HARSHENDRA CHOUBISA AND ORS. versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 309 · Decided: 30-07-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.P. MOHAPATRA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

HARSHENDRA CHOUBISA AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. 
JULY 30, 2002 
[D.P. MOHAPATRA AND P. VENKATARAMA REDD!, JJ.] 
Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996-Rule 273 and its proviso--
Notification providing bonus marks on the basis of residence in district and 
A 
B 
in rural areas of district for selection to public employment-Validity of- C 
Held, discriminatory as the classification is artificial and not advancing the 
avowed objective sought to be achieved-High Court judgment to have 
prospecliVe effect-However, relief confined to parties challenging the 
notification-Entire selection not disturbed-Constitution of India, 1950-
Articles 14 and 16. 
Before High Court writ petitions were filed challenging the validity 
of the Notification which provided for bonus marks of l 0% + 5% on the 
basis of residence in district and rural areas of district for selection to the 
post of Gram Sewaks and Paden Sachive. 
b 
High Court disposed of the writ petitions relying on Deepak Kumar's E 
case wherein it was held that giving of weightage on the ground of 
residence in the district and rural areas by adding bonus marks is 
unconstitutional. High Court directed the State for preparation of fresh 
merit list of candidates without adding bonus marks on account of 
residence of any candidate. Accordingly, State Government directed /lila 
Parishad to prepare fresh merit list. 
F 
In appeal to this Court, the State contended that preferential 
treatment to the residents of district and rural areas of the district was 
justified as persons selected from the urban areas and relatively forward 
districts are reluctant to work in far flung areas and areas inhabitated G 
by tribals; and that the candidates hailing from the local areas kno';V the 
local language and dialect well and, therefore, are in a better position to 
mingle and communicate with local populace which in turn leads to good 
governance at the grass root level. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court, 
309 
H 
310 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A 
HELD: 1.1 Addition of bonus marks to the applicants belonging to 
the same district and the rural areas of that district would amount to 
discrimination which falls foul of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution 
of India. (315-E, Ff 
1.2. The first ground pleaded by the State is liable to be rejected. 
B The place of posting does not depend on the choice of the public servant. 
The posting and transfers could be suitably regulated in administrative 
interest by the competent authority if there is a will to do so. The alleged 
reluctance of the persons hailing from relatively forward districts to work 
in rural areas or remote places and the so-called tendency to 'migrate' to 
C urban areas and forward districts is only a ruse to find some justification 
for the impugned action. It is not the case of the appellants that the posts 
of Gram Sewaks belong to state-wide cadre and they can be transferred 
from one district to another and even posted in urban areas. It is not even 
the case of the State that the candidates belonging to other districts have 
a tendency to resign and vacate the office after working for some time in 
D a backward district. No details are furnished in this regard. (314-E, F, G, HJ 
1.3. The ground that the candidates hailing f~om the 'local area' 
know the local language and dialect well and therefore are in a better 
position to mingle and communicate with the local populace which in turn 
E leads to good governance at grass root level, is equally irrelevant and 
untenable. No factual details or material has been placed before the Court 
to substantiate that the spoken language and dialect varies from district 
to district. It will not be reasonable to assume that an educated person 
belonging to a contiguous district or districts will not be able to effectively 
communicate with the people of the district in which he is appointed or 
F that he would be unfamiliar with the living conditions and culture of that 
district. He cannot be regarded as an alien in a district other than his 
native district. If any classification has to be done in this regard, it should 
be based on a scientific study but not on some broad generalization. There 
is no factual or rational basis to treat each district as a separate unit for 
G the purpose of offering public employment. The criterion of merit cannot 
be allowed to be diluted by taking resort to such artificial differentiation 
and irrelevant ass

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