LexRAJESH KUMAR DARIA versus RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
RAJESH KUMAR DARIA
v.
RAJASTIIAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND ORS.
JULY 18, 2007
B
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJ., R.V. RA VEENDRAN AND DAL VEER
BHANDARI, JJ.]
Service Law:
C
Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 15 and 16/Rajasthan Judicial
Service Rules, 1955; R. 9(3):
Judicial Service-Appointment/selection of women candidates in excess
of reservation quota-Challenge to--Dismissed by High Court-On appeal,
D Held: Social reservation in favour of SC, ST and OBC categories as provided
in terms of Article 16(4) of the Constitution are vertical reservation, however,
special reservation in favour of physically handicapped women etc. as
provided under Articles 16(1) and 15(3) are horizontal reservation-
Principle applicable to vertical reservation could not be applied to horizontal
reservation-Women candidates selected on merit within the vertical
E reservation quota would be counted against the horizontal reservation quota
for women-Respondent-Commission selected women candidate in excess of
quota reserved for them by flouting the principle of horizontal reservation
depriving selection of male candidates in their respective categories-Since
the candidates so selected have been serving as Judicial Officers for more
F than f IVe years, it would not be appropriate to disturb the selection list/
interfere with the appointment already made-Jn the facts and circumstances
of the case, only three candidates would have been selected if the horizontal
reservation policy would have been applied properly-Hence, it is just and
proper to accommodate those three candidates-Accordingly, they shall be
deemed to be selected by the Commission and their seniority will be counted
G as indicated in the judgment-Directions issued.
Words and Phrases:
'Horizontal reservation' and 'Vertical reservation'-Distinction between
in the context of social vis-a-vis special reservation in the matter of
fl
972
I
' . .\-
..... '
~
.......,,
RAJESH KUMAR DARIA v. RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
973
appointment-Discussed-Constitution of India, 19 50-Artic/es 15 and I 6. A
Appellant-candidates appeared for selection for the posts of Munsiff -
Magistrate in the Rajasthan Judicial Service Examination conducted by the
Rajasthan Public Service Commission ('RPSC'). They were not selected.
They alleged that women candidates selected as a result of this examination
were in excess of their reservation quota, contrary to the Reservation Rules. B
They contended that though the Rules provided for horizontal reservation of
20% for women category-wise. However, RPSC had wrongly applied the
principles ofvertical reservation and selected the women candidates in excess
of the quota meant for them, thereby denying selection to the eligible male
candidates. They filed a writ petition seeking a declaration that the selection C
list dated 30.12.2001, was bad in law to the extent of excess selection of women
candidates and for a consequential direction to fill those vacancies with male
candidates. The petition was dismissed by the High Court Hence the present
appeal
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court
D
HELD: 1.1. Social reservations in favour of SC, ST and OBC under
Article 16(4) of the Constitution are 'vertical reservations'. Special
reservations in favour of physically handicapped, women etc., under Articles
16(1) or 15(3) of the constitution are 'horizontal reservations'. Where a
vertical reservation is made in favour ofa backward class under Article 16(4), E
the candidates belonging to such backward class, may compete for non-
reserved posts and if they are appointed to the non-reserved posts on their
own merit, their numbers will not be counted ~gainst the quota reserved for
the respective backward class. Therefore, if the number of SC candidates,
who by their own merit, get selected against open competition vacancies, F
equals or even exceeds the percentage of posts reserved for SC candidates, it
cannot be said the reservation quota for SCs has been filled. The entire
reservation quota will be intact and available in addition to those selected under
Open Competition category. (Para 7] (979-A-C]
Indira Sawhney v. Union of India, (1992) Suppl. 3 SCC 217; R.K. G
Sabharwal v. State of Punjab, (1995) 2 SCC 745, Union of India v. Virpa/
Singh Chauvan, (1995] 6 SCC 684 and Ritesh R Sah v. Dr. Y. L. Yamul, [1996)
3 sec 253, relied on .
1.2. The principle applicable to vertical (social) reservations will Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.