DEEPA E.V. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2017] 1 S.C.R. 938 · Decided: 06-04-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R. BANUMATHI · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
[2017] 1 S.C.R. 938 
DEEPA E.V. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 3609of2017) 
APRIL 06, 2017 
[R. BANUMATHI AND A. M~ KHANWILKAR, JJ.] 
Service Law - Recruitment - Reservation for STISCIOBC 
candidates - Post of Laboratory Assistant Grade II - Appellant-
OBC, applied under OBC category - Availing of'age relaxation as 
also attending the interview under OBC category - Right to be 
appointed under the General category - Held: Appellant cannot 
claim right to be appointed under the General category - On a 
combined reading ofr. 9 of the 1980 Rules and also the proceedings 
dated 1. 7.1998, there is an express bar for the candidates belonging 
to SCIST!OBC who have availed relaxation for being considered 
for General Category candidates - Export Inspection Agency 
(Recruitment) Rules, 1980 - r. 9. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The appellant, who has applied under OBC 
Category by availing age relaxation and also attending the 
interview under the 'OBC Category' cannot claim right to be 
appointed under the General Category. [Para 4] [940-B] 
1.2 On a combined reading of Rule 9 of the Export 
Inspection Agency (Recruitment) Rules, 1980 and also the 
proceedings dated 1.7.1998, it is found that there is an express 
bar for the candidates belonging to SC/ST/OBC who have availed 
relaxation for being considered for General Category candidates. 
[Para 7] (942-D-E] 
1.3 The appellant did not challenge the constitutional 
validity of the proceedings dated 1.7.1998 read with Rule 9 of 
the Export Inspection Agency (Recruitment) Rules, 1980. On a 
perusal of the prayer made in the writ petition, it is found that the 
appellant has only sought for a declaration that proceedings dated 
1.7.1998 is not binding on the appellant. No argument was 
938 
·oEEPA E.V v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
939 
canvassed challenging the constitutional validity of the 
A 
proceedings before the Single Judge or before the Division Bench 
of the High Court. [Para 11) [944-C-D] 
Jitendra Kumar Singh and Another v. State of Ut 
Pradesh and Ors. (2010) 3 SCC 119 : (2010) 1 SL •. 
325- held inapplicable. 
(2010) 1 SCR 325 
Case Law Reference 
held inapplicable 
Para 8 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3609 
of2017. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.07.2015 of the High 
Court ofKerala at Ernakulam in W. A. No. 827 of2015. 
P. G. Jayashankar, A. Karthik, Ms. Smrithi Suresh, Ms. Liz 
Matbew, Ad vs. for the Appellant. 
R. Venkataramani, Sr. Adv., L. R. Khatana, Sudhir Naagar, 
Yashraj Singh Bundela, Shiv Mangat Sharma, Deepak Goel, GS. Makker, 
Saurabh Raj pal, Advs. for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
R. BANUMATHI, J. I. This appeal arises out of the judgment 
of the Kerala High Court in Writ Appeal No.827 of2015 dated 20.07.2015 
whereby the Division Bench affirmed the order passed by the learned 
Single Judge. 
2. The appellant applied for the post of Laboratory Assistant 
Grade II in Export Inspection Council of India functioning under the 
Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government oflndia. The appellant 
belongs to Dheevara community which is one of the "Other Backward 
Class". Since the appellant was aged 26 years, she got age relaxation, 
as was granted to OBC category candidates. The appellant was one of 
the eleven candidates from OBC who were called for interview. The 
appellant secured 82 marks (in the list of candidates from OBC category). 
One Ms. Serena Joseph (OBC), who secured 93 marks was selected 
and appointed. 
3. Insofar as the general category is concerned, no candidate 
has secured the minimum cut off marks i.e. 70 marks. Stating that the 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
940 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2017] l S.C.R. 
appellant has to be accommodated in the general category, she filed a 
Writ P!)tition before the High Court, which the learned Single Judge 
dismissed by judgment dated 16.1.2015. Being aggrieved, the appellant 
challenged the same in Writ Appeal No.827 of 2015, which came to be 
dismissed, which is impugned in this appeal. 
4. The appellant, who has applied under OBC Category by 
availing age relaxation and also attending the interview under the 'OBC 
Category' cannot claim right to be appointed under the General Category. 
5. The recruitment by the Export Inspection Council of India 
which is functioning under the Ministry of Commerce, Government of 
India is governed by the Export Inspection Agency (Recruitme
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.