CHATTAR SINGH AND ORS.versusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

A                      CHATTAR SINGH AND ORS.
                                  v.
                     STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

                              SEPTEMBER 24, 1996

B              [K. RAMASWAMY, K. VENKATASWAMI AND
                         G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.)

          SeIVice Law:

C         Rajasthan State and Subordinate SeIVices (Direct RecIUitment by com-
    bined competitive Examinations) Rules, 1962:

         Rule 13 Proviso, read with Rule 7-Services of the Statt-21% reserva-
  tion for O.B.Cs.-RecIUitment for the year 1991-RecIUitment by competitive
  examination-Preliminary examination and main examination-Number of
D candidates to be examined in· main examination to be 15 times of total
  vacancies-Discretion of Commission to keep cut off marks upto 5% less
  than general candidates in case of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes if
  they are not in sufficient number to come up to 15 times of total num-
  ber-Candidates belonging to O.B.C. category claiming the benefit of 5% cut
E off in marks like Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes-Held, 5% cut off
  marks in the preliminary examinations from the lower range fixed for general
  candidates is confined only to Schedule Caste and Scheduled Tribe can-
  didates who could not secure total aggregate marks on par with the general
  candidates-The Rule expressly confines the benefit of the proviso to
  Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes-By process of interpretation O.B.Cs.
F cannot be declared alike the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes-Can-
  didates belonging to OBCs are not entitled to 5% cut off marks as provided
  under the proviso to Rule 13--However, in view of the latest amendment the
  Commission would prepare and publish separate lists of candidates in each
  category i.e. Genera~ OBCs, SCs, STs and physically handicapped so as to
G make up number of candidates 15 times the vacancies and enable them to
  appear in the main examination.

          Constitution of India, 1950 :

          A11icles 14, 15(4), 16(4)-l'roviso to Rule 13. of Rajasthan State and
H Subordinate SeIVices (Direct Recruitment by Combined Competitive Ex-
                                          696
                        CHATTARSINGHv. STAIB                           697

aminatio11s) Rules, 1962 providing for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe A
candidates 5% cut off marks less than the general candidates in preliminary
examination so as to make them eligible for main examination-Candidates
belonging to OBCs also claiming the benefit of the proviso-Held, Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes stand as two separate classes while OBCs stand
apart-1710ugh OBCs are socially and educationally not f01ward they do not B
suffer the same social handicaps inflicted upon Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes-They are always treated dis-similar and they do not fonn
an integral class with Dalits and Tribes for purpose of Articles 16(4) and
15(4).                                        .

       Madhu Kishwar & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors., (1996) 5 SCC 125, C
referred to.

       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 13118 of
19%.

     From the Judgment and Order dated 30.8.96 of the Rajasthan High          D
Court in C.W.P. No. 1579of19%.

       Sushil Kumar Jain for the Appellants.

       B.D. Sharma for the Respondt>uts.
                                                  0
                                                                              E
       The following Order of the Court was delivered :

      Mr. B.D. Sharma, learned counsel for Public Service Commission,
takes notice.

       We have heard learned counsel for the parties.                         F

       Leave granted.

      This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order of
the High Court of Rajasthan, made on August 30, 19% in Civil Writ
Petition No. 1579/96. The Government of Rajasthan issued a notification       G
on September 28, 1993 declaring reservation to the extent of 21% of the
posts in various services of State of Rajasthan reserved for the OBCs which
was given statutory force by Rule 8-A of the Rajasthan State and Subor-
dinate Services (Direct Recruitment by Combined Competitive Examina-
tions) Rules, 1962 (for short, 'the Rules') w.e.f. September 28, 1993.        H
    698                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A Notification dated November 21, 1994 was issued calling applications for
    recruitment to 275 posts in administrative and subordinate services; of
    them, 137 we:re for general candidates; 52 for OBCs.; 50 for Schedules
    castes; and 36 for Schedules Tribes. On April 9, 1996, preliminary examina-
    tions were conducted and results of the candidates for final examination
    were declared. Candidates belonging to OBCs came to challenge the vires
B   of the proviso to Rule 13.

          Rule 13 of the Rules prescribes the mode of conducting preliminary
    as well as main examination. It reads as under :

            "13. Scheme of Examination" personality and viva-voce test :- The
c           Competitive Examination shall be conducted by the Commission
            in two stages i.e., preliminary Examination and Main Examination
            as per the scheme specified in Schedule-III .. The marks obtained
            in the preliminary Examination by the candidates, who are
            declared qualified for admission to the Main Examination will not
D           be counted for determining their final order of merit. The number
            of candidates to be admitted to the Main Examination will be 15
            times the total approximate number of vacancies to be filled in the
            year in the various services and posts; provided they are otherwise
            eligible, but in the said range all those candidates, who secure the
E           same percentage of marks as may be fixed by the Commission for
            any lowest range will be admitted to the Main Examination.

            Provided further that if adequate number of candi~ates belonging
            to the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes are not available
            amongst the candidates to be declared qualified for admission to
F           the Main Examination, the Commission may at their discretion
            keep the cut off marks upto 5 (five) per cent less the General
            candidates.

            Candidates who obtain such minimum qualifying marks in the
            Main Examination as may be fixed by the Commission in their
G           discretion shall be summoned by them for an interview. The
            Commission shall award marks. to each candidate interviewed by
            them, having regard to their character, personality, address, physi-
            que and knowledge of Rajasthani Culture. However for selection
            to the Rajasthan Police Service Candidates having 'C' certificate
H           of N.C.C. will be given preference. The marks so awarded shall be
                      CHATIARSINGHv. STATE                            699

        added to the marks obtained in the Main Examination by each A
        such candidate."

     Rule 7 prescribes the syllabus for examinations and the subjects in
which the candidates are required to write the examination as set out in
Scheduled III which deals in that behalf.
                                                                            B
     A reading of Rule 7 read with Schedule III would indicate that the
Scheme of Examination consists of :

      (i) Preliminary Examination;

      (ii) Main Examination.
                                                                            c
      The Preliminary Examination will consist of two papers i.e. one
Compulsory Paper and one Optional Paper, which will be objective type
and would carry a maximum of 400 marks in the subjects mentioned in'
Sections 'A' and 'B'. The Examination is meant to serve as a screening test D
only. The marks obtained in the Preliminary Examination by the can-
didates, who are declared qualified for admission to the Main Examination
will not be counted for determining their final order of merit. The number
of canaidates to be admitted to the Main Examination will be 15 times the
total or approximate number of vacancies to be filled in the year in various E
services and posts, provided they are otherwise eligible, but in the said
range all those candidates, who secure the same percentage of marks as
may be fiXed by the Commission for any lowest range, will be admitted to
the main Examination. The proviso left that embargo and empowers the
Commission to keep in its discretion the cut off marks up to 5 per cent less
than the general candidates, if adequate number of candidates belonging F
to the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes are not available amongst the
candidates to be declared qualified for admission to the Main Examination.

      When the matter had gone before the Division Bench consisting of
Hon'ble B.R. Arora and J.C. Verma, JJ., the learned Judges differed on
the interpretation of the proviso to Rule 13. The learned Judge Mr. Justice G
B.R. Arora had held that the OBCs' are not entitled to the benefit of the
proviso to Rule 13 for reducing 5% of the qualifying marks secured in the
preliminary Examinations so as to enable the OBCs to be 15 times the
required number of posts reserved for OBCs. The learned Judge Mi;.
Justice J.C. Verma held that having included OBCs, SC and STs as H
    700                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A backward classes in Article 16(4), the omission of them in proviso to Rule
    13 would violate Article 16(4) of the Constitution. When the matter was
    referred to the third Judge limited to the point of difference of opinion,
    the learned Judge Mr. Justice V.J. Kokje, agreed with Shri Justice Arora
    and held that proviso does not apply to the OBCs. Therefore, OBCs are
B   not eligible to claim reduction of 5% of the marks secured by them in the
    Preliminary Examination for enabling them to appear in the Main Ex-
    amination. Thus, this appeal by special leave.

            Shri Sushil Kumar Jain, learned counsel for the appellant raises
    three-fold contention. According to the learned counsel, the main part of.
C   Rule 13 does not speak of any minimum marks so as to enable the
    candidate to appear in the Main Examination. The rule requires considera-
    tion of all those candidates who have applied for the post, if they have
    fulfilled basic qualifications prescribed for the posts. The qualified can-
    didates are eligible to write Preliminary Examination conducted by Public .
D   Service Commission. While calling the qualified candidates to the main
    examination, the PSC should announce results in such a way that can-
    didates numbering 15 times the total posts earmarked for each category,
    are called to write the main examination. Under Rule 13 on working out
    the number, the Public Service Commission has to put the minimum of the
    marks in such a way that there would be available opportunity to the 15
E   times the candidates belonging to various categories to appear for the main
    examination. Therefore, the prescription of the minimum of the marks and
    elimination of the candidates irrespective of the fact whether· or not they
    reached 15 times.the posts is an arbitrary procedure adopted by the Public
    Service Commission.
F
        Secondly, it is contended that Article 16(4) of the Constitution does
  not specify whether they should belong to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled
  Tribes or OBCs. All are compendiously called Backward Classes. OBCs
  have now been declared eligible for selection under the reserved quota,
G having been fused for the purpose. of Article 16(4); their elimination under
  proviso to Rule 13 is arbitrary, violating their fundamental right to equality
  enshrined in Articles 14 and 16(1) and 16(4). He further contends that
  once the reservation has been prescribed to various categories, namely,
  Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes & OBCs under Article 16(4) the
  J>ublic Service Commission is required to prepare a separate list of the
H candidates while declaring the result of the Preliminary Examination and
                        CHATIARSINGHv. STAIB                             701

to call candidates numbering 15 times the total posts earmarked for them.       A
The candidates who secure the minimum of the marks so as to be eligible
to appear in the main exams should be called. The latest amendment to
Rule 13 and Illrd Schedule to Rule 7 and also to Rule 10(1) of the Rules
by notification dated April 2, 1996 which indicates that the result should
be declared categoryWise, was relied on. So categoryWise declaration is         B
implicit in it. The High Court, therefore, was not right in its consideration
of the effect of Rule 13.

        Shri Badri Das Sharma, learned counsel for the Public Service Com-
 mission, contended that main part of Rule 13 is that the Public Service
 Commission would prescribe minimum cut off marks out of the aggregate          C
 marks secured by the general candidates in the preliminary examination
 conducted as per Rule 7 read with IIIrd Schedule. From among the
 candidates who obtain such minimum qualifying marks as may be fixed by
  the Commission in their discretion and candidates numbering 15 times the
  posts shall be summoned by. them for main examinations. If more can-          D
  didates should secure same cut off marks, all wUl be called for main
  examination. If the candidates are more than the 15 times pos~, only that
 number, and all candidates who secure the minimum cut off marks, ir-
 respective of whether it exceeded 15 times or not are to be permitted to
 write main examination. This interpretation is consiStent with the main part
  of Rule 13. The operation of the proviso should be extended only in cases     E
 where the SCs and STs do not come upto the minimum of 15 times even
  afte~ getting 5% of the minimum cut off marks in the lowest range. Those
  candidates who secured further lowest of 5% marks less than the lowest
  range of general candidates will be called to appear for the main examina-
  tion. The Rule thus worked out by the Public Service Commission is            F
  consistent with the spirit and .letter of Rule 13. He also contends that
 though OBCs declared eligible for the selection to the said services and
  had 21 % of the vacancies reserved for them, the OBCs and Scheduled
 Castes and Scheduled Tribes are distinct classes. The Sch~duled Castes
 .and Scheduled Tribes have been dealt with separately by the Constitution.     G
 All OBCs, are not identified under the Constitution to get the benefit
· under Article 16(4) or 15(4); those, among them, identified by a Commis-
  sion appointed by the President under Article 340 of the Constitution and
  accepted by the State Government or Central Government and notification
  in the Gazette as OBCs alone are treated as a Class but they cannot be
  confused with the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes who would stand        H
    702                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A   a separate class. The learned minority Judge was not right in holding that
    Article 14 was violated.

           As regards the third contention of Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, Shri
 ·. Sharma contends that there is no need to prepare a separate result of
B various categories for whic~ the recrui~ment was called for. That became
     necessary only as per the amended Rule under the notification dated April
     2, 1996 which is only prospective. Therefore, it does not apply to the
   · recruitment for the year 1991.

           In view of the respective contentions, the first question that arises for
C   consideration is whether Ruk 13, as interpreted by Shri Sushil Kumar Jain,
    is valid in law? To be fair to the learned Judges of the High Court, the first
    question was not addressed before the learned Judges in the manner in
    which it was argued before us. The thrust of the arguments before them
    was on proviso to Rule 13. A reading of Rule 13 would indicate that
D   competitive examination shall be conducted by the Public Service Commis-
    sion in two stages, namely, Preliminary Examination and Main Examina-
    tion. As per the Scheme specified in.Rule 7 and Schedule III, preliminary
    examinations are conducted on the subjects as per the syllabus and ag-
    gregate marks are taken into considerati6~ to call the candidates for main
    examination. Marks obtained in the preliminary examination by a candidate
E   would not be counted for the purpose of main examination to determine
    final order of merit. The number of candidates to be admitted to the main
    examination will be 15 times the total approximate number of vacancies to
    be filled in the year of recruitment in the various services and posts/vacan-
    cies notified or expected. However, the candidates would be otherwise
p   eligible in a particular range. All those candidates, who secure the same
    percentage of marks as may be fixed as the lowest range will be admitted
    for the main examination. It would thus be seen tha.t Rule 13 read with
    Rule 7 and Schedule III does not prescribe any minimum of the lowest
    range of marks for calling the candidates for appearing iti the main
    examination. What requir.es1t.P. be done,is thafthe Public Service Commis-
G   sion has to co~sid.e1;itli~1tiurnb:er oJLvacaacies notified or likely to bC"filled
    in11tb#oyear'(:Ofutei¢r11itm,nbrfot1oohicl\ :notifiA:a(foh 1w~ ·)published. 11'hen
    canclidatm1r.wh'o :hkdloaiY.Jfear~1JforJJ1ihe lRte!imiliaijJ ~niltipp; an.ii
    quidifilia cfolbmain:.examinatldn 1arie~lk:mbensunrened ibyjthte teit.'{ai'Jie,:bj:>jid
    is:ft~limirr~tdmndbly!ilOn.~list bfi.l:landidates1sd1thai!~'portuttitydo sitilfmi
H hnW'>?. mminatiomsliliillrulic!fgim to eatm1taates1hurit0'ei;iil'grllij1timmlthe
                           CHATIARSINGHv. STATE                                      703

notified posts/vacancies in various services; in other words for every one                   A
post/vacancy there should be 15 candidates. There would be wider scope
to get best of the talent by way of competition in the examination. The
ultimate object is to get at least three candidates or as is prescribed, who
may be called for vivo-vote. Therefore, the lowest range of aggregate marks
as cut off for general candidates should be so worked out as to get the                      B
required number of candidates including OBCs, Schedule Castes and
Scheduled Tribes. The lowest range would, therefore, be worked out in
such a way that candidates numbering 15 times the notified posts/vacancies
would be secured so as to afford an opportunity to the candidates to
compete in the main examination.
                                                                                             c
       Under the proviso, if that range has not been reached by the can-
didates belonging to the SCs or the STs, there may be 5% further cut off
from the last range worked out for the general candidates so as to declare
them as qualified for appearing in the main examination. In other words,
where candidates belonging to the SCs and STs numbering 15 times the                         D
total vacancies reserved for them are not available then the Service Com-
mission has to go down further and cut off 5% of the marks from the lowest
of the range prescribed for general candidates and then declare as eligible
the SC and ST candidates who secured 5% less than the lowest range fixed
by P.S.C. for general candidates so as to enable them to appear for the
main examination. The candidates who thus obtain qualifying marks are                        E
eligible to appear and write the main examination. The respective propor-
tion of 1 : 3 or as may be prescribed and candidates who qualified in the
main examination will be called by the Commission, in their discretion, for
interview. The Commission shall award marks to each candidate inter-
viewed by them, having regard to their character, personality, address,
                                                                                             F
physique and knowledge of Rajasthani culture as is in vogue as per rules.
However, for selection to the Rajasthan Police Service; candidates having
'C' Certificate of N.C.C. will be given preference. The marks so awarded
shall be added to be marks obtained in the main examination by each such
candidamnmuJ:.n 101 ,_ ... .:,.;b L' .. ,,,·J
  ' ... :".~/(ID ;;J.i,;1l '.JrlJ 1IJ nm'JU :..di ·:I fl'u!·J A'"      .l . I
                                                                                             €J>
'.;,i,1 ·n.¥E~tkiiig')0t1tt<tifilHJSte~dill-ef'if1 ~i_ntlnittt\im·'Of,1S 1 tiime~P6Ptl:ie'
ooiididlttS&Ja¥eqaenlifte'd fifia~e-suttiJdkf~           it rwoutd;iibf be.1iec~s~
                                                           1


t~ ~ick l~ei~ffiit!ri.JJ~ser-vettleclri11iaaru&! 1tr\V6ufdiwal)bei~d!Sstriy1ll'
d~eiaw merresli1t:ib¥ <n1(;f@'tBaiilii~liftfeYtlie'!te1illPhO'filleti ~iit\ae~/pds~
sliI=@-f6'leniiblet~n\H{b tfuri\~levuHherlfuaih ~a'6oir11TlllP~et''l:ff #
                          SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
     704
                                                                     .
 A screening test'is to eliminate·unduly long number of persons to appear for
      main examination, If more candidates are called by declaring their result
      in preliminary examination, the object of Rule 15 would be frustrated.

           The next question is : whether the OBCs are to be treated alike
. · B Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and given the 5% cut off marks in
   the Preliminary Examination under proviso to Rule 13 and whether omis-
   sion thereof prohibits the right to equality envisaged in Article 14? Article
   14 provides right to equality of opportunity c.and equal protection of law.
   Articles 15 and 16 are species of Article 14. Article 16(1) prohibits dis-
   crimination and gives equality of opportunity to every citizen in matters
 C relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State,
   Article 16(4) elongates the equality of opportunity to unequals by affirm-
   ative action by enjoining upon the State to make provision for reservation
   of appointments for posts in favour of "any backward class of citizens"
   which in the opinion of the State is noi: adequately represented in the
 D service under the State. It is now well settled legal position that Article
   16(4) is not exception but a facet of Article 14 and 16(1). It gives power
   to the State to effectuate the opportunity of equality to any backward class
   of citizens. Article· 366(24) ·defmes 'Scheduled Castes' and Article 366(25)
   defines 'Scheduled Tribes'. Article 341 empowers the President in consult-
   ation with the Governor of the State specify by public notification that the
 E tribes or tribal communities. or parts of or groups within tribes or tribal
   communities which shall for the purposes of this Constitution be deemed
   to be Scheduled Tribes in relation to that State or Union territory, as the
   case may be. Similarly, Article 342(1) gives power to the President to
   specify the tribes or tribal communities which shall, for the purpose of
 p Constitution, be deemed to be Scheduled Castes in relation to the State or
   Union Territories, as the case may be. That will be subject to the law made
   by the Parliament under clause (2) of Article 341 and 342(2) thereof. The
   expression "Backward Classes" has ~ot been defined under the Constjtution
   but the Pr.esident has been empowered to appoint as Commission to
 G investigate into the conditions of backward classes for recommendation
   with regard to steps to be taken by the Union or the State Governments
   to remove difficulties and to improve their eonditions. Commissions like
   Kelcker .Commission and Mandal Commission were appointed by the
   President who identified the backward classes. On identification of social
   and educational backwardness and acceptance thereof by the appropriate
 H Government, the President or the Governor of the State Government
                        CHAlTARSINGHv. STATE                              705

would issue public notification extending the benefits to improve their A
conditions. Until such a notification is published, Backward Classes are not
entitled to the benefit of reservation under Article 15(4) or 16(4) of the
Constitution. Articles 14 and 16 read with the Preamble gives equality of
opportunity in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office
under the State. By hierarchical unequal social status and denial of oppor-
                                                                                 B
tunities and facilities due to untouchability, a practice against Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes living in the forest area require protective
measures to remove handicaps and disavantages suffered by the members
belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes so as to enable
 them to compete for selection. The appearance of injustice is denial of
justice. In Madhu Kishwar & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors., [1996] 5 SCC         c
125, para 38, it was laid down that law is the manifestation of principles of
justice. Rule of law should establish a uniform pattern for harmonious
existence in a society where every individual should exercise his rights to
his best advantage to achieve excellence, subject to the protective dis-
crimination. The best advantage of one person could be the worst disad- D
vantage to another. Law steps in to iron out such creases and ensures
equality of protection to individuals as well as group liberties. Man's status
is a creature of substantive as well as procedural law to which legal
incidents would attach. Justice, equality and fraternity are trinity for. social
and economic equality. Therefore, law is the foundation on which the
potential of the society stands. If the law is to adept itself to the needs of E
the changing society, ;t must be flexible and adaptable. The constitutional
objective of socio-economic democracy cannot be realised unless all sec-
tions of the society partkipate in the State power equally irrespective of
their caste, community, race, religion and sex. All discriminations in sharing
the State power made on these grounds and those discriminations are to F
be removed by positive measures. The concept of equality, therefore,
requires that law should be adaptable to meet equality. Article 38 mandates
to minimise inequality in income and to eliminate the inequality in status,
facilities and opportunities not only among the individual but also among
the groups of people to secure to them adequate means to improve
 excellence in all walks of life. Article 46 directs the State to promote with G
 special care the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections
 of the people, and in particular, of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
 Tribes, and to protect them from social injustice and all forms of exploita-
 tion. Equal protection class, therefore, requires affirmative action for those
placed unequally. Equality for unequals is secured by treating them une- H
    706                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A   qually. Affirmative action or positive discrimination, th_f!refore, is inbuilt in
    equality of opportunity in status enshrined in Articles 14 and 16(1) of the
    Constitution. Therefore, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes stand as
    two separate classes while OBCs stand apart.

B        The State had evolved the principle of reservation to an office of the
  State or post as an affirmative action to accord socio-economic justice
  guaranteed in the Preamble· of the Constitution; the fundamental rights and.
  the. directive principles which are the trinity of the Constitution to remove
  social education and economic backwardness as a constitutional policy to
  accord equality of opportunity, social status or dignity of person as is
C enjoined in Articles 14, 15, 16, 21, 38, 39, 39A, 46 etc. Article 335 enjoins
  the State to take the claims of Dalits and Tribes into consideration for
  appointment to an office/post in the services of the State consistently with
  efficiency of administrati,;m. Though OBCs are socially and educationally
  not forwards, they do not suffer the same social handicaps inflicted upon
D Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Articles 15(2) and 17 furnish
  historical and social dissatisfaction inflicted on them. The object of reser-
  vation for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes is to bring them into
  the mainstream of national life, while the objective in respect of the
  backward classes is to remove their social and educational handicaps.
  Therefore, they are always treated dis-similar and they do not form an
E integrated class with Dalits and Tribes for the purpose of Article 16(4) or
  15(4). Obviously, therefore, proviso to Rule 13 confines the 5% further cut
  off ma:rks in the preliminary examination from the lowest range fixed for
  general candidates. So, it is confined only to the Scheduled Castes and
  Scheduled Tribes who could not secure total aggregate marks on par with
F the general candidates. The Rule expressly confines .the benefit of the
  proviso to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. By process of inter-
  pretation, OBCs. cannot be declared alike the Scheduled Castes and
  Scheduled Tribes. Therefore, the contention that the doctrine of fusing
  "any backward class of citizen" in Article 16(4), further classification of
  Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and OBCs. as distinct classes for
G the purpose of reservation and omission to extend the same benefits to
  OBCs violates Article 14 is devoid of substance. If the logic of equality, as
   propounded by minority Judge is given acceptance, logically they are also
   entitled to reservation of seats in the House of the People or in tht:
  Legislative Assemblies of States, though confined to Scheduled Tribes and
H Scheduled Castes, by operation of Article 334(a) of the Constitution with



                                   Ir
                       CHATfARSINGHv. STATE                             707

a non obstante clause engrafted therein. The founding fathers of the           A
Constitution, having been alive to the dissimilarities of the socio-economic
and educational conditions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
and other segments of the society have given them separate treatment in
the Constitution. The Constitution has not expressly provided such benefits
to the OBCs except by way of sp,f:cific orders and public notifications by
                                                                               B
the appropriate Government. It would, therefore, be illogical and unrealis-
tic to think that omission to provide same benefits to OBCs, as was
provided to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, was void under
Article 16(1) and 14 of the Constitution.

     Accordingly we are of the view that the OBCs. are not entitled to         c
5% cut off marks in the priliminary examination as provided under proviso
to Rule 13.

       As regards the preparation of separate list of General, OBCs, SCs
STs and physically handicapped, in view of the fact that the latest amend-
ment has been made explicit what was implicit in Rule 13, we are of the        D
view that separate lists are required to be published by the Service Com-
mission in respect of the candidates in the respective categories so as to
make up number of candidates 15 times the notified or anticipated
posts/vacancies so as to enable them to appear in the main examination. It
is true that the amendment is prospective in operation. However, it does
not detract from the efficiency of Rule 13 originally made. In view of the
                                                                               E
above, the Public Serviee Commission is directed to call all those can-
didates that constitute 15 times the posts/vacancies notified or anticipated
in terms of the above declaration of law so as to enable them to appear in
the main examination.
                                                                               F
       The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

R.P.                                                   Appeal disposed of.