UNION OF INDIA versus RAMESH RAM & ORS. ETC.

Citation: [2010] 6 S.C.R. 698 · Decided: 07-05-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[2010] 6 S.C.R. 698 
UNION OF INDIA 
V. 
RAMESH RAM & ORS. ETC. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 4310-4311 of 2010) 
MAY 7, 2010 
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI, S.H. KAPADIA, R.V. 
RAVEENDRAN, B. SUDERSHAN REDDY AND P. 
SATHASIVAM, JJ.) 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Articles 14, 16(4) and 335 - Reservation in Central Civil 
Services - Meritorious Reserved Category candidates placed 
in the list of unreserved category candidates - Exercising 
0 
choice to migrate to reserve category for the purpose of 
allocation of service in the order of their preferences - HELD: 
The reserved category candidates "belonging to OBC, SCI ST 
categories" who are selected on merit and placed in the list 
of General/Unreserved category candidates can choose to 
E migrate to the respective reserved category at the time of 
allocation of services and they would be counted as part of 
the reserved pool for the purpose of computing the aggregate 
reservation quotas - The seat vacated by MRC candidate in 
the general pool will be offered to General Category 
candidates, otherwise the aggregate reservation could 
F possibly exceed 50% of all available posts and it would not 
be in accordance with the decision in Indira Sawhney that 
aggregate reservation should not exceed 50% of all the 
available posts - Such migration as envisaged by Rule 16 
(2) of Civil Services Examination Rules is not inconsistent with 
G Rule 16 (1) of the Rules or Articles 14, 16 (4) and 335 of the 
Constitution - By operation of Rule 16 (2), the reserved status 
of an MRC candidate is protected so that his! her better 
performance does not deny him of the chance to be allotted 
H 
698 
UNION OF INDIA v. RAMESH RAM & ORS. ETC. 
699 
to a more preferred service - Validity of r.16(2) upheld - Civil A 
Services Examination Rules - Rule 16(1) and 16(2). 
Articles 14, 16(4) and 335 - Reservation in service vis-
a-vis reservation for admission to P-G Medical courses -
HELD: There is an obvious distinction between qualifying 
8 
through an entrance test for securing admission in a medical 
college and qualifying in the UPSC examinations for filling 
up vacancies in the various civil services -
In UPSC 
examinations, candidates also compete amongst themselves 
to secure the service of their choice in the order of their 
preferences - The judgment in Ritesh R. Sah1 dealing with 
C 
admission to post-graduate medical courses, cannot be 
readily applied to the examinations conducted by the UPSC. 
In the Civil Services Examination 2005, certain 
Meritorious Reserved Category candidates (MRCs), who 
D 
were selected on merit and recommended against 
unreserved vacancies, opted for reserved vacancies for 
the purpose of service allocation and got the service of 
higher choice in the order of their preferenc~s. 
Consequently, equal number of general category 
E 
candidates from the consolidated reserve list (wait list) 
were recommended by the UPSC. Some of the OBC 
candidates in the reserve list filed application before the 
Central Administrative Tribunal challenging Rule 16(2) of 
the Civil Services Examination Rules, contending that 
F 
adjustment of OBC merit candidates against the 
vacancies reserved for OBCs was illegal. The Tribunal 
held that meritorious OBC candidates who were selected 
on merit should be adjusted against 'General Category'. 
However, the Tribunal ordered that Rule 16(2) would be 
applied in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court in 
G 
Anurag Patel's case2, to ensure that allocation of service 
1. 
Ritesh R. Sah v. Dr. Y.L. Yamul 1996 (2) SCR 695. 
2. 
Anurag Patel vs. U.P .. Public Service Commission & Ors., 2004 (4) Suppl. 
SCR888. 
H 
700 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 6 S.C.R. 
A was in accordance with rank-cum-preference with 
priority given to meritorious candidates for service 
allocation. But, the High Court held Rule 16(2) as 
unconstitutional, set aside the select list and directed the 
Central Government and the UPSC to do the service 
B allocation afresh de hors Rule 16(2). Aggrieved, the Union 
of India and other aggrieved persons filed the appeals 
and the writ petitions. 
The questions for consideration before the Court 
were: (i) "Whether the Reserved Category candidates 
C who were selected on merit (i.e. MRCs) and placed in the 
list of General Category candidates could be considered 
as Reserved Category candidates at the time of "service 
allocation"?; (ii) Whether Rules 16 (2), (3), (4) and (5) of 
the CSE Rules are inconsistent with Rule 1

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