Page 1

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.3609 OF 2017 DEEPA E.V.      APPELLANT(S)

                               VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T R. BANUMATHI, J.

1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of the Kerala High Court in Writ Appeal No.827 of 2015 dated 20.07.2015  whereby  the  Division  Bench  affirmed  the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 2. The appellant applied for the post of Laboratory Assistant Grade II in Export Inspection Council of India functioning under the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India.  The appellant belongs to  Dheevara  community  which  is  one  of  the  “Other Backward  Class”.  Since the  appellant was  aged 26 years, she got age relaxation, as was granted to OBC category candidates.  The appellant was one of the eleven  candidates  from  OBC  who  were  called  for interview.  The appellant secured 82 marks (in the list  of  candidates  from  OBC  category).    One  Ms. Serena  Joseph  (OBC),  who  secured  93  marks  was selected and appointed. 3. Insofar as the general category is concerned, no

1

Page 2

candidate has secured the minimum cut off marks i.e. 70  marks.   Stating  that  the  appellant  has  to  be accommodated  in  the  general  category,  she  filed  a Writ  Petition  before  the  High  Court,  which  the learned  Single  Judge  dismissed  by  judgment  dated 16.1.2015.  Being aggrieved, the appellant challenged the same in Writ Appeal No.827 of 2015, which came to be dismissed, which is impugned in this appeal. 4. The appellant, who has applied under OBC Category by  availing  age  relaxation  and  also  attending  the interview under the 'OBC Category' cannot claim right to be appointed under the General Category. 5. The recruitment by the Export Inspection Council of India which is functioning under the Ministry of Commerce,  Government  of  India  is  governed  by  the Export Inspection Agency (Recruitment) Rules, 1980. As per Rule 9, the Rules regarding relaxation of age limits and other concessions are to be governed by the Rules and also the orders issued by the Central Government from time to time in this regard.  Rule 9 reads as under:-

“9. Saving: Nothing  in  these  rules  affect

reservations, relaxation of age limit and other concessions required to be provided for the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and other special categories of persons in accordance with the orders issued by

2

Page 3

the Central Government from time to time in this regard.”

6. Department of Personnel and Training had issued proceedings  O.M.  No.36012/13/88-Estt.  (SCT),  dated 22.5.1989  and  OM  No.36011/1/98-Estt.  (Res.),  dated 1.7.1998 laying down stipulation to be followed by the various Ministries/Department for recruitment to various posts under the Central Government and the reservation  for  SC/ST/OBC  candidates.   The proceedings reads as under:-

“G.I.  Dept.  of  Per.  &  Trg.,  O.M.  No. 36012/13/88-Estt. (SCT), dated 22.5.1989 and OM No.36011/1/98-Estt. (Res.), dated 1.7.1998

“Subject:-  Reserved  vacancies  to  be filled up by candidates lower in merit or  even  by  released  standards- candidates  selected  on  their  own merits  not  to  be  adjusted  against reserved quota.

As  part  of  measure  to  increase  the representation of SC/ST in the services under  the  Central  Government,  the Government  have  reviewed  the  procedure for  implementation  the  policy  of reservation  while  filling  up  reserved share of vacancies for Scheduled Castes and  Scheduled  Tribes  by  direct recruitment.   The  practice  presently

3

Page 4

being  followed  is  to  adjust  SC/ST candidates  selected  for  direct recruitment  without  relaxation  of students against the reserved share of vacancies.  The position of such SC and ST candidates in the final select list, however,  was  determined  by  their relative  merit  as  assigned  to  them  in the selection process.  When sufficient number of suitable Scheduled Caste and Scheduled  Tribe  candidates  were  not available  to  fill  up  all  the  reserved share  of  vacancies,  SC/ST  candidates were selected by relaxed standards. 2. It has now been decided that in cases of  direct  recruitment  to  vacancies  in posts under the Central Government, the SC and ST candidates who are selected on their  own  merit,  without  relaxed standards  along  with  candidates belonging to the other communities, will not  be  adjusted  against  the  reserved share  of  vacancies.   The  reserved vacancies will be filled up separately from  amongst  the  eligible  SC  and  ST candidates which will thus comprise SC and ST candidates who are lower in merit than  the  last  candidate  on  the  merit list  but  otherwise  found  suitable  for appointment  even  by  relaxed  standards, if necessary. 3. All  Ministries/Departments  will immediately  review  the  various Recruitment  Rules/Examination  Rules  to ensure that if any provision is contrary to  the  decision  contained  in  previous

4

Page 5

paragraph exist in such rules, they are immediately  suitably  modified  or deleted. 4. These  instructions  shall  take immediate  effect  in  respect  of  direct recruitment made hereafter.  These will also  apply  to  selections  where  though the recruitment process has started, the result  have  not  yet  been  announced unless  in  the  Examination/Recruitment Rules or in the advertisement notified earlier there is a specific provision to the contrary and the manner in which the SC/ST vacancies could be filled has been indicated.

Clarification:-  The  instructions contained in the above OM apply in all types of direct recruitment whether by written  test  alone  or  written  test followed by the interview alone. 2.  The  above  OM  and  the  O.M. No.36012/2/96-Estt.(Res.),  dated 2.7.1997 provide that in cases of direct recruitment,  the  SC/ST/OBC  candidates who are selected on their own merit will not  be  adjusted  against  reserved vacancies.  3.  In this connection, it is  clarified  that  only  such  SC/ST/OBC candidates who are selected on the same standards  as  applied  to  general candidates shall not be adjusted against reserved  vacancies.   In  other  words, when  a  relaxed  standard  is  applied  in selecting  an  SC/ST/OBC  candidates,  for example  in  the  age-limit,  experience, qualification,  permitted  number  of

5

Page 6

chances in written examination, extended zone of consideration larger than what is  provided  for  general  category candidates,  etc.,  the  SC/ST/OBC candidates  are  to  be  counted  against reserved  vacancies.   Such  candidates would  be  deemed  as  unavailable  for consideration  against  unreserved vacancies.”

(Underlining added)

7. On a combined reading of Rule 9 of the  Export Inspection Agency (Recruitment) Rules, 1980 and also the proceedings dated 1.7.1998, we find that there is an  express  bar  for  the  candidates  belonging  to SC/ST/OBC  who  have  availed  relaxation  for  being considered for General Category candidates. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant mainly relied upon  the judgment  of this  Court in  Jitendra  Kumar Singh  and  Another v.  State  of  Uttar  Pradesh  and Others,  reported in  (2010) 3  SCC 119,  which deals with  the  U.P.  Public  Services  (Reservation  for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes)  Act,  1994  and  Government  order  dated 25.3.1994.  On a perusal of the above judgment, we find that there is no express bar in the said U.P. Act for the candidates of SC/ST/OBC being considered for the posts under General Category.  In such facts and circumstances of the said case, this Court has taken  the view  that the  relaxation granted  to the

6

Page 7

reserved category candidates will operate a a level playing  field.  In  the  light  of  the  express  bar provided  under  the  proceedings  dated  1.7.1998  the principle laid down in Jitendra Kumar Singh (supra) cannot be applied to the case in hand. 9. Learned  senior  counsel  appearing  for  the respondents has also drawn our attention to paragraph Nos.65  and  72  in  Jitendra  Kumar  Singh  (supra)  to contend  that  principle  in  Jitendra  Kumar  Singh (supra) are in the context of interpretation of U.P. Act 1994 and in the particular factual situation of the said case.  Paragraphs 65 and 72, read as under:-

“65. In any event the entire issue in the present appeals need not be decided on  the  general  principles  of  law  laid down  in  various  judgments  as  noticed above.   In  these  matters,  we  are concerned with the interpretation of the 1994  Act,  the  Instructions  dated 25.3.1994 and the G.O. dated 26.2.1999. The controversy herein centres around the limited issue as to whether an OBC who has applied exercising his option as a reserved  category  candidate,  thus becoming  eligible  to  be  considered against a reserved vacancy, can also be considered against an unreserved vacancy if  he/she  secures  more  marks  than  the last candidate in the general category.

7

Page 8

72. Soon  after  the  enforcement  of  the 1994  Act  the  Government  issued instructions  dated  25.3.1994  on  the subject  of  reservation  for  Scheduled Castes,  Scheduled  Tribes  and  other backward  groups  in  the  Uttar  Pradesh Public  Services.   These  instructions, inter alia, provide as under:-

"4.  If  any  person  belonging  to reserved categories is selected on the basis  of  merits  in  open competition  along  with  general category candidates, then he will not be adjusted towards reserved category, that is, he shall  be deemed to have been             adjusted against the unreserved  vacancies.  It  shall  be immaterial  that  he  has  availed  any facility  or  relaxation  (like relaxation  in  age  limit) available to reserved category." From  the  above  it  becomes  quite

apparent that the relaxation in age limit is merely to enable the reserved category candidate  to  compete  with  the  general category  candidate,  all  other  things being equal. The State has not treated the  relaxation  in  age  and  fee  as relaxation in the standard for selection, based on the merit of the candidate in the selection test i.e. Main Written Test followed  by  Interview.  Therefore,  such relaxations  cannot  deprive  a  reserved category  candidate  of  the  right  to  be considered  as  a  general  category candidate on the basis of merit in the

8

Page 9

competitive  examination.    Sub-section (2) of  Section 8 further provides that Government  Orders  in  force  on  the commencement of the Act in respect of the concessions  and  relaxations  including relaxation in upper age limit which are not inconsistent with the Act continue to be applicable till they are modified or revoked.”

10.  Having regard to the observations in paragraphs 65 and 72, in our view, the principles laid down in Jitendra Kumar Singh (supra) cannot be applied to the case  in  hand.  As  rightly  pointed  out  by  the  High Court that judgment in Jitendra Kumar Singh (supra) was based on the statutory interpretation of the U.P. Act, 1994 and Government order dated 25.3.1994 which provides for entirely a different scheme. 11. Be it noted, in the instant case, the appellant has not challenged the constitutional validity of the proceedings dated 1.7.1998 read with Rule 9 of the Export Inspection Agency (Recruitment) Rules, 1980. On a perusal of the prayer made in the writ petition we  find  that  the  appellant  has  only  sought  for  a declaration  that  Exhibit  P5  (proceedings  dated 1.7.1998)  is  not  binding  on  the  appellant.   No argument was canvassed challenging the constitutional validity of the proceedings before the learned Single Judge or before the Division Bench of the High Court.

9

Page 10

12. We do not find any merit in this appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed. 13. Pending  applications,  if  any,  shall  stand disposed of. 14. There shall be no orders as to costs.

.......................J.               [R. BANUMATHI]  

.......................J.               [A.M. KHANWILKAR]  

NEW DELHI; APRIL 06, 2017.

10