HARIDAS PARSEDIA versus URMILA SHAKYAND ORS.

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 476 · Decided: 19-11-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. MAJMUDAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
V. 
·--
URMILA SHAKY A AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 19, 1999 
B 
[S.B. MAJMUDAR, A.P. MISRA AND U.C. BANERJEE, JJ.] 
Service law: 
Constitution of India 1950/Madhya Pradesh Transport Department 
Subordinate (Class-/// Executive) Service Recruitment Rules, 1971: Article 
c 16 (4)/Rules ll(A), 13 (4), 20 and Schedule VI-Appointment by promotion 
to the post of Transport Sub-Inspector from clerical cadre-10% marks 
relaxation given to SC/ST candidates-However, examination happened to 
be among SC/ST candidates only-Appellants selected due to the benefit of , 
10% relaxation--Such relaxation challenged before the Tribunal-Tribunal 
D 
held relaxation to be inapplicable-Writ petition before High court dismissed-
Review also dismissed-On appeal-Held, after amendment, Rule 11 (A) read 
with Schedule VI governed by Rule 20-Recommendations of the Committee 
for departmental examination provided /0% relaxation to SC/ST candidates-
legally permissitle under Article 16(4)-Promotional examination amongst 
SC/ST candidates only is a fortuitous circumstance-Policy decision of the 
E Government under Article 16(4) canot be diluted on the basis of such an 
irrelevant and fortuitous circumstance. 
The appellants and Respondent No.1 belonging to the Scheduled Caste 
category, were serving as clerks in the Transport Department in the State of 
' 
Madhya Pradesh. Promotional appointments in the hierarchy were governed 
F by Madhya Pradesh Transport Department Subordinate (Class-III Executive) 
Service Recruitment Rules, 1971. According to Schedule VI of the said Rules, 
20% posts of Transport Sub-Inspectors were reserved for being filled up from 
\ 
the cadre of clerical services in the department. A notification dated 19-02-
1978 issued by the Government of Madhya Pradesh gave 1 Oo/o relaxation to 
G SC/ST candidates in the departmental examination for recruiting candidates 
to the higher posts of Transport Sub-. Inspectors. In 1993 an advertisement 
was issued for conducting departmental examination for filling up of the posts 
of Transport Sub-Inspectors. As the recruitment of the departmental 
candidates from clerical grade was confined only to SC candidates, the passing 
percentage was lowered to 40% from 50% in view of the policy decision of 
H 
476 
,...._'-.,_ 
HARIDAS PARSEDIA v. URMILA SHAKY A 
477 
the State Government in the General Administration Department. After the A 
examination, all three appellants were found to be successful as all of them 
secured more than 40% marks. R-1, also a departmental candidate falling 
under the SC category, challenged appointment of the appellants before the 
Administrative Tribunal on the ground that she deserved to be appointed as 
she secured more than 50% marks and the appellants were ineligible as they B 
failed to secure more than 50% marks. The Tribunal held that even though 
R obtained more than 50% marks, she could not be appointed because ofnot 
possessing the requisite height. The Tribunal also quashed the appointment 
of the appellants on the ground that there was no question.of 10% relaxation 
in the said examination as the recruitment itself was confined to the same 
category of candidates viz. SC/ST. Appellants' petition under Article 227 of C 
the Constitution of India and review against the judgment in the same were 
dismissed by the High Court. Hence these appeals. 
The Appellants contended that 10% relaxation given by the Government 
Notification to the SC/ST candidates was legally permissible even in case of 
appointments to be made from among the SC/ST candidates only. R-1 D · 
contended that relaxation of 10% passing marks as per Recruitment Rule 
13(4), as amended in 1985, was confined to promotions, and not to direct 
recruitment of departmental candidates as per Rule 11 (A) of the said Rules, 
and hence the Government Resolution regarding relaxation of minimum 
passing marks for departmental promotees could not be applied to the facts E 
of the present case. It was also submitted that even if Rule 13(4) was applicable, 
the earlier instructions issued by the State Government in 1964, in the light 
of Article 16(4) of the Constitution cannot be of any avail to the appellants as 
no such instrurtions were issued for relaxation of passing marks for SC/ST 
departmental candidates after the introduction of Rule 13(4) i.e. after 1985. 
Lastly it was submitted that in view of the reserved category candidates F 
competing inter se, there was no question of the said 10% relaxation.

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.