2010 (6) TMI 867 - SC - Indian Laws

Public Service Commission - advertisement inviting applications for 35 posts - stipulation that vacancies may be increased or decreased - reservation in favour of SC/ST/OBC and horizontal reservation in favour of handicapped, and women etc - belonging to Uttaranchal - Facts of the case, The HC accepted the first submission of respondent No.1 after examining the record of selection and came to the conclusion that last selected woman candidate who was given benefit of horizontal reservation for Uttaranchal women had secured marks higher than the last selected candidate in general category. Thus, the said candidate ought to have been appointed against the general category vacancy and respondent No.1 ought to have been offered the appointment giving her the benefit of horizontal reservation for Uttaranchal women. Hence, these appeals. HELD THAT - Following the decision in case of the Rajesh Kumar Daria Vs. RPS Ors. 2007 (7) TMI 713 - SUPREME COURT held that Only if there is any shortfall, the requisite number of Scheduled Caste women shall have to be taken by deleting the corresponding number of candidates from the bottom of the list relating to Scheduled Castes. To this extent, horizontal (special) reservation differs from vertical (social) reservation. Thus women selected on merit within the vertical reservation quota will be counted against the horizontal reservation for women. In view of this, it is evident that the judgment and order of the High Court is not in consonance with law laid down by this Court in Rajesh Kumar Daria. The judgment and order impugned herein is liable to be set aside and all consequential orders become unenforceable and inconsequential. Thus, appeals succeed and are allowed. Judgment and order of the High Court passed in Writ Petition is hereby set aside. No costs.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against the High Court's judgment allowing the writ petition for appointment as Civil Judge, Junior Division based on reservation policy and selection process.

Analysis:
1. The Public Service Commission and State Government of Uttaranchal appealed against the High Court's decision directing the appointment of the respondent as Civil Judge, Junior Division. The respondent challenged the select list dated 31.7.2003, claiming that women candidates from Uttaranchal were eligible for general category selection, affecting her chances in the reserved category. The High Court upheld the respondent's claim, leading to the current appeals.

2. The key contention raised by the appellants was the completion of all vacancies before the writ petition was filed, rendering it impossible to implement the High Court's judgment. They argued that subsequent appointments had been made, making it impractical to accommodate the respondent. Additionally, the appellants highlighted the failure to implead successful candidates as necessary parties, as per legal precedents, and the lack of factual foundation in the respondent's petition.

3. The respondent's counsel argued against the appeals, emphasizing the injustice towards the respondent and the availability of vacancies due to resignations. The respondent had been issued an appointment letter but not yet given a posting. The counsel proposed adjusting the respondent against the remaining vacancies from the selection process.

4. The Supreme Court examined the submissions and the record, emphasizing the legal principle that vacancies beyond those advertised cannot be filled. However, in this case, the advertisement allowed for variations in vacancies, and the decision to increase the vacancies had been made before the selection process concluded.

5. The Court delved into the necessity of impleading parties in such cases, citing legal precedents that emphasize the importance of including successful candidates when challenging a selection process. The Court noted that all vacancies had been filled as per the reservation policy, with all selected women candidates being from Uttaranchal.

6. The High Court's decision was based on the last selected candidate with horizontal reservation securing higher marks than the last general category candidate, leading to the respondent's appointment. However, the Court found this reasoning contrary to established law on horizontal reservation, as outlined in previous judgments.

7. Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's judgment. The Court concluded that the High Court's decision was not in line with legal precedents on horizontal reservation, rendering it unenforceable. No costs were awarded in the matter.