9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) correctly applied the principles of horizontal reservation for women candidates. 2. Whether the selection list dated 30.12.2001 should be set aside and whether the appellants should be granted relief. Summary: Issue 1: Application of Horizontal Reservation for Women Candidates The appellants contended that RPSC incorrectly applied the principles of horizontal reservation for women candidates, treating it as vertical reservation. According to Rule 9(3) of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 1955, "Reservation for women candidates shall be 20% category-wise in the direct recruitment." The Supreme Court referred to the principles laid down in *Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India* and *Anil Kumar Gupta vs. State of U.P.*, explaining that horizontal reservations cut across vertical reservations and should be adjusted proportionately within each category. The Court found that RPSC had selected women candidates in excess of their quota by treating the 20% reservation for women as vertical instead of horizontal. For instance, out of 59 general category posts, 11 were earmarked for women. RPSC selected 11 women on merit and then added another 11 under the reservation quota, resulting in 22 women being selected, which was impermissible. Similarly, for 24 OBC posts, RPSC selected 19 candidates including 3 women on merit and then added 5 more women, resulting in 8 women being selected instead of the required 5. Issue 2: Relief and Setting Aside the Selection List The appellants argued that the selection list dated 30.12.2001 was bad in law due to the excess selection of women candidates. The Supreme Court acknowledged the grievance but noted that the selected candidates had been serving as Judicial Officers for more than five years, and there had been subsequent selections and appointments in 2005. The Court decided not to disturb the entire selection list or the appointments already made. However, the Court found that three appellants'Rajesh Kumar Daria, Mohan Lal Soni, and Sunil Kumar Gupta'would have been selected if horizontal reservation had been correctly applied. Therefore, the Court directed that: 1. Sunil Kumar Gupta and Mohan Lal Soni shall be deemed to have been selected in the 2001 selection list, and necessary letters of appointment shall be issued to them. Their seniority will be counted from the date of actual appointment. 2. Rajesh Kumar Daria, who was appointed in the 2005 selection, should be given his position in the 2001 selection list as the last candidate. His retrospective seniority will not entitle him to monetary benefits but will count for promotions and pensionary benefits. The appeals were allowed in part, and the order of the High Court was set aside insofar as the said three appellants.
|
