two tables. The respondent-Board has tabulated the performance of petitioners and how they faired after applying the Normalization principle in a tabulated form. According to averments in the counter affidavit and as explained by the Chairman of the recruitment Board, the tables would disclose that the performance of women is far low, below the lowest performance of men.
22. The Gradation table and performance table of Men and Women read as under:
TABLE-1:
Gradation table- Annexure I-A of recruitment notification (for men).
100 mtrs. Long Short Put High Jump 800 mtrs run Points
Run (in Jump (in (in meters) (in seconds)
seconds) (in meters) meters)
10.50 and 5.81 and 9.61 and 1.71 and 120 and less 25.00
less
- 5.61-5.80 9.21-9.60 1.66-1.70 120-01-125 23.75
10
10.51-11.00 5.41-5.60 8.81-9.20 1.61-1.65 125.01-130 22.50
11.01-11.50 5.21-5.40 8.41-8.80 1.56-1.60 130.01-135 21.25
11.51-12.00 5.01-5.20 8.01-8.40 1.51-1.55 135.01-140 20.00
12.01-12.50 4.81-5.00 7.61-8.00 1.46-1.50 140.01-145 18.75
12.51-13.00 4.61-4.81 7.21-7.60 1.41-1.45 145.01-150 17.50
13.01-13.50 4.41-4.60 6.81-7.20 1.36-1.40 150.01-155 16.25
13.51-14.00 4.21-4.40 6.41-6.80 1.31-1.35 155.01-160 15.00
14.01-14.50 4.01-4.20 6.01-6.41 1.26-1.30 160.01-165 13.75
14.51-15.00 3.80-4.00 5.60-6.00 1.20-1.25 165.01-170 12.50
15.01-15.50* 3.65-3.79* 1.15-1.19* 170.01-180* 11.25*
15.51-16.00* 1.10-1.14* 180.01-190* 10.00*
16.01-16.50* 1.05-1.09* 190.01-200* 8.75*
TABLE 2:
Standards of Men Candidates
100 mtrs. Long Short Put High Jump 800 mtrs run Points
Run (in Jump (in (in meters) (in seconds)
seconds) (in meters) meters)
10.50 and 5.81 and 9.61 and 1.71 and 120 and less 100
less
- 5.61-5.80 9.21-9.60 1.66-1.70 120-01-125 95
10.51-11.00 5.41-5.60 8.81-9.20 1.61-1.65 125.01-130 90
11.01-11.50 5.21-5.40 8.41-8.80 1.56-1.60 130.01-135 85
11.51-12.00 5.01-5.20 8.01-8.40 1.51-1.55 135.01-140 80
12.01-12.50 4.81-5.00 7.61-8.00 1.46-1.50 140.01-145 75
12.51-13.00 4.61-4.81 7.21-7.60 1.41-1.45 145.01-150 70
13.01-13.50 4.41-4.60 6.81-7.20 1.36-1.40 150.01-155 65
13.51-14.00 4.21-4.40 6.41-6.80 1.31-1.35 155.01-160 60
14.01-14.50 4.01-4.20 6.01-6.41 1.26-1.30 160.01-165 55
14.51-15.00 3.80-4.00 5.60-6.00 1.20-1.25 165.01-170 50
15.01-15.50* 3.65-3.79* 1.15-1.19* 170.01-180* 45*
15.51-16.00* 1.10-1.14* 180.01-190* 40*
16.01-16.50* 1.05-1.09* 190.01-200* 35*
* Applicable to Ex-servicemen only.
TABLE : 3: Gradation table - Annexure 1-B of recruitment notification (for women) Standards of Women Candidates 100 mtrs. Long Jump Short Put Points Run (in (in meters) (in meters) seconds) 15.00 and 2.78 and above 4.21 and above 100 less 15.01-15.50 2.75-2.77 4.16-4.20 95 15.51-16.00 2.72-2.74 4.11-4.15 90 16.01-16.50 2.69-2.71 4.06-4.10 85 16.51-17.00 2.66-2.68 4.01-4.05 80 17.01-17.50 2.63-2.65 3.96-4.00 75 17.51-18.00 2.60-2.62 3.91-3.95 70 18.01-18.50 2.57-2.59 3.86-3.90 65 18.51-19.00 2.54-2.56 3.81-3.85 60 19.01-19.50 2.51-2.53 3.76-3.80 55 19.51-20.00 2.50 meters 3.75 meters 50 11 PERFORMANCE OF PETITIONERS:
TABLE 4:
ANNEXURE FWE POST 12 PET POINTS AVG OF AVG OF PET TOTAL D MINUS Z MARKS MARKS RAW SCALED TOP 0.1% TOP NORM. MERIT OF WOMEN REGD NO NAME OF THE FOR 400 FOR 200 POINT FOR A OF 0.1% OF MARK = MARKS CANDIDATE S FOR MAX 125 WOMEN ALL Z OF ALL (325) FOR 300 MINUS Z MINUS Z PLUS (E # POST12 OF OF ALL X G / F) WOMEN D = C x 125 E = D -Z F = X(Top- G = X(Top- H = Z (All) A B=A/2 C (Wmn) I=B+H / 300 Wmn) − All) − + (E x G / Z(Wmn) Z(All) F) 1296334 LUBNA TABASSUM 196 98 275 114.58 -1.85 8.57 28.11 90.50 188.5 1052573 BHUKYA SARITHA 185 92.5 275 114.58 -1.85 8.57 28.11 90.50 183 1046131 DORNALA 190 95 290 120.83 4.40 8.57 28.11 111.00 206 KRISHNAVENI 1416030 THONDALA 201 100.5 275 114.58 -1.85 8.57 28.11 90.50 191 LAVANYA 1140598 MADIGELA 211 105.5 280 116.67 0.24 8.57 28.11 97.36 202.86 RAJITHA 1263967 AMUDALA 193 96.5 290 120.83 4.40 8.57 28.11 111.00 207.5 CHANDANA 1086767 KOTHI MOUNIKA 188 94 280 116.67 0.24 8.57 28.11 97.36 191.36 1101509 S BHAGYALAXMI 193 96.5 275 114.58 -1.85 8.57 28.11 90.50 187 1019532 MADHUGANI 197 98.5 280 116.67 0.24 8.57 28.11 97.36 195.86 KRISHNAVENI 1148140 PATHRI LAKSHMI 188 94 270 112.50 -3.93 8.57 28.11 83.68 177.68 1056243 BALRAJU 201 100.5 280 116.67 0.24 8.57 28.11 97.36 197.86 MAMATHA 1044503 PADDAM RAJANI 211 105.5 280 116.67 0.24 8.57 28.11 97.36 202.86 1413257 BUREDDI 202 101 280 116.67 0.24 8.57 28.11 97.36 198.36 BHAGYALAXMI 1334010 MERUGU JYOTHI 186 93 280 116.67 0.24 8.57 28.11 97.36 190.36 # Tolerance = Max of .005% AVERAG STANDARD OF WHOM E (FOR DEVIATION AVG + SD
125) X Y Z=X+Y 25,642 MEN 76.69 7.2 83.89 5,863 WOMEN 107.43 9.00 116.43 31,506 ALL 82.41 14.16 96.57 TOP 0.1% OF MEN 106.88 - NA - - NA -
TOP 0.1% OF 125 - NA - - NA -
WOMEN
TOP 0.1% OF ALL 124.68 - NA - - NA -
Where
SD = Standard Deviation
12
Avg = Mean or Average
Subscript T = of Total or All Qualified Candidates
Subscript S = of All Qualified Candidates pertaining to the
Gender Group of the Candidate
Subscript TT = of the Top 0.1% or Top 10 (whichever is higher) Candidates among all Qualified Candidates of the Top 0.1% or Top 10 (whichever is Subscript ST = higher) Candidates among all Qualified Candidates pertaining to the Gender Group of the Candidate
23. The recruitment agency is the best authority to determine the procedure of selection. According to the Chairman of the Board, on thorough analysis of Normalization principles and on detailed study, formula was evolved. He has circulated a copy of the formula. Table '4' shown above also explains the principle adopted in Normalization process.
24. Power of judicial review on executive decision is confined to illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety, lack of jurisdiction and competence. As long as some principle is adopted, merely because a person contends that there is a better principle, in exercise of power of judicial review, the Court cannot mandate the recruiting agency to adopt a different principle. When choice is available to the recruiting agency, it is for that agency to choose a principle as it deems fit and Court cannot interfere in such matters.
25. On the scope of judicial review on the decisions of executive, more particularly decision involving technical matters, in Union of India V J.O.Suryavamshi1, Supreme Court cautioned the Courts to resist the temptation to usurp the power of executive. The wholesome rule in regard to judicial interference in administrative decisions is that if the Government takes into consideration all relevant facts, eschews from considering irrelevant facts and acts reasonably within the parameters of the law, Courts should keep off the same [Paragraph 18, Federation of Rly.Officers Assn. V Union of India2]. Legality of policy and not the wisdom or soundness of the policy, is the subject of judicial review. [Paragraph 16, Directorate of Film Festivals Vs Gauraw 1 (2011) 13 SCC 167 2 (2003) 4 SCC 289 13 Ashwin Jain3]. The modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action. The Court does not sit as a Court of Appeal but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made. The Court does not have the expertise to correct the administrative decision. If a review of the administrative decision is permitted, it will be substituting its own decision without the necessary expertise which itself may be fallible. [Municipal Corporation, Ujjain v. BVG India Limited4].
26. It is not in dispute that principle of Normalization based on formula adopted by the recruitment Board, was applied uniformly to all the candidates. No mala fides are attributed; no personal prejudice is alleged; no illegality of all perversive are alleged in the selections in applying the Normalization principle. In a given circumstance, it may have caused hardship to a person in as much as though the person secured more merit in the written examination, but based on the points secured in physical efficiency test, by applying Normalization principle, her marks are reduced and in the order of merit, pushed down, but that cannot be a ground for this Court to interfere and direct the respondent-Board to follow different formula.
27. Further, assuming what is contended is valid, it can not be said that other formula would not cause hardship to the candidates. It is appropriate to note at this stage that selection is based on performance in written examination as well as in physical efficiency test. It being a police service it requires high degree of fitness and therefore assessment of physical efficiency is a very important parameter to select a candidate to serve the police department. Therefore, Physical Efficiency test in various disciplines is more relevant as compared to the assessment of general knowledge and aptitude of a person.
28. Learned counsel for the petitioners sought to justify that in Clause 'F', it is specifically incorporated that Normalization principle has to be as per the 3 (2007) 4 SCC 737 4 2018 SCC Online SC 495 14 procedure followed by the Board to ensure fairness. He placed on record the notification issued in the year 2016 and would contend that there was relative assessment of merit among men and women separately and separate merit list was prepared. When the Rule mandates to adopt same procedure, no justification is made out to adopt a different procedure.
29. It is to be noted that after 2016 notification, the Rules governing the recruitment were amended and amended notification clearly specifies about Normalization and preparation of common merit list. Learned counsel for petitioners cannot seek to take advantage of defective drafting of rule as position in 2016, is not same as now. Thus, earlier procedure followed by the Board has no significance. Having regard to the fact that there is change in the recruitment Rules and after the amended recruitment Rules, this was the first notification issued it cannot be said that Board should adopt same procedure as adopted in earlier selection The exercise undertaken by the Board cannot be said as illegal. For the first time Normalization principle is applied. It's working has to be tested and can be fine tuned, if required, in future recruitments. However, Court do not see grave illegalities in the Normalization principle warranting interference. Therefore, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners on this aspect merits no consideration.
30. I therefore, see no illegality, irregularity and procedural impropriety in the Normalization Principle adopted by respondent-Board to arrive at common merit list for men and women, warranting interference by this Court.
31. Matter does not rest here. In addition to the submission that there is gender discrimination against women, learned counsel for petitioners would submit that even among the women, though petitioners secured better merit in written examination, by applying this Normalization principle within the women group, petitioners are pushed down and less meritorious candidates in the written examination secured higher merit. He would submit that within women category there is no justification to apply Normalization principle as 15 among women all of them were subjected to same standard of physical efficiency.
32. By referring to Clause 'F" of the recruitment notification and the Rules, learned Standing counsel pointed out that as it is a common merit list, Normalization principle has to be applied across the board and the women cannot be segregated to apply different principle as it would defeat the very objective of Rule of Normalization and since there cannot be separate merit list for women, no separate selection method can be adopted.
33. It is the further assertion of respondent-Board that there is change in the method of recruitment. There is no specific reservation for women and reservation is horizontal. Therefore, necessarily a common merit list has to be prepared and after excluding the persons selected against horizontal reservation, the others have to be accommodated which requires a common merit list, except to the extent of horizontal reservations and therefore, there cannot be separate merit list for men and women.
34. Court sees merit in the contention of learned counsel for petitioners with regard to determination of inter se merit among women. Though adopting Normalization principle to equate the marks secured by men and women is valid as method of assessment of physical efficiency between men and women is not same, but when it comes to assessment of merit among the women candidates there appears to be no justification to apply same formula. It would be causing greater injustice to meritorious women candidates vis-à-vis other women and offends Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution of India. With advent of technology it is not impossible to do further exercise after applying Normalization principle and determining common merit list. In a given case, first, by applying Normalization principle over all merit list be drawn and merit list for women to occupy horizontal reservation slots be determined. After this exercise is completed and women candidates are identified, the Board can revert to assessment of merit as is done if recruitment 16 is confined to men/women only and decide inter se merit among women. This would be just and equitable procedure. However, Court is not expressing opinion on this and leaves it to the Board to decide on this aspect. Moreover, merit list was already drawn and by applying Normalization principle across the board merit list is finalized and none of the selected women candidates are parties to this writ petition.
35. Thus, while upholding the Normalization principle adopted by the Police Recruitment Board to determine relative merit of men and women in pursuant to recruitment notification dated 31.05.2018 for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police (Armed Reserve), in so far as inter se merit among women candidates is concerned, the Police Recruitment Board, may reconsider desirability of assessing their merit after completing the exercise to normalize the relative performance of men and women without applying Normalization Principle. If necessary the Board may place on notice the already selected women candidates, consider their objections, if any, and take final decision.
36. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________ P. NAVEEN RAO,J Date: 14-10-2019 Rds/tvk Note : :L.R.Copy to be marked-Yes B/o.
Tvk 17 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION NO.15675 OF 2019 Date: 14.10.2019 Rds/tvk