1980 (11) TMI 171 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Central Secretariat Service (Amendment) Rules, 1979.
2. Validity of the Regulations for holding a limited departmental competitive examination for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
3. Whether the reserved vacancies should have been dereserved.
4. Whether sub-rule (2a) of Rule 12 operates prospectively or retrospectively.
5. Eligibility standards for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates.
6. Reservation of vacancies in selection posts.
7. Rationality and impact of reservation on the equality provisions of Part III of the Constitution.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Central Secretariat Service (Amendment) Rules, 1979:
The petitioners challenged the validity of the Central Secretariat Service (Amendment) Rules, 1979, which introduced sub-rule (2a) to Rule 12, allowing for a limited departmental competitive examination for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to fill reserved vacancies. The Court held that the amendment was within the administrative discretion of the Government and there was no right for general category candidates to insist on dereservation of reserved vacancies if it was possible to fill them through lawful means. The Court emphasized that dereservation should be a last resort, only when it is not reasonably possible to fill the reserved vacancies.

2. Validity of the Regulations for Holding a Limited Departmental Competitive Examination:
The petitioners argued that the Regulations violated Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution by creating two avenues of promotion for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes while only one was available for other Government servants. The Court dismissed this contention, stating that the limited departmental competitive examination was a secondary process initiated only when the reserved vacancies could not be filled through the primary process. This was consistent with the constitutional mandate to fill reserved vacancies if possible.

3. Whether the Reserved Vacancies Should Have Been Dereserved:
The petitioners contended that the Government should have dereserved the twenty-seven vacancies when no suitable Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates were available. The Court found no merit in this argument, stating that dereservation is a matter of administrative discretion and should be considered only when it is not possible to fill the reserved vacancies through any valid arrangement. The Court highlighted that dereservation would be contrary to the principles of Article 16(4) and Article 46 of the Constitution.

4. Whether Sub-rule (2a) of Rule 12 Operates Prospectively or Retrospectively:
The petitioners argued that sub-rule (2a) should not affect the twenty-seven vacancies from the 1977 Select List. The Court rejected this argument, clarifying that there is no legal requirement for the Select List to be finalized within the same year. The Government's decision to hold the limited departmental competitive examination was a valid process to fill the reserved vacancies, and it did not apply the rule retrospectively.

5. Eligibility Standards for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Candidates:
The petitioners objected to the lower eligibility standard for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates, which required only four years of approved service compared to ten years for general category candidates. The Court upheld the relaxed eligibility criteria, stating it was justified for backward classes and consistent with established principles. The decision was made after consultation with the Chairman of the Union Public Service Commission.

6. Reservation of Vacancies in Selection Posts:
The petitioners challenged the reservation of vacancies in selection posts. The Court referred to the decision in General Manager, Southern Railway v. Rangachari, which held that Article 16(4) extends to selection posts, thereby supporting the validity of the reservation.

7. Rationality and Impact of Reservation on the Equality Provisions of Part III of the Constitution:
The petitioners argued that the reservation was irrational and inhibited the healthy growth of services, violating the equality provisions of Part III of the Constitution. The Court found that the percentage of reserved vacancies was within the principles laid down in M. R. Balaji v. State of Mysore and supported by the majority view in State of Kerala v. N. M. Thomas. Therefore, the reservation was deemed valid.

Conclusion:
The writ petitions were dismissed without any order as to costs. The Court upheld the validity of the Central Secretariat Service (Amendment) Rules, 1979, and the related Regulations, affirming the Government's discretion in filling reserved vacancies and the constitutionality of the reservation policies.