LexUNION OF INDIA versus RAMESH RAM & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2009) 9 S.C.R. 775 UNION OF INDIA v. RAMESH RAM & ORS. (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 13571-13572 of 2008) MAY 14, 2009 [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN CJI. P. SATHASIVAM, AND J.M. PANCHAL, JJ.] Civil Services Examination Rules, 2002: A B c rr. 16(1), 16(2), 16(3), 16(4) and 16(5) - Central Civil Services .... Reservation to OBC, SC and ST candidates - Candidates belonging to reserved categories selected on merit without claiming any relaxation - Adjustments of OBC merit candidates against OBC category on exerdise of their 0 preference in service allocation - Propriety of - Constitutionality of Rules 16(2), 16(3), 16(4) and 16(5) - Matter refeffed to larger Bench - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles, 14, 16(4) ·and 335. In the Civil Services Examination-2005, the Union E Public Service Commission recommended 425 candidates, out of whom 31 OBC and one SC candidates were selected on merit without any relaxation/ concession. Out of these 37 candidates, 26 CBC and 1 SC candidates were allocated service against the F reserved vacancies as by this they got a service of higher choice in the order of preference in terms of r. 16(2) of the Civil Sercices Examination, 2002. Some of the OBC candidates filed original application before the Central Administrative Tribuna·I challenging r. 16(2). It was G contended that adjustments of OBC merit candidates against the OBC category was illegal and they should have been adjusted against gener;,11 category. The Tribunal held that OBC candidates selected on merits ,J 775 H 776 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 9 S.C.R. A must be adjusted against the general category. However, it directed to apply r. 16(2) in terms of decision in Anurag Patel1 to ensure that allocation of service was in accordance with rank-cum-preference with priority given to meritorious candidates for service allocation. In the B writ petitions filed by the Union of India and other aggrieved candidates, the High Court held r. 16(2) as unconstitutional, set-aside the select list and directed the Government of India and the UPSC to rework the service allocation dehors r. 16(2). The judgment of the High Court C gave rise to the instant special leave petitions and the writ petitions. Referring the matter to a Constitution Bench, the Court, O HELD: In view of the issues r~ised and discussed relating to amended r. 16 '>f the Civil services Examination Rules, 2002, applicable to all Central Civil Services, an authoritative pronouncement is needed, particularly, in the light of the decisions of this Court. Therefore, all the E SLPs ~and writ petitions are referred to a Constitution Bench. [Para 15] [790-A-B] Anurag Patel vs. UP. Public Service Commission & Ors. (2005) 9 SCC 742; Ritesh R. Shah vs. Dr. Y.L. Yamul and Others, (1996) 3 SCC 253; R.K. Sabharwal and Others vs. F State of Punjab and Others, (1995) 2 SCC 745; Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India, 1992 Supplementary (3) SCC 217 and Union of India and Another vs. Satya Prakash and Others (2006) 4 SCC 550, referred to. G Case Law Reference: (2005) 9 sec 142 (1996) 3 sec 253 referred to referred to Para 10 Para 10 H 1. Anurag Patel v. UP. Public Service Commission & Ors. (2005) 9 SCC 742. ., ..... UNION OF INDIA v. RAMESH RAM & ORS. 777 t --4. (1995) 2 sec 745 referred to Para 10 A 1992 Sup (3) sec 211 referred to Para 11 (2006) 4 sec 550 referred to Para 12 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : SLP (Civil) No. B 13571-13572/2008. ' _... From the Judgment & Order dated 20.03.2008 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in W.P. No. 1814 of 2008 & 1815 of 2008. c WITH -. SLP (C) No. 13297-13298 of 2008, 13581 of 2008, 14834- 14838 of 2008, 297 of 2008, 312 of 2008, 336 of 2008 and 416 of 2008. D ;.A_ G.E. Vahanvati, S.G.I, Ravindra Srivastava, Nidhesh Gupta, Arun Jaitley, Shyam Divan, Raju Ramachandra (NP), S.W.A. Qadri, Chinmoy Pradip Sharma, D.D.Kamat, K·unal Verma, Supriya Jain, Krishna Kumar (for B.K. Prasad) Anil Katiyar, Anirudh Sharma, Subramonium Prasad, Ajay Bansal, E Ajay Choudhary, Vibha Datta Makhija, Shree Prakash Sinha, Shekhar Kumar, Rudreshwar Singh, Amanpreet Singh Rahi, -r Tushar Bakshi, Devesh Tripathi, Kumar Ranjan, Kaushik .... . Poddar, Gopal Jha and Tapesh Kumar Singh for the Appellants. L.N. Rao(NP), Raju Ramachandran(NP), Dharam Bir Raj F Vohra, Binu Tamta, V. Mahana, Sanjay Jain, Santosh Paul, Arvind Gupta, M.J. Paul and K.K. Bhat for the Res
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.