Supreme Court: Reserved Category Candidates Scoring on Their Own Merits to be Adjusted under General Category

Supreme Court: Reserved Category Candidates Scoring on Their Own Merits to be Adjusted under General Category

The Supreme Court of India (SC) bench led by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul delivered judgment on 5 March 2021 in the case of State of Tamil Nadu (Appellant) v. K Shobhana (Respondent) on an appeal filed under Section 27(f) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 (Act).

The SC bench comprising of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Dinesh Maheshwari, and Hrishikesh Roy, ruled that if a backward class candidate scores marks on par with meritorious candidates, then his/ her admission selection would be under the general category while the reserved category remains open for those backward class candidates getting scores required for entry therein.

The factual matrix of the case is that the respondents had applied for recruitment to the post of Post Graduate Assistants and Physical Education Directors, Grade-I.

It was claimed by the respondents that on scrutinizing the provisional list of admission, they found that some candidates categorized under the Most Backward Class (MBC) quota would have been selected irrespective of any reservation.

It was further submitted that such candidates had not been considered under the general vacancies but had been appointed in the MBC/ Denotified Community (DNC) quota.

It was claimed by the respondents that they were not selected as the other candidates were appointed against the MBC/DNC quota instead of the general quota.

The respondent candidates stated that the candidates were required to be adjusted against vacancies in the general category. That the backlog vacancies had to be filled in with the reserved category candidates. At last, the current vacancies under the quota had to be adjusted.

According to Section 27(f) of the Act if the reserved seats are not filled up for a particular year, then instead of offering it to the general category, those vacancies can be carried forward for one year. If these vacancies are not filled in the succeeding year, then it goes to other categories.

It is also provisioned under the said Act that the recruitment is to be done "first for backlog vacancies and then the normal rotation shall be followed".

The appellant- State stated before the Court that Section 27 of the Act is not applicable for the selection based on merit and that it only applies to the mode of reservation post that stage.

It was further argued on behalf of the State that there are two lists for "the distinct groups" that are required to be made for the reserved vacancies i.e. a backlog list and the current list. The meritorious candidates selected have nothing to do with this part (backlog) of the list.

The Top Court observed that Section 27(f) of the Act merely states that if the required number of candidates belonging to the community which falls under reservation is not available, then the vacancies for which selection could not be made in the current year should be treated as backlog vacancies.

It was further observed by the SC bench that in many judgments it was held that reservation category candidates who have scores to make it to the general category have to be appointed/ admitted to the general category.

The judgment read, "In our view, Section 27(f) of the Act cannot be read in a manner, apart from any other reason, to negate this very principle. Section 27 deals with the reservation. It has nothing to do with the general candidates list/ General Turn vacancies."

The bench explained in its judgment that "Such of the candidates who have made it on their own merit albeit, from the reserved category, have not sought the benefit of the reservation. Thus, Section 27 of the Act would have nothing to do up to that point. Section 27 would apply only when the reservation principle begins, which is after filling up of the seats on merit."

The Court concluded that "An increase in MBC/DNC candidates does not impinge on the reservation of seats for other categories, nor does it violate any provision of the Constitution of India."

It added, "It would imply that some of the other candidates from different reserved categories would not be entitled to fill in the reserved seats of MBC/DNC categories if those seats would have remained vacant."