JITENDER KUMAR SINGH & ANR. versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

Citation: [2010] 1 S.C.R. 325 · Decided: 08-01-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 1 S.C.R. 325 
JITENDER KUMAR SINGH & ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 74 of 2010) 
JANUARY 08, 2010 
[TARUN CHAITERJEE AND SURINDER SINGH 
NIJJAR, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14, 16(1) and (4): 
A 
B 
c 
Direct recruitment on the post of Sub Inspectors and 
Platoon Commanders - Reservation for Backward Classes, 
Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes - Relaxation of fee and 
age - Selection of a reserve category candidate against 
unreserved seats - Selection process, challenged by general 0 
category candidate - Held: Concession in fee and age 
relaxation would not fall within the definition of 'reservation' -
Such relaxation only enables candidates belonging to 
reserved category to fall within the zone of consideration, so 
that they can participate in open competition on merit - It does 
E 
not tilt the balance in favour of reserved category candidates, 
in the preparation of final select list - It is only, thereafter, merit 
of candidates is determined without any further concessions 
in his favour- There is no infringement of Article 16(1)- UP. 
Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Casts and 
F 
Scheduled Tribes) Act, 1994 - ss. 3(6) and 8 - Government 
instructions dated 25.03.1994. 
Direct recruitment on the post of Sub Inspectors and 
Platoon Commanders -
Reservation for outstanding 
Sportspersons and women - Legality of - Carry forward of 
posts - Permissibility of - Held: Vacancies reserved for G 
women and outstanding sportsperson is to be filled by 
applying 'horizontal reservation' - Any posts reserved for 
women which remain unfilled have to be filled up from 
325 
H 
326 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[201 O] 1 S.C.R. 
A amongst suitable male candidates with a specific prohibition 
that posts shall not be carried forward for future - On facts, 
State did not carry forward any of general category posts 
reserved for women and outstanding sportspersons - Alf posts 
remaining unfilled, in category reserved for women were filled 
B up by suitable male candidates - Thus, Division Bench erred 
in directing the State to fill in unfilled vacancies reserved for 
women from suitable male candidates - Single Judge erred 
in directing the State to recalculate vacancies reserved for 
sportspersons - Conclusions with regard to 34 posts reserved 
c for sportsmen category set aside - Government instructions 
dated 26.02.1999 - Paragraph 2, 4. 
Reservation under Article 16(1) and (4) - Benefit of -
Explained. 
D 
Precedent: Mere quoting of isolated observations in a 
judgment - Held: Cannot be treated as a precedent de hors 
the facts and circumstances in which the observation was 
made. 
E 
An advertisement was issued for direct recruitment 
on the post of Sub Inspectors and Platoon Commanders. 
2% posts were reserved for outstanding Sportspersons 
and the recruitments to these posts were to be made by 
a separate advertisement. 10% of the posts were 
F reserved for women. The procedure for selection was 
carried out. The select list was prepared and the selected 
candidates were sent for training. Appellants-
unsuccessful candidates challenged the selection. Single 
Judge of High Court dismissed the writ petitions seeking 
quashing of the entire select list; and direction to the 
G respondents to send them for training to the post of Sub 
Inspectors. It directed the respondents to recalculate the 
number of posts of general category candidates by 
applying 2% reservation for sports men horizontally and 
adding 2% posts of sports men also while calculating the 
H total number of vacancies of general category candidates 
JITENDER KUMAR SINGH & ANR. v. STATE OF U.P. 327 
& ORS. 
and if any post in general category candidates quota A 
remains vacant the same shall be filled up by the general 
category candidates next in merit. The Division Bench of 
High Court held that if a reserved category candidate 
secured marks more than last General Category 
candidate, he is entitled to be selected against unreserved 
B 
seat without being adjusted against reserved seat; that 
52 vacancies of general category kept reserved for 
women candidates remained vacant, the same had to be 
filled from the general category male candidates and 
could not be carried forward; and that the reservation in C 
favour of sportspersons quota has to operate 
horizontally, therefore, 29 vacancies which remained 
unfilled could not have been carried forward. Hence the 
_present appeals by the unsuccessful candidate

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