Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

12. The learned counsel submitted that the lowering of marks from the notified marks arises only if the authority finds it is necessary to lower the marks to the extent necessary for giving adequate representation to Backward class candidates having the minimum qualification notified. Such a procedure can be taken after the selection process is completed and it cannot be a process that can be undertaken before the start of the selection. Such a power for lowering marks is one coupled with duty and when the condition for exercising the discretion exists, it has no other option to decide whether to exercise the discretion or not. When the constitutional scheme is to be implemented to protect candidates belonging to the backward classes and other candidates and when Article 14 provides right to equality to poor and weaker sections of the society, non-implementation of Rule 14(e) results in discrimination and therefore the provisions of Article 14 and 16 are violated. The learned counsel submitted that even though in Rule 15(a) there is a provision to have a separate selection for reservation communities, the obligation under Rule 14(e) cannot be side lined by the presence of Rule 15(a). When reservation is one measure recognised as an affirmative action and as a compensation to the members of the backward classes, which is accorded by historical reasons and to ameliorate the sufferings of the communities concerned, the rule is well protected by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The appellant has got the fundamental right to seek the benefit. If that be so, the finding by the learned Single Judge that the writ petition is liable to be rejected for laches and delay is not correct. He attacked the findings rendered on the merits also.

38. Apart from the same as already pointed out the Division Bench in Ext.P2 has upheld the rationale of the provision for obtaining minimum marks as provided in the notification. Once such method is accepted, the argument that there should have been a further reduction, cannot be held good.

39. This is especially so since the vacancy ear marked for reservation candidates will have to remain unfilled and repeated selection process will have to be undertaken by resorting to Rule 15(a) which has already been undertaken by the High Court as evident from Ext.P5 notification. Therefore the same is another method by which the selection of suitable candidate is ensured to fill up the reservation slot. Hence the community's interest is not suffered also. If that be so, as rightly held by the Division Bench in Ext.P2, there cannot be any resort to Rule 14(e) as otherwise the provision under Rule 15(a) will become redundant. Werespectfully agree with the view. As far as Rule 15(a) is concerned, the same has to be the process after the list is published pursuant to the completion of the selection process. As far as Rule 14(e) is concerned, it is a step which will have to be taken before the selection starts at the threshold. We do not agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that Rule 14(e) envisages a step after the list is published. The inter play between the two rules is clear and explicit.