1 | P a g e   

                                                                                    NON REPORTABLE    

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION    

CIVIL APPEAL NO. ___19862_____ OF 2017  (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil ) No.14201 of 2011)  

Khilendra Singh            .... Appellant  

Versus  

Union of India Ministry of Agriculture   

Through Secretary & Ors.         ….Respondents  

J U D G M E N T  

L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.  

 Leave granted.   

2. The Appellant applied for appointment to the posts of  

Subject Matter Specialist (Crop Protection & Crop  

Psychology) in Vivekananda Parvatiya Krishi Anusandhan  

Sansthan, Almora.  The Appellant belongs to “Jaat” caste  

which was falling within the category of Other Backward  

Classes (OBCs) in the State of Uttar Pradesh.  The Tesildar,  

Thakurdwara, Moradabad (U.P.) issued a certificate in favour  

of the Appellant stating that he belongs to Other Backward

2 | P a g e   

Classes  on 22nd June, 2007.  The Appellant was appointed on                 

2nd January, 2008 in a post reserved for OBCs.  A show-cause  

notice was issued to the Appellant asking him to explain as to  

why his appointment should not be cancelled as the  

community to which he belongs is not found in the Central  

List of OBCs.  The Appellant submitted his explanation on 6th  

November, 2010.  An inquiry was conducted and on the basis  

of the recommendation of the Inquiry Committee, the  

services of the Appellant were terminated on 20th November,  

2010.  He approached the High Court of Uttarakhand at  

Nainital by filing Writ Petition challenging the order of  

termination.  The Writ Petition was dismissed vide judgment  

dated 24th February, 2011, the legality of which is assailed in  

the above Appeal.    

3. The National Commission for Backward Classes was  

constituted by the National Commission for Backward  

Classes Act, 1993 (Act 27 of 1993).  Section 9 of the Act  

empowers the Commission to examine requests for inclusion  

of any class of citizens as a backward class in the lists and  

hear complaints of over-inclusion or under-inclusion of any

3 | P a g e   

backward class in such lists and tender such advice to the  

Central Government as it deems appropriate.  Section 2(c)  

defines “Lists” as follows:   

(c) “lists” means lists prepared by the Government of  

India from time to time for purposes of making  

provision for the reservation of appointments or posts  

in favour of backward classes of citizens which, in the  

opinion of that Government, are not adequately  

represented in the services under the Government of  

India and any local or other authority within the  

territory of India or under the control of the  

Government of India    

4. By a proceeding dated 10th September, 1993 the Government of  

India finalised the Central List of OBCs for each State.  A common  

List for the State of Uttar Pradesh was annexed to the said  

proceedings in which the caste of “Jaat” was not included.  The  

matter pertaining to the inclusion of “Jaat” in the Central List of  

OBCs for the States of Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Haryana  

and Rajasthan came up for consideration before the Commission  

in the year 1997.  The National Commission for Backward Classes  

recommended inclusion of “Jaat” caste in the OBCs only for the  

State of Rajasthan and not the other three States.  On the basis of  

the power of review that was conferred on the National  

Commission for Backward Classes, the matter was examined  

afresh.  The National Commission for Backward Classes  

conducted hearings in Delhi to consider the request of “Jaat”

4 | P a g e   

caste in the Central List of OBCs for nine States including the State  

of Uttar Pradesh.  The National Commission for Backward Classes  

advised the Central Government not to include the “Jaat” caste/  

community in the Central List of OBCs.  While rejecting the  

recommendation made by the National Commission for Backward  

Classes, the Central Government issued a notification including  

“Jaat” caste/ community in the Central List of OBCs for the States  

of Uttar Pradesh/ Uttarakhand and seven other States in 2014.    

5. A perusal of the facts that are stated in the preceding paragraph  

on the basis of the counter affidavit filed by the National  

Commission for Backward Classes would show that “Jaat” caste/  

community is in the Central List of OBCs for the State of  

Uttarakhand from 2014.  The Central List of OBCs prepared for the  

States of Uttar Pradesh in 1993 did not include the “Jaat” caste/  

community.  The State of Uttarakhand was formed in 2000.  By a  

Resolution passed in 2010, the National Commission for Backward  

Classes resolved that till the Central List for the State of  

Uttarakhand was finalized, the List that was in operation in the  

State of Uttar Pradesh will be followed for appointment to the  

Central posts reserved for OBCs.  The advertisement and  

selection in this case was made in the year 2007 when the caste to

5 | P a g e   

which the Appellant belongs i.e. “Jaat” was not in the Central List  

for Uttar Pradesh.    

6. We are not in agreement with the reasons given by the High  

Court while dismissing the Writ Petition.  It was held in the  

impugned judgment that the List prepared by the State of  

Uttarakhand would be applicable for appointment to Central  

posts.  We approve the final conclusion of the High Court that the  

Appellant was not entitled for appointment in the post reserved  

for OBCs, though for different reasons as stated supra.    

7. The Appeal is dismissed accordingly.  No costs.        

               ........................................J.  

               [S.A. BOBDE]  

..……................................J.  

                                                              [L. NAGESWARA RAO]  

New Delhi;  

November 28,  2017.    

1 | P a g e   

                                                                     NON-REPORTABLE    

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION    

CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 19859-19860 of 2017  

(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil ) Nos.18584-85 of 2012)    

Union of India & Ors.                .... Appellants  

Versus   

Kamal Kishore & Ors., Etc.                       ….Respondents    

J U D G M E N T  

L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.  

Leave granted.   

2. The writ petitions filed by the Respondents seeking  

appointment to the post of Constable G.D. in Central Reserve  

Police Force (CRPF) in the category of Other Backward  

Classes (OBCs) were allowed by a learned Single Judge of  

the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital.  The Appeals filed  

by the Union of India were dismissed by a Division Bench.   

The Appellants have approached this Court challenging the  

correctness of the said judgment of the High Court.     

2 | P a g e   

3. An advertisement was issued on 24th July, 2010 duly  

published in daily newspaper Uttar Ujala inviting applications  

for appointment to the post of Constable G.D. in the CRPF  

from Indian citizens residing in the States of Uttar Pradesh and  

Uttarakhand.  78 vacancies were notified out of which nine  

were reserved for OBCs.  13 backlog vacancies of OBCs were  

also included in the notification.  The Respondents who  

belong to Saini, Momin (Ansar), Gujjar and Kahar communities  

applied for being considered for appointment to the posts  

reserved for OBCs.  They qualified in the written examination  

and appeared before a medical board for medical  

examination.  Their names were not included in the final list  

that was prepared for appointment.  On enquiry, they found  

that their names were shifted to the general category from the  

OBC category on the ground that the castes to which they  

belong did not find place in the OBCs List for the Central  

Government services for Uttarakhand State as per “Swamy’s  

Compilation on Reservations and Concessions” book.  They  

could not be appointed on the basis of the marks they  

obtained in the general category.    

3 | P a g e   

4. The Respondents filed Writ Petitions in the High Court of  

Uttarakhand seeking issuance of Mandamus for commanding  

the Appellants to appoint them to the post of Constable G.D.  

in CRPF against the post reserved for OBC candidates of  

Uttarakhand.  The Appellants filed a counter affidavit in the  

High Court in which it was stated that the Respondents were  

not entitled to be considered for appointment in the posts  

reserved for OBCs as the castes to which they belong were  

not included in the List of OBCs for Central Government  

services, Uttarakhand State as per “Swamy’s Compilation on  

Reservations and Concessions” book.  The learned Single  

Judge of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital allowed the  

Writ Petitions vide judgment dated              11th October, 2011  

by relying upon a judgment of the High Court in Deepak  

Kumar versus Gurukul Kangri University, Haridwar1.  It was  

also held that there is no dispute about the fact that the castes  

to which the Respondents belong are OBCs in the State of  

Uttarakhand.  The Appellants could not succeed in convincing  

the Division Bench of the High Court that the judgment of the  

learned Single Judge warranted interference.    

                                                        1   CWP No.1768 of 2011

4 | P a g e   

5. Pursuant to the judgment of this Court in Indra Sawhney  

versus Union of India2, the Government of India decided to  

implement reservation of 27% in civil posts and services in  

favour of OBCs.  On the recommendations made by an Expert  

Committee, a Central List of OBCs was prepared for each  

State.  The Central List of OBCs prepared for the State of Uttar  

Pradesh included the castes of the Respondents.  The State of  

Uttarakhand was created in the year 2000.  In the judgment of  

Deepak Kumar (supra) relied upon by the learned Single  

Judge in this case, a reference was made to a letter dated 28th  

July, 2011 issued by the National Commission for Backward  

Classes.  It was stated in the said letter that the Central List for  

OBCs for the State of Uttarakhand was under process and that  

till it was finalized, the List for Uttar Pradesh will be  

applicable for appointment to Central posts in the State of  

Uttarakhand.  The National Commission for Backward Classes  

has filed a counter affidavit in these Appeals supporting the  

Respondents.  The Commission stated in the affidavit that the  

List of OBCs for the State of Uttar Pradesh will enure to the  

benefit of those residing in Uttarakhand for appointment to  

services under the Union of India till the Central List of OBCs  

                                                        2   (2001) 1 SCC 168

5 | P a g e   

for Uttarakhand is finalized.  It was further stated that by a  

Resolution dated 8th December, 2011, the Central  

Government notified the Central List of OBCs for the State of  

Uttarakhand which consisted of 84 castes.    

6. Ms. Indu Malhotra, learned senior counsel appearing for the  

Union of India relied upon a proceeding dated 12th March,  

2007 which was filed along with the rejoinder to contend that  

there was only one caste included in the Central List for the  

State of Uttarakhand.  She submitted that all the other OBCs  

were included in the Central List only in 2011 and as the  

selections in the present case were conducted in 2010, the  

Respondents whose castes were not in the list of OBCs cannot  

be considered in the posts reserved for OBCs.  We are not in  

agreement with the said submission as a perusal of the  

proceeding dated 12th March, 2007 would show that it  

pertains to inclusion/ amendments in the Central List of OBCs  

in respect of various States.  There is no doubt that one caste  

Rai-Sikh (Mahatam) was shown in the proposed Entry at serial  

No.1.  It means that the caste was included by the proceeding  

as an OBC.   It does not mean that there was only one caste  

falling within the category of OBCs in the State of Uttar

6 | P a g e   

Pradesh.  The position as it existed pertaining to reservation  

to OBC posts in Uttarakhand is explained by the National  

Commission for Backward Classes.  It is clear from the  

affidavit filed by the National Commission for Backward  

Classes that a decision was taken in 2010 to apply the Central  

List prepared for the State of Uttar Pradesh to the State of  

Uttarakhand till the List of OBCs for Uttarakhand was finalized.  

The List was finalized in 2011.  There cannot be any doubt that  

the Respondents belong to the castes which were included in  

the Central List of OBCs for the State of Uttar Pradesh and  

were entitled to be considered for the posts reserved for  

OBCs in the advertisement that was issued on 24th July, 2010.   

There was some confusion about the applicability of the Lists  

of the OBCs prepared by the States of Uttar Pradesh and  

Uttarakhand for implementing reservation in the State’s civil  

posts.  Those Lists have no relevance for appointment to  

services under the Union of India.    

7. Before concluding, it is necessary to mention that the  

Respondents were deprived of their consideration to the  

posts reserved for OBCs only on the ground that the castes to  

which they belong did not find a place in “Swamy’s

7 | P a g e   

Compilation on Reservations and Concessions” book.  This  

practice of relying upon private books for the purpose of  

defeating the rights of citizens is deprecated. The Union of  

India ought to have referred to the Resolutions of the National  

Commission for Backward Classes and the Central List that  

were prepared by the Government of India from the official  

publications.  For no fault of theirs, the Respondents were not  

considered for appointment as Constables G.D. in CRPF in  

the year 2010.   

8. We uphold the judgment of the High Court and direct the  

Appellants to consider the Respondents for appointment as  

Constables G.D., CRPF in the posts reserved for OBCs in the  

advertisement dated 24th July, 2010.  The Appellants are  

directed not to deny the appointment to the Respondents on  

the ground that they are now over-aged provided they fulfil  

the condition of fitness.    

9. For the aforementioned reasons, the Appeals are dismissed.     

              ........................................J.  

               [S.A. BOBDE]      

                   ..……................................J.  

                                                              [L. NAGESWARA RAO]  

New Delhi;  

November 28,  2017.