2010 (1) TMI 1300 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Reservation of posts for Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Women Candidates, and Sportspersons.
2. Selection process and criteria for Sub Inspectors and Platoon Commanders.
3. Validity and application of horizontal and vertical reservations.
4. Eligibility and impact of age and fee relaxation for reserved category candidates.
5. Filling of vacancies reserved for women and sportspersons.
6. Alleged irregularities and bungling in the selection process.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Reservation of Posts for Various Categories:
The appellants challenged the High Court's decision on reservations for Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Women Candidates, and Sportspersons. The High Court had dismissed their writ petitions seeking mandamus to send them for training as Sub Inspectors and quash the select list.

2. Selection Process and Criteria:
An advertisement issued on 4.5.1999 for direct recruitment on the post of Sub Inspectors in Civil Police and Platoon Commanders in PAC included a breakdown of 1379 posts for SICP and 255 posts for PC, with 2% reserved for outstanding Sportspersons and 10% for women. The selection process involved a Preliminary Written Test, a Physical Test, a Main Written Test, and an interview.

3. Horizontal and Vertical Reservations:
The Division Bench addressed the historical background and statutory provisions of reservation, noting that Article 16(4) aims to achieve adequate representation for backward classes. The Division Bench concluded that reserved category candidates can compete for unreserved seats if they meet the general criteria without relaxation. The Court emphasized balancing individual rights under Article 16(1) and group rights under Article 16(4).

4. Eligibility and Impact of Relaxation:
The Division Bench concluded that concessions in age and fee for reserved category candidates do not amount to relaxation in selection standards. Therefore, such candidates can compete for unreserved seats if they score higher than the last general category candidate. The Court held that these concessions are provisions pertaining to eligibility and do not affect the open competition.

5. Filling of Vacancies:
The High Court's direction to recalculate vacancies for general category candidates by applying 2% sports quota horizontally was challenged. The Division Bench held that vacancies reserved for women and sportspersons, if unfilled, should be filled by suitable male candidates and not carried forward. The Court confirmed that horizontal reservations like those for women and sportspersons do not allow for carry forward of unfilled vacancies.

6. Alleged Irregularities:
The appellants alleged irregularities in the selection process, including the adoption of a pick and choose method, absence of guidelines for interviews, and selection of candidates with inferior educational records. The High Court dismissed these allegations, finding no substantial evidence to support them.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the Division Bench's decision that concessions in age and fee for reserved category candidates do not preclude them from competing for unreserved seats. The Court also affirmed that horizontal reservations for women and sportspersons must be filled by suitable candidates from the respective categories without carry forward. The appeals challenging the selection process were dismissed, and the directions issued by the High Court regarding recalculating vacancies were set aside.