Supreme Court of India
ALOK KUMAR PANDITversusSTATE OF ASSAM & ORS.
- Citation
- 2012 INSC 541
- Decided
- 26 November 2012
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
A more meritorious reserved‑category candidate is entitled to choose his preferred service and his appointment is not to be counted as an open‑category appointment, thereby preserving the reserved‑category quota.
Summary
The appellant, an OBC candidate, applied for the Assam Civil Service through the Assam Public Service Commission and secured a higher merit score than many open‑category candidates, yet was not placed in his preferred service. He challenged the commission’s selection, arguing that more meritorious reserved‑category candidates should be allowed to choose any service of their preference and that their appointments should not be counted against the open‑category quota. The Supreme Court examined earlier decisions on reservation, merit‑based allocation and the right of a reserved‑category candidate to opt for a higher‑preference post. Relying on State of Bihar v. M. Neethi Chandra, Anurag Patel v. U.P. PSC and Union of India v. Ramesh Ram, the Court held that a reserved‑category candidate who is more meritorious than open‑category candidates is entitled to his choice of service and cannot be treated as appointed against an open post. Consequently, the appointment of such candidates does not diminish the reserved‑category quota. The appeal was dismissed, leaving each party to bear its own costs.
Issues considered
- A reserved category candidate who is adjudged more meritorious than open category candidates is entitled to be appointed to the service/cadre/post of his choice/preference against the post earmarked for the reserved category to which he belongs.
- Whether, for the purpose of computing the reservation quota, such a candidate should be treated as having been appointed against an open category post.
Legislation cited
Subjects
reservationchoice of servicemeritOBCquota computationpublic service commissionequalityarticles 14 and 16appointment preference
Judgment
(2012] 11 S.C.R. 87
ALOK KUMAR PANDIT A
v.
STATE OF ASSAM & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 8499 of 2012)
NOVEMBER 26, 2012
B
[G.S. SINGHVI AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.]
Service Law:
Reservation - Option of choice/preference on selection c
- Reserve category candidate securing higher position on
merit than general category candidates - Option of choice/
preference against posts eannarked for reserved category -
Held: A reserved category candidate who is adjudged more
meritorious than open category candidates is entitled to 0
choose the particular service/cadre/post as per his choice/
preference and he cannot be compelled to accept
appointment to an inferior post leaving the more important
service/cadre/post in the reserved category for less
meritorious candidate of that category - On his appointment E
to the service/cadre/post of his choice/preference, the
reserved category candidate cannot be treated as appointed
against the open category post.•
State of Bihar v. M. Neethi Chandra 1996 (5) Suppl.
SCR 696 = (1996) 6 SCC 36; Anurag Patel v. U.P. Public F
Service Commission 2004 (4) Suppl. SCR 888 = (2005) 9
sec 742 - relied on
Union of India v. Ramesh Ram 2010 (6) SCR 698 =
(2010) 7 sec 234 - followed G
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India 1992 (2) Suppl.
SCR 454 = 1992 Supp. (3) SCC 217; R. KS abharwal v.
State of Punjab 1995 (2) SCR 35 =(1995) 2 SCC 745; Ritesh
87 H
88 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 11 S.C.R.
A R. Sah v. Dr. Y. L. Yamul 1996 (2) SCR 695 =(1996) 3 SCC
253; Union of India v. Ramesh Ram (2009) 6 SCC 619;
Union of India v. Satya Prakash 2006 (3) SCR 789 =(2006)
4 SCC 550; and M. Nagaraj v. Union of India 2006 (7)
Suppl. SCR 336 =(2006) 8 SCC 212 - referred to.
B
Case Law Reference:
1996 (5) Suppl. SCR 696 relied on para 9
2004 (4) Suppl. SCR 888 relied on para 9
c 2010 (6) SCR698 followed para 9
1992 (2) Suppl. SCR 454 referred to para 10
1995 (2) SCR 35 referred to para 10
D 1996 (2) SCR 695 referred to para 15
2009 (6) sec 619 referred to para 16
2006 (3) SCR 789 referred to para 18
2006 (7) Suppl. SCR 336 referred to para 18
E
C!VIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
8499 of 2012.
From the Judgment & Order dated 17 .8.2010 of the High
Court of Guwahati at Guwahati in Writ Petition No. 1040 of
F 2010.
Ravi C. Prakash, Purushottam Sharma Tripathi for the
Appellant.
G Avijit Roy, Manish Goswami for the Respondents.
The following order of the Court was delivered
ORDER
H 1. Leave granted.
ALOK KUMAR PANDIT v. STATE OF ASSAM & ORS. 89
2. The questions which arise for consideration in this A
appeal filed against the order of the Division Bench of the
Guwahati High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the
appellant for quashing the selection made by the Assam Public
Service Commission (for short, 'he Commission') are whether
a candidate of reserved category, who is adjudged more B
meritorious than open/general category candidates, is entitled
to be appointed in the service/cadre/post of his choice/
preference against the post earmarked for the reserved
category to which he belongs and whether while computing the
quota/percentage of reservation, such candidate should be c
treated to have been allotted a post in the open category.
3. On a requisition received from the State Government,
the Commission issued advertisement No.6/2006 dated
10.8.2006 for 116 posts of Assam Civil Service Class-I (Junior
Grade), Assam Police Service (Junior Grade), Labour Officer, D
Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Inspector of
Labour, Inspector of Taxes and Inspector of Excise. These
included 11 backlog posts of reserved categories of Scheduled
Castes, S1.,heduled Tribes (P) and Scheduled Tribes (H). The
appellant, who belongs to OBC applied for recruitment against E
the advertised posts. After clearing the preliminary and final
examination, the appellant was called for interview. The list of
selected candidates was published by the Commission on
15.6.2009.
F
4. As the appellant's name did not figure in the merit list,
he submitted an application under the Right to Information Act,
2005 for supply of the details of marks awarded to him in
various papers and interview. Vide reply dated 16.7.2009, the
Commission informed the appellant that he had secured 840 G
marks (669 in the main examination and 141 in the interview).
The appellant then filed Writ Petition No.3590/2009 for quashing
the entire selection and for issue of a mandamus to the
Commission to prepare fresh select list in accordance with the
recruitment rules and the reservation policy framed by the State
H
90 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 11 S.C.R.
A Government. Some other unsuccessful candidates also filed
writ petitions questioning the selection made by the
Commission. The Division Bench of the High Court disposed
of all the petitions by common order dated 1.9.2009 and
directed the Commission to prepare fresh select list.
B
5. In compliance of the direction given by the High Court,
the Commission prepared fresh select list which was notified
on 18.2.2010. The appellant's name did not find place even
in the fresh list. He, therefore, filed Writ Petition No.1040/2010
and prayed for issue of a mandamus to the Commission to
C again revise the select list by contending that more meritorious
candidates of the reserved category of OBC who should have
been adjusted against the open category posts were illegally
appointed against the posts earmarked for the OBC. He
pleaded that the Commission committed serious error by
D allotting the posts in Assam Civil Service to OBC candidates
who, keeping in view their overall merit, should have been
appointed against the open category posts and, in any case,
for the purpose of computing quota of reservation for OBC,
such appointments should be treated as having been made
E against open category posts.
6. The Division Bench of the High Court considered the
case of one Manjit Barkakoti, who had secured 952 marks and
was placed at Sl.No.25 in the overall merit, but could not be
F appointed to the Assam Civil Service against the open
category post because his marks were less than other open
category candidates and held that no illegality was committed
by appointing him to that service against the post earmarked
for the reserved category. The Division Bench further held that
G appointment of the can,didates of the reserved category, who
were adjudged more meritorious than some of the open
category candidates against the posts earmarked for the
particular reserved category did not result in usurpation of the
quota earmarked for that category. All this is evinced from the
following portions of the impugned order:
H
ALOK KUMAR PANDIT v. STATE OF ASSAM & ORS. 91
"5. The contention advanced by the petitioner that Manjit A
Barkakoti being at SI. No.25 of the over all merit list should
be treated was a general category candidate has
dangerous portents with the law cannot countenance. If
Manjit Barkakoti is to be treated as a general category
candidate, he will not make it to the Assam Civil Service B
even with lesser marks will qualify as an OBC candidate
for the Assam Civil Service to the exclusion of a more
meritorious OBC candidates. Such a situation cannot be
allowed to prevail.
6. The perception of the petitioner is capable of being C
analysed from another standpoint. According to the
petitioner, by treating such meritorious candidates as
reserved category candidates, the actions of the Public
Service Commission have reduced the posts available for
reserved category candidates. The aforesaid perception D
of the petitioner is not correct on facts. Along with a
general merit list, the Public Service Commission has
prepared separate select list for each of the service for
which advertisement was issued. The number of posts
available in each service and the distribution thereof E
amongst the general candidates and each of the reserved
category candidate is mentioned in the select list
published. 29 posts in all for all the different services in
question were available. A reading of the select list for
each service as prepared by the Commission clearly F
indicates that 29 OBC candidates have been appointed.
If that be so, the concept of usurping the quota for OBC
candidates, as sought to be so, the concept of usurping
the quota for OBC candidates, as sought to be urged, will
have no basis. Above all, it is not the case of the petitioner G
that any OBC candidate securing less than 840 marks
(secured by the petitioner) has been appointed in any
service."
7. Learned counsel for the appellant referred to the
provisions of the Assam Scheduled Castes and Scheduled H
92 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 11 S.C.R.
A Tribes (Reservation of Vacancies in Services and Posts) Act,
1978, Assam Public Service Combined Competitive
Examination Rules. 1989 and office memo No.ARP-338/83/14
dated Dispur, the 4th January, 1984 issued by the State
Government and argued that the reserved category candidates,
B who were more meritorious than open category candidates, but
were appointed against the reserved category posts should be
deemed to have been appointed against the posts earmarked
for the open category and they cannot be treated as appointed
against the posts earmarked for the reserved category, which
C is constitutionally and legally impermissible. He submitted that
if migration is allowed to more meritorious candidates of the
reserved category, who, as per their overall merit should be
appointed against the general category posts then the quota
earmarked for reserved category will be reduced and that
would be clearly contrary to the provisions of the rules framed
D under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, the reservation
policy framed by the State Government and Articles 14 and 16
of the Constitution.
8. Learned counsel for the State of Assam supported the
E impugned order and argued that the view taken by the High
Court on the entitlement of more meritorious candidates of
reserved category to opt for the reserved category posts is in
consonance with the law laid down by this Court and the
appellant who is less meritorious reserved category candidate
F cannot claim appointment to the State services because that
would amount to violation of the rights of more meritorious
candidates of his own category.
9. We have considered the argument/submission of the
G learned counsel for the parties. In our view, the questions
framed in the opening paragraph of this order are no longer
res integra and must be answered in affirmative in view of the
judgments of this Court in State of Bihar v. M. Neethi Chandra
(1996) 6 SCC 36, Anurag Patel v. U.P. Public Service
Commission (2005)9 SCC 742 and Union oflndia v. Ramesh
H Ram r201 Ol 7 sec 234.
ALOK KUMAR PANDIT v. STATE OF ASSAM & ORS. 93
10. However, before adverting to aforesaid judgments we A
consider it proper to notice two other judgments in Indra
Sawhney v. Union of India 1992 Supp. (3) SCC 217 and
R.K.Sabharwal v. State of Punjab (1995) 2 SCC 745. In the
first of these cases, the nine Judges Bench considered the
constitutional validity of O.M.s dated 13.8.1990 and 25.9.1991 B
issued by the Government of India on the issue of reservation
of socially and educationally backward classes. B.P.Jeevan
Reddy, J., wrote the majority opinion on his own behalf and on
behalf of Chief Justice M.H. Kania and M.N. Venkatachaliah
and A.M. Ahmadi, JJ. S. Ratnavel Pandian, T.K.Thommen, c
Kuldip Singh, P.B.Sawant and R.M.Sahai, JJ., wrote separate
opinions. In his detailed judgment B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.
answered several questions. In paragraph 811 of the judgment
he made the following observations:
"811. In this connection it is well to remember that the D
reservations under Article 16(4) do not operate like a
communal reservation. It may well happen that some
members belonging to, say, Scheduled Castes get
selected in the open competition field on the basis of their
own merit; they will not be counted against the quota E
reserved for Scheduled Castes; they will be treated as
open competition candidates."
11. In the second case, the Constitution Bench held that
the State cannot count a reserved candidate selected in the F
open category againsrthe vacancies in the reserved category.
12. If the proposition laid down in Indra Sawhney v. Union
of India (supra) and R.K.Sabharwal v. State of Punjab (supra)
are considered in abstract, it may be possible to say that once
a reserved category candidate secures higher merit than open G
category candidates, he can be considered for appointment
only against open category post and the quota of the particular
reserved category cannot be reduced by treating his
appointment as one made against the post earmarked for the
reserved category to which he belongs. However, literal H
94 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2012] 11 S.C.R.
A application of this proposition can lead to serious anomaly and
discrimination inasmuch as more meritorious candidate of the
particular reserved category could be deprived of the service/
cadre/post of his choice/preference and less meritorious
candidate of the reserved category could get appointment on
B the post which would otherwise be available to more meritorious
candidate. This can be illustrated by the following example: -
'X' and 'Y' are members of reserved category. They
compete for selection for recruitment to All-India Services,
which includes, IAS, IPS, IRS, etc. In the merit list prepared
c by the Commission 'X' is placed higher than some of the
open category candidates but on the basis of his overall
inter se merit with the open category candidates he could
get appointment only to IRS. 'X' can get the post of his
choice/preference i.e. IAS provided his case is
D considered for appointment against the posts earmarked
for the particular reserved category to which he belongs.
If he is not allowed to do so, then why who is less
meritorious than 'X' within the reserved category will get
appointment to IAS against the reserved post. In this
E manner 'X' will, despite his better merit within the reserved
category, stand discriminated in the matter of appointment
against the post for which he had given his preference.
13. The anomaly of the type mentioned above was not
F countenanced in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (supra) and
R.K.Sabharwal v. State of Punjab (supra) and, therefore, the
Court did not have the occasion to deal with the same. However,
we are convinced that appointment of less meritorious
candidate of the reserved category against the service/cadre/
G post of his choice and denial of such appointment to more
meritorious candidate of that category would result in blatant
violation of the doctrine of equality enshrined in Articles 14 and
16 of the Constitution.
14. In State of Bihar v. M. Neethi Chandra (supra), this
H Court considered the question whether the candidates of the
ALOK KUMAR PANDIT v. STATE OF ASSAM & ORS. 95
reserved categories who had secured more marks than open A
category candidates could be placed in a disadvantageous
position because they were allotted branches which were not
of their choice. If they were allotted branches as per their merii
among the reserved category candidates then they would have
got the branches of their choice. The writ petitions filed by more B
meritorious candidates of the reserved categories were
disposed of by the High Court by directing that the seats should
be first offered to the candidates of reserved category on merit
and once all the reserved seats are filled, the remaining seats
should be offered to the general category. The High Court c
a
made further arrangement for the reserved category of girls,
who could get seats on merit on their own reservation as girls
as well as on reserved seats as scheduled casts/scheduled
tribes etc. The girls were to be considered first for admission
against the seats reserved for them. If any girl belonged to
0
scheduled casts/scheduled tribe, etc., she was to be given a
choice of one of the two reservations and the girls in excess of
the reserved vacancies could then seek admission on general
merit. While partly reversing the order of the High Court, this
Court observed:
E
"Let us take a situation in which in a particular reserved
category there are x number of seats but the candidates
qualifying according to criteria· fixed for that category are
x+5 with the best among them also qualifying on merit as
general candidates. According to ,the arrangement made F
by Circular No. 20, the first candidate gets a choice along
with the general category candidate but being not high
enough in the list, gets a choice lesser than what he could
secure in the reserved category to which he was entitled.
The x number of seats could then be filled up with the four G
qualifying candidates being denied admission for want of
seats. This would have been harsh for the best candidate
as well as violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution. On the other hand, if the direction of the High
Court' is followed, the first x number of candidates get H
96 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2012] 11 S.C.R.
A seats according to merit against the reserved seats but
the remaining 5 will also have to be 'adjusted' against the
open seats for regular candidates. These 5 will be those
who are not qualified according to the general merit criteria
and so will necessarily displace 5 general candidates who
B would be entitled to seats on merit.
At the same time, as pointed out above, all is not well with
the Government Circular No. 20 as it operates against the
very candidates for whom the protective discrimination is
devised. The intention of Circular No. 20 is to give full
c benefit of reservation to the candidates of the reserved
categories. However. to the extent the meritorious among
them are denied the choice of college and subject which
they could secure under the rule of reservation. the circular
cannot be sustained. The circular. therefore. can be given
D effect only if the reserved category candidate qualifying on
merit with general candidates consents to being
considered as a general candidate on merit-cum-choice
basis for allotment of college/institution and subject."
E (emphasis supplied)
15. In Anurag Patel v. U.P. Public SeNice Commission
(supra) this Court was called upon to consider whether more
meritorious candidates of reserved category who were
adjusted against the posts earmarked for general category
F were not entitled to make a choice of the post earmarked for
reserved category. The facts as noticed by this Court were that
the 3rd respondent, i.e., Rajesh Kumar Chaurasia in CA No.
4794 of 1998, who secured 76th place in the select list, filed
Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 46029 of 1993 before the
G High Court of Allahabad contending that he was appointed as
a Sales Tax Officer, although the appellant in CA No. 4794 of
1998, i.e., Nanku Ram (Anurag Patel) who was also a
Backward Class candidate, was appointed as a Deputy
Collector, who according to the 3rd respondent, had secured
H 97th rank in the select list, a rank lower than him. Similarly, 8
ALOK KUMAR PANDIT v. STATE OF ASSAM & ORS. 97
persons, all belonging to Backward Classes, who find their A
names in the select list filed Writ Petition No. 22753 of 1993
alleging that they were entitled to get postings in higher cadre
of service as the persons who secured lower rank in the select
list were given appointment to higher posts. The first petitioner
in the writ petition i.e. Shri Rama Sanker Maurya and the 2nd B
petitioner i.e. Shri Abdul Samad were at Serial Nos. 13 and
14 in the select list. According to these petitioners, persons
lower in rank who got appointment in the reserved category
were given postings on.the ground that those posts were
earmarked for being appointed in Class II services. After c
noticing the judgments in Ritesh R. Sah v. Dr. Y. L. Yamul
(1996) 3 SCC 253 and State of Bihar v. M. Neethi Chandra
(supra), the Court observed:
"In the instant case, as noticed earlier, out of 8 petitioners
in Writ Petition No. 22753 of 1993, two of them who had D
secured Ranks 13 and 14 in the merit list, were appointed
as Sales Tax Officer II, whereas the persons who secured
Ranks 38, 72 and 97, ranks lower to them, got
appointment as Deputy Collectors and the Division Bench
of the High Court held that it is a clear injustice to the E
persons who are more meritorious and directed that a list
of all selected Backward Class candidates shall be
prepared separately including those candidates selected
in the general category and their appointments to the posts
shall be made strictly in accordance with merit as per the F
select list and preference of a person higher in the select
list will be seen first and appointment given accordingly,
while preference of a person lower in the list will be seen
only later."
G
16. A somewhat similar question came up before the three
Judge Bench in Union of India v. Ramesh Ram (2009) 6 SCC
619. Some candidates belonging to OBC had filed an
application before Madras Bench of the Central Administrative
Tribunal challenging Rule 16(2) of the Civil Services H
98 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 11 S.C.R.
A Examination Rules, 2005. They pleaded that adjustment of
more meritorious OBC candidates against the OBC quota was
illegal. According to them, such candidate should be adjusted
against the unreserved/general category posts and allow more
OBC candidates, who were lower in rank, to be recommended
B for the posts earmarked for that category. The Tribunal held that
the OBC candidates who were selected on merit must be
adjusted against the general category posts. It further held that
in terms of the judgment of this Court in Anuraj Patel vs. U.P.
Public Service Commission (supra), the allocation of service
c should be in accordance with rank-cum-preference with priority
given to meritorious candidates. The three Judge Bench
noticed the judgments in Ritesh R. Sah v. Dr. Y.L. Yamul
(supra), Anurag Patel v. U.P. Public Service Commission
(supra) and R. K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab (supra) and
referred the matter to the Constitution Bench.
0
17. When the matter was placed before the Constitution
Bench (the judgment of the Constitution Bench is reported as
Union of India v. Ramesh Ram (2010) 7 SCC 234), the
following question was framed:
E
"Whether candidates belonging to reserved category, who
get recommended against general/unreserved vacancies
on account of their merit (without the benefit of any
relaxation/concession), can opt for a higher choice of
F service earmarked for reserved category and thereby
migrate to reserved category."
18. The Constitution Bench referred to the rules, the
judgments of this Court in Union of India v. Satya Prakash
(2006) 4 SCC 550, Ritesh R. Sah v. Dr. Y.L Yamul (supra),
G State of Bihar v. M. Neethi Chandra (supra), Indra Sawhney
v. Union of India (supra), M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006)
8 SCC 212, Anurag Patel v. U.P. Public Service Commission
(supra) and observed:
H "The decision in Anurag Patel rectified the anomaly which
ALOK KUMAR PANDIT v. STATE OF ASSAM & ORS. 99
had occurred since U.P. PSC had allotted services of A
lower preference to the candidates of Backward Classes
who were meritorious enough to qualify as per the criteria
laid down for general category candidates. Such
meritorious candidates were disadvantaged on account of
qualifying on merit which was patently offensive to the B
principles outlined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
This Court had reached such conclusion to ensure that
allocation of service is in accordance with the rank-cum-
preference basis with priority given to meritorious
candidates for service allocation. c
The decision in Anurag Patel in turn referred to the earlier
decision in Ritesh R. Sah v. Dr. Y.L. Yamul. However, we
have already distinguished the judgment in Ritesh R. Sah.
That decision was given in relation to reservation for
admission to postgraduate medical courses and the same D
cannot be readily applied in the present circumstances
where we are dealing with the examinations conducted by
UPSC. The ultimate aim of civil services aspirants is to
qualify for the most coveted services and each of the
services have quotas for reserved classes, the benefits of E
which are availed by MRC candidates for preferred
service. As highlighted earlier, the benefit accrued by
different candidates who secure admission in a particular
educational institution is of a homogeneous nature.
However, the benefits accruing from successfully qualifying F
in UPSC examination are of a varying nature since some
services are coveted more than others."
(emphasis supplied)
19. The Constitution Bench noticed the judgment in R.K. G
Sabharwal v. State of Punjab (supra) and distinguished the
same by making the following observation:
"Reference was also made to R.K. Sabharwal v. State of
Punjab, this Court had declared that the State shall not H
100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 11 S.C.R.
A count a reserved category candidate selected in the open
category against the vacancies in the reserved category.
However, by this it could not be inferred that if the
candidate himself wishes to avail a vacancy in the reserved
category, he shall be prohibited from doing so. After
B considering the counsel's submissions and deliberations
among ourselves, we are of the view that the ratio in that
case is not applicable for the purpose of the present case.
That case was primarily concerned with the Punjab Service
of Engineers in the Irrigation Department of the State of
c Punjab. The decision was rendered in the context of the
posts earmarked for the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled
Tribes and Backward Classes on the roster. It was noted
that once such posts are filled the reservation is complete.
Roster cannot operate any further and it sfiould be
stopped. Any post falling vacant in a cadre thereafter, is
D
to be filled from the category reserved or general due to
retirement or removal of a person belonging to the
respective category. Unlike the examinations conducted by
UPSC which includes 21 different services this case
pertains to a single service and therefore the same cannot
E be compared with the examination conducted by UPSC.
The examination conducted by UPSC is very prestigious
and the topmost services of this nation are included in this
examination. In this respect, it is obvious that there is fierce
competition amongst the successful candidates as well to
F secure appointments in the most preferred services. This
judgment is strictly confined to the enabling provision of
Article 16(4) of the Constitution under which the State
Government has the sole power to decide whether there
is a requirement for reservations in favour of the backward
G class in the services under the State Government.
However, the present case deals with positions in the
various civil services under the Union Government that are
filled through the examination process conducted by
UPSC. Therefore, the fact-situation in R.K. Sabharwal
H case is clearly distinguishable.
ALOK KUMAR PANDIT v. STATE OF ASSAM & ORS. 101
20. In view of the above di~cussion and the law laid down A
in State of Bihar v. M. Neethi Chandra (supra), Anurag Patel
v. U.P. Public Service Commission (supra), which has been
approved by the Constitution Bench in Union of India v. Ramesh
Ram, we hold that the official respondents did .not commit any
illegality by appointing more meritorious candi~ates ofOBC B
to Assam Civil Service for which they had given preference
and the High Court did not commit any error by dismissing the
writ petition.
21. As a sequel to the above, the questions framed in this
appeal are answered in the following terms: C
"(1) A reserved category candidate who is adjudged more
meritorious than open category candidates is entitled to
choose the particular service/cadre/post as per his choice/
preference and he cannot be compelled to accept D
appointment to an inferior post leaving the more important
service/cadre/post in the reserved category for less
meritorious candidate of that category.
(2) On his appointment to the service/cadre/post of his E
choice/preference, the reserved category candidate
cannot be treated as appointed against the open category
post."
22. In the result the appeal is dismissed. The parties are
left to bear their own costs. F
R.P. Appeal dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "reservation"Sign in to search