Service Law:
Selection – Of a candidate who availed age relaxation as a reserved category candidate – Whether has to be under reserved category or can be accommodated in or migrated to general category seat – Held: Art. 16(4) of the Constitution empowers the State to provide reservation in appointments – It is discretion of the State to formulate a policy as to manner and extent to which reservation is provided – Such policy has to be spelled out from the orders issued by the Government – In the present case such policy has been framed by the State by Circulars dated 21.01.2000 and 23.07.2004 – In view of these Circulars, if a relaxed standard is applied in selecting a candidate for SC/ST, SEBC category, then candidate of such category selected in such manner shall have to be considered only against the reserved post and would be deemed unavailable for consideration against unreserved post – Constitution of India – Art. 16 (4) – Gujarat Civil Services Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules, 1967 – r. 8.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The State Government, in exercise of its powers conferred under Article 309 of the Constitution of India made Gujarat Civil Services Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules, 1967 vide notification dated 10.10.1967. As per sub-rule
(2) of Rule 8, the appointing authority has been given powers to relax age limit in favour of the candidates belonging to SC/ST and SEBC and in favour of women candidates to the extent indicated therein. The Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions vide Office Memorandum dated 22.05.1989 formulated a policy in tune with Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India, which enables the State Government to provide for reservation for the category of persons belonging to backward classes. Thereafter, the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions vide Office Memorandum dated 01.07.1998 clarified the earlier O.M dated 22.05.1989. In the meantime, the State Government in its General Administration Department vide Government Resolution dated 11.12.1986 formulated a policy whereby such appointments on merit of the members belonging to such castes and tribes shall in no way affect claims of the members of such castes and tribes for appointment in the services or on the post reserved for them under the Government orders issued from time to time. The State Government vide Circular No.PVS-1099-MVN-13-G-4 dated 29.01.2000 clarified that a reserved category candidate, if has not availed of any relaxation viz. age limit, experience, qualification, number of chances to appear in the examination, the said candidate will be adjusted in the open category and in case the candidate has availed any of the aforesaid relaxation, he/she will have to be adjusted against the reserved seats. The State Government came out with a further clarification vide Circular No.PVS-102003-900-G-4 dated 23.07.2004. [Paras 15, 16 and 17] [54-C-H; 55-A-B, E]
2. Thus, the appointments in the category of SC/ST and other backward classes to the post of class I and class III in the State Services are being governed by the aforesaid policies and the State Government and/or any Authorities effecting direct appointments are required to give effect to the aforesaid policy decision at the time of recruitment process viz. preparing the select list etc. It is evident from the above two circulars that a candidate who has availed of age relaxation in the selection process as a result of belonging to a reserved category cannot, thereafter, seek to be accommodated in or migrated to the general category seats. [Paras 18 and 19] [56-A-B]
3. In the advertisement published by the Gujarat Public Service Commission (GPSC) GPSC inviting applications from the eligible candidates for the post of ACF (Class II) and RFO (Class II) dated 01.03.2010, upper age limit relaxation was granted to the candidates belonging to SC/ST and SEBC category. It was also specifically stated in the advertisement that if any candidate belonging to reserved category who applies in the open category, such candidate would not get the benefit of age relaxation. Such age relaxation was granted in pursuance to Rule 8 of Rules of 1967. [Para 23] [56-G-H]
4. Article 16(4) of the Constitution is an enabling provision empowering the State to make any provision or reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which in the opinion of the State is not adequately represented in the service under the State. It is purely a matter of discretion of the State Government to formulate a policy for concession, exemption, preference or relaxation either conditionally or unconditionally in favour of the backward classes of citizens. The reservation being the enabling provision, the manner and the extent to which reservation is provided has to be spelled out from the orders issued by the Government from time to time. [Para 24] [57-E-F]
5. In the instant case, State Government has framed policy for grant of reservation in favour of SC/ST and OBC by the Circulars dated 21.01.2000 and 23.07.2004. The State Government has clarified that when a relaxed standard is applied in selecting a candidate for SC/ST, SEBC category in the age limit, experience, qualification, permitting number of chances in the written examination etc., then candidate of such category selected in the said manner, shall have to be considered only against his/her reserved post. Such a candidate would be deemed as unavailable for consideration against unreserved post. [Para 25] [57-G-H]
6. It is also not correct that relaxation in age at the initial qualifying stage would not fall foul of the circulars dated 29.01.2000 and 23.07.2004. The distinction sought to be drawn between the preliminary and final examination is totally misconceived. It is evident from the advertisement that a person who avails of an age relaxation at the initial stage will necessarily avail of the same relaxation even at the final stage. The age relaxation granted to the candidates belonging to SC/ST and SEBC category in the instant case is an incident of reservation under Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India. [Para 36] [60-E-F] Deepa E.V. v. Union of India and Ors. (2017) 12 SCC 680; Gaurav Pradhan and Ors. etc. etc. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. etc. etc. (2018) 11 SCC 352 : [2017] 8 SCR 951 – relied on.
Jitendra Kumar Singh and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2010) 3 SCC 119 : [2010] 1 SCR 325 ; Ajithkumar P. and Ors. v. Remin K.R. and Ors. (2015)
16 SCC 778; Vikas Sankhala and Ors. v. Vikas Kumar Agarwal and Ors. (2017) 1 SCC 350 : [2016] 7 SCR
639 – distinguished.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.