LexUNION OF INDIA AND ANR. versus SATYPRAKASH AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. A v. SA TY A PRAKASH AND ORS. APRIL 5, 2006 [H.K. SEMA AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] B Service Law: Reservation in appointments-Civil Services-Reserved category candidates-Quali/Ying on merit-Computation of percentage of reservation- C OBC candidates-Recommended by UPSC on merit-Opting preference from quota reserved for OBC candidates as per relaxed standard-Held, such candidates will have option of preference from quota for OBC candidates, but while computing percentage of reservation they will be deemed to have been allotted seats as open catego1y candidates-Civil Services Examination Rules, 1996-rr. 2 and 16. D Respondent, a candidate belonging to Other Backward Class (OBC), appeared in the Civil Services Examination from the reserved quota ofOBC. A total number of737 candidates were recommended by the Union Public Service Commission out of whom 174 vacancies were reserved for OBC E candidates. Though all the 174 vacancies were allocated to the OBC category candidates, but the respondent whose name figured at serial No. 606 was denied the job, whereas a candidate whose name found place at serial no. 620 was appointed. The respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court. Some other similarly situated OBC candidates also filed writ petitions. The stand of the Union of India was that the quota reserved for the OBC from the F relaxed standard exhausted due to the preference opted by the OBC candidates who were recommended by the Commission from open category, i.e. on merit. The High Court allowed the writ petitions. Aggrieved, the Union of India filed the present appeals. On the question: whether those OBC candidates who were selected on G merit and were placed in the list of open category candidates could still for the purpose of placement (preference) be considered to be OBC candidates thereby exhausting the quota reserved for relaxed OBC candidates from allocation of service: 789 H 790 SL:PRE!'v!E COURT REPORTS [2006 I 3 S.C.R. A Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD I.I. While a reserved category candidate recommended by the Commission without resorting to the relaxed standard will have the option of preference from the reserved category recommended by the Commission by resorting to relaxed standard, but while computing the quota/percentage of B reservation he/she will be deemed to have been allotted seat as an open category candidate (i.e. on merit) and not as a reserved category candidate recommended by the Commission by resorting to relaxed standard. [797-D-Ej 1.2. If a candidate of Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Other Backward Class, who has been recommended by the Commission without C resorting to the relaxed standard could not get his/her own preference in the merit list, he/she can opt a preference from the reserved category and in such process the choice of preference of the reserved category recommended by resorting to the relaxed standard will be pushed further down but shall be allotted to any of the remaining services/posts in which there are vacancies D after allocation of all the candidates who can be allocated to a service/post in accordance with their preference. [797-E-FJ Indra Smrh11ey v. Uniu11 o/ !11dia. 119921 Supp. 3 SCC 217; R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab. [ 19951 2 SCC 745; L'nivn of India v. Virpu/ Singh Chauhan, [ 1995[ 6 SCC 684 and Ritesh R. Sah v. Dr. Y.l. Yamul and E Ors., Jl996J 3 sec 253, relied on. 1.3. In the instant case, the Commission recommended one to one vacancy. Against the OBC category 174 candidates were recommended against 174 posts. By opting a preference, the quota reserved for OBC candidate does not exhaust. There are still vacancies after allocation of all the candidates F in order of preference who can be a !lotted to any of the remaining services/ posts in which there are vacancies after allocation of all the candidates who can be allotted to the services/posts in accordance with their preference. This is the mandate of the note appended to Rule 2. j797-G-H; 798-AJ G CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 5505-5507 of 2003. From the Judgment and Order dated 10.9.2002 of the High Court of Delhi in C.W.P. Nos. 3561, 3562of1999 and 867 of2000. WITH H Civil Appeal No. 7004 of2003. -- ,., • ~- - U.0.1. v. SA TY A PRAKASH [SEMA, .!.] 791 T.S. Doabia, Ms. Sunita Shanna, P. Panneswaran and D.S. Mahra for the A Appellants. L. Nageswar Rao, Ranjit K
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.