Supreme Court of India
UNION OF INDIAversusRAMESH RAM & ORS. ETC.
- Citation
- 2010 INSC 287
- Decided
- 7 May 2010
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- K G BALAKRISHNAN
Holding
MRC candidates may migrate to the reserved category at service allocation, and Rule 16(2) (and related sub‑rules) is constitutionally valid and consistent with Articles 14, 16(4) and 335.
Summary
The Supreme Court examined the validity of Rule 16(2) (and sub‑rules 3‑5) of the Civil Services Examination Rules, which allow meritorious candidates belonging to reserved categories (MRCs) who are placed in the general merit list to migrate to the reserved pool at the time of service allocation. The petitioners argued that such migration violated Articles 14, 16(4) and 335 of the Constitution and could cause the aggregate reservation to exceed the 50% ceiling laid down in Indira Sawhney. The Court held that the migration is a legitimate recognition of inter‑se merit among reserved candidates, that the vacated general seats are filled by general candidates, and that counting MRCs in the reserved pool does not breach the constitutional provisions. It further clarified that the rule is not inconsistent with Rule 16(1) and that the CAT order relying on Anurag Patel is valid. Consequently, the Court upheld the rule, set aside the Madras High Court judgment and dismissed the writ petitions.
Issues considered
- Whether Meritorious Reserved Category (MRC) candidates placed in the General list can be treated as Reserved Category candidates at the time of service allocation.
- Whether Rule 16(2), (3), (4) and (5) of the Civil Services Examination Rules are inconsistent with Rule 16(1) and violative of Articles 14, 16(4) and 335 of the Constitution.
- Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal's order, which relied on Anurag Patel and Ritesh R. Sah, is valid in the context of civil‑service reservations.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 16(4), s. Article 335
Subjects
reservationcivil services examinationmeritorious reserved categoryservice allocationconstitutional lawArticles 14, 16(4), 335proportionalityaggregate reservation ceilingRule 16UPSC
Judgment
[2010] 6 S.C.R. 698
A UNION OF INDIA
V.
RAMESH RAM & ORS. ETC.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 4310-4311 of 2010)
MAY 7, 2010
B
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI, S.H. KAPADIA, R.V.
RAVEENDRAN, B. SUDERSHAN REDDY AND P.
SATHASIVAM, JJ.)
c Constitution of India, 1950:
Articles 14, 16(4) and 335 - Reservation in Central Civil
Services - Meritorious Reserved Category candidates placed
in the list of unreserved category candidates - Exercising
choice to migrate to reserve category for the purpose of
0
allocation of service in the order of their preferences - HELD:
The reserved category candidates "belonging to OBC, SCI ST
categories" who are selected on merit and placed in the list
of General/Unreserved category candidates can choose to
E migrate to the respective reserved category at the time of
allocation of services and they would be counted as part of
the reserved pool for the purpose of computing the aggregate
reservation quotas - The seat vacated by MRC candidate in
the general pool will be offered to General Category
candidates, otherwise the aggregate reservation could
F possibly exceed 50% of all available posts and it would not
be in accordance with the decision in Indira Sawhney that
aggregate reservation should not exceed 50% of all the
available posts - Such migration as envisaged by Rule 16
(2) of Civil Services Examination Rules is not inconsistent with
G Rule 16 (1) of the Rules or Articles 14, 16 (4) and 335 of the
Constitution - By operation of Rule 16 (2), the reserved status
of an MRC candidate is protected so that his! her better
performance does not deny him of the chance to be allotted
698
H
UNION OF INDIA v. RAMESH RAM & ORS. ETC. 699
to a more preferred service - Validity of r.16(2) upheld - Civil A
Services Examination Rules - Rule 16(1) and 16(2).
Articles 14, 16(4) and 335 - Reservation in service vis-
a-vis reservation for admission to P-G Medical courses -
HELD: There is an obvious distinction between qualifying
8
through an entrance test for securing admission in a medical
college and qualifying in the UPSC examinations for filling
up vacancies in the various civil services - In UPSC
examinations, candidates also compete amongst themselves
to secure the service of their choice in the order of their
preferences - The judgment in Ritesh R. Sah 1 dealing with C
admission to post-graduate medical courses, cannot be
readily applied to the examinations conducted by the UPSC.
In the Civil Services Examination 2005, certain
Meritorious Reserved Category candidates (MRCs), who D
were selected on merit and recommended against
unreserved vacancies, opted for reserved vacancies for
the purpose of service allocation and got the service of
higher choice in the order of their preferenc~s.
Consequently, equal number of general category E
candidates from the consolidated reserve list (wait list)
were recommended by the UPSC. Some of the OBC
candidates in the reserve list filed application before the
Central Administrative Tribunal challenging Rule 16(2) of
the Civil Services Examination Rules, contending that F
adjustment of OBC merit candidates against the
vacancies reserved for OBCs was illegal. The Tribunal
held that meritorious OBC candidates who were selected
on merit should be adjusted against 'General Category'.
However, the Tribunal ordered that Rule 16(2) would be
applied in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court in G
Anurag Patel's case 2 , to ensure that allocation of service
1. Ritesh R. Sah v. Dr. Y.L. Yamul 1996 (2) SCR 695.
2. Anurag Patel vs. U.P.. Public Service Commission & Ors., 2004 (4) Suppl.
SCR888. H
700 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 6 S.C.R.
A was in accordance with rank-cum-preference with
priority given to meritorious candidates for service
allocation. But, the High Court held Rule 16(2) as
unconstitutional, set aside the select list and directed the
Central Government and the UPSC to do the service
B allocation afresh de hors Rule 16(2). Aggrieved, the Union
of India and other aggrieved persons filed the appeals
and the writ petitions.
The questions for consideration before the Court
were: (i) "Whether the Reserved Category candidates
C who were selected on merit (i.e. MRCs) and placed in the
list of General Category candidates could be considered
as Reserved Category candidates at the time of "service
allocation"?; (ii) Whether Rules 16 (2), (3), (4) and (5) of
the CSE Rules are inconsistent with Rule 16 (1) and
D violative of Articles 14, 16 (4) and 335 of the Constitution
of India?" and (iii) "Whether the order of the Central
Administrative Tribunal was valid to the extent that it
relied on Anurag Patel v. Uttar Pradesh Public Service
Commission and Others (2005) 9 SCC 742 3 (which in turn
E had referred to the judgment in Ritesh R. Sah v. Dr.
Y.L. Yamul and Others (1996) 3 SCC 253 4, which dealt with
reservations for the purpose of admission to post-
graduate medical courses); and whether the principles
followed for reservations in admissions to educational
F institutions can be applied to examine the
constitutionality of a policy that deals with reservation in
civil services."
Disposing of the matters, the Court
G HELD: 1.1. MRC candidates who avail the benefit of
Rule 16 (2) of the Civil Services Examination Rules and
are adjusted in the reserved category should be counted
3. (2004) 4 Supp. SCR 888.
H 4. 1996 (2) SCR 695.
UNION OF INDIA v. RAMESH RAM & ORS. ETC. 701
as part of the reserved pool for the purpose of computing A
the aggregate reservation quotas. The seats vacated by
MRC candidates in the General Pool will be offered to
General Category candidates. This is the only viable
solution since allotting these General Category seats
(vacated by MRC candidates) to relatively lower ranked B
Reserved Category candidates would result in aggregate
reservations exceeding 50% of the total number of
available seats. Therefore, there is no hurdle to the
migration of MRC candidates to the Reserved Category.
[para 32 and 50(i)] [729-E-F; 745-E] c
Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and
=
Research v. Faculty Association (1998) 2 SCR 845 (1998)
4 SCC 1; and State of Kera/a v. N. M. Thomas (1976) 1
SCR 906 = (1976) 2 SCC 310 - referred to.
D
Union of India v. Satya Prakash (2006) 3 SCR 789 =
(2006) 4 sec 550, held inapplicable.
1.2. Rule 16 (2) should not be interpreted in an
isolated manner since it was designed to protect the E
interests of MRC candidates. MRC candidates having
indicated their status as SC/ST/OBC at the time of
application, begin their participation in the examination
process as Reserved Candidates. Having qualified as per
the general qualifying standard, they have the additional
F
option of opting out of the Reserved Category and
occupying a General post. Where, however, they are able
to secure a better post in the Reserved List their
placement in the General List should not deprive them of
the same. In that respect, the adjustment referred to in
Rule 16 (2) does not, in fact, denote any change in the G
status of the MRC from General to Reserved. To the
contrary, it is an affirmation of the Reserved Status of the
MRC candidate. Rule 16(2) exists to protect this Reserved
Status of the MRC candidates. [para 26] [726-A-C]
H
702 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 6 S.C.R.
A 1.3. It has also to be noted that when MRC candidates
get adjusted against the Reserved Category, the same
creates corresponding vacancies in the General Merit List
(since MRC candidates are on both lists). These
vacancies are of course filled up by general candidates.
B Likewise, when MRC candidates are subsequently
adjusted against the General Category [i.e. without
availing the benefit of Rule 16 (2)), the same will result in
vacancies in the Reserved Category which must in turn
be filled up by Wait Listed Reserved Candidates. Rule
c 16(2) operates to recognize the inter se merit amongst the
Reserved Category candidates. The two stage process
is designed in a manner that no person included in the
first recommended list is subsequently eliminated.
Operation of Rule 16 does not result in ouster of any of
the candidates recommended in the first list. Many of the
0
wait-listed candidates are accommodated in the second
stage, and the. relatively lower ranked wait-listed
candidates are excluded. Such exclusion is on the basis
of merit and the aggrieved parties were never promised
a post. It is pertinent to note that these excluded
E candidates never had any absolute right to recruitment
or even any expectation that they would be recruited.
Their chances depend on how the MRC candidates are
adjusted. [para 27and 34] [726-D-G]
F State of Bihar v. M .Neeti Chandra 1996 (5) Suppl.
=
SCR 696 (1996) 6 SCC 36, referred to.
1.4. It is significant to note that the aggregate
reservation should not exceed 50% of all the available
G vacancies, in accordance with the decision of this Court
in Indra Sawhney. If the MRC candidates are adjusted
against the Reserved Category vacancies with respect to
their higher preferences and the seats vacated by them
in the General Category are further allotted to other
Reserved Category candidates, the .aggregate reservation
H
UNION OF INDIA v. RAMESH RAM & ORS. ETC. 703
could possibly exceed 50 % of all of the available posts. A
[para 29] [727-E]
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India 1992 (2) Suppl.
=
SC_R 454 (1992) Supp. 3 SCC 217, referred to.
2.1. With regard to the specific characteristics of the 8
UPSC examinations, this Court holds that the reserved
category ca~didates "belonging to OBC, SC/ ST
categories" who are selected on merit and placed in the
list of General/Unreserved category candidates can
choose to migrate to the respective reserved category at C
the time of allocation of services. Such migration as
envisaged by Rule 16 (2) of Civil Services Examination
Rules is not inconsistent with Rule 16 (1) of the Rules or
Articles 14, 16 (4) and 335 of the Constitution. The validity
of Rule 16 of Civil Service Examination Rules 2005 D
(notification dated 4.12.2004) is upheld. [para 49, 50(iv)
and 51] [745-B-C; 746-A-C]
2.2. The current process entails that a Reserved
Candidate1- although having done well enough in the E
examination to have qualified in the open category, does
not automatically rescind his/her right to a post in the
Reserved Category. By operation of Rule 16 (2), the
reserved status of an MRC candidate is protected so that
his/ her better performanc~ dqes not deny him of the
F
chance to, be allotted to a more preferred service. If such
rule is declared redundant and unconstitutional vis-a-vis
Article 14, 16 and 335 then the whole object of equality
clause in the Constitution would be frustrated and the
MRC candidates selected as per the general qualifying
standard would be disadvantaged since the candidate of G
his/her category who is below him/her in the merit list,
may, by av~iling the benefits of reservation, attain a better
service when allocation of services is made. Rule 16 in
essence and spirit protects the pledge outlined in the ·
Preamble of the Constitution which conceives of equality H
704 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 6 S.C.R.
A of status and opportunity. [para 34, 40 and 50(ii)] [730-G-
H; 745-F; 737-0-E]
2.3. It is significant to note that affirmative action
measures should be scrutinized as per the standard of
proportionality. This means that the criteria for any form
8
of differential treatment should bear a rational correlation
with a legitimate governmental objective. In the instant
case, a distinction has been made between Meritorious
Reserved Category candidates and relatively lower
ranked Reserved Category candidates. The amended
C Rule 16 (2) only seeks to recognize the inter se merit
between two classes of candidates i.e. (a) meritorious
reserved category candidates and (b) relatively lower
ranked reserved category candidates, for the purpose of
allocation to the various Civil Services with due regard
D for the preferences indicated by them. [para 48 and 50(iii)]
[744-G-H; 745-A-G]
2.4. The proviso to Rule 16 (1) and Rule 16 (2) operate
in different dimensions and it cannot be said that these
E provisions are contradictory or inconsistent with each
other. Rule 16 (1) mandates that after the interview phase,
the candidates will be arranged in the order of merit on
the basis of aggregate marks obtained in the main
examination. Later on, the UPSC shall fix qualifying
F marks for recommending the candidates for the
unreserved vacancies. Proviso to sub-rule (1) lays down
that a candidate who belongs to SC, ST or OBC category
and who has qualified on his own in the merit list shall
not be recommended against the vacancies reserved for
G such classes if such candidate has not availed of any of
the concessions or relaxations in the eligibility or the
selectipn criteria. [para 33 and 47] [744-C; 730-A-C]
2.5. When MRC candidates do not choose to accept
the General Category slot available to them on account
H of their merit, but opt to occupy a slot reserved for
UNION OF INDIA v. RAMESH RAM & ORS. ETC. 705
reservation category candidates, because that post is A
more attractive, then counting him/ her against
reservation quota will not violate the law laid down in
Indra Sawhney. [para 37] [735-H; 736-A-C]
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India 1992 (2) Suppl.
SCR 454 = (1992) Supp. 3 SCC 217; M. Nagaraj v. Union B
of India 2006 (7) Suppl. SCR 336 = (2006) 8 SCC 212,
referred to.
2.6. Article 16(4) of the Constitution empowers the
State to initiate measures in order to protect and promote C
the interests of backward classes (OBC, SC and ST). The
impugned measures in no way offend the equality clau.se
since this particular clause was inserted to safeguard the
concerns of certain classes and shield their legitimate
claims in the domain of public employment. Rule 16 (2)
0
and the subsequent sub-rules merely recognize and
advance inter se merit among the Reserved Category
candidates. [para 39] [736-F-H; 737-A-B]
3.1. The decision in Anurag Patel rectified the anomaly
which had occurred since the U.P.P.S.C. had allotted E
services of 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
F
was patently offensive to the 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 G
service allocation. [para 43] [742-A-C]
Anurag Patel vs. UP. Public Service Commission &
Ors., 2004 (4) Suppl. SCR 888 =2005 (9) SCC 742, referred
to.
3.2. The judgment in Ritesh R. Sah wa& ~n in H
706 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 6 S.C.R.
A relation to reservation for admission to post-graduate
medical courses and the same cannot be readily applied
to the examinations conducted by the UPSC. The
ultimate aim of Civil Services aspirants is to qualify for the
most coveted services and each of the services have
8 quotas for reserved classes, the benefits of which are
availed by MRC candidates for preferred service. The
benefit accrued by different candidates who secure
admission in a particular educational institution is of a
homogeneous nature. However, the benefits accruing
C from successfully qualifying in the UPSC examination are
of a varying nature since some services are coveted
more than others. [para 44] [7 42-D-F]
3.3. There is an obvious distinction between
qualifying through an entrance test for securing
o admission in a medical college and qualifying in the
UPSC examinations since the latter examination is
conducted for filling up vacancies in the various civil
services. In the former case, all the successful candidates
receive the same benefit of securing admission in an
E educational institution. However, in the latter case there
are variations in the benefits that accrue to successful
candidates because they are also competing amongst
themselves to secure the service of their choice. [para 24]
[724-F-G]
F 3.4. The order of the CAT is valid to the extent that it
relied on the ratio propounded by this Court in Anurag
Patel v. Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission. Even
though that decision had in turn relied on the verdict of
this Court in Ritesh R. Sah v. Or. Y.L. Yamu/ and Others, the
G latter case is distinguishable from the present case with
respect to the facts in issue. However, the conclusions
arrived at by the Central Administrative Tribunal in its
order cannot be approved as it failed to take note of the
unique characteristics of the UPSC examinations. [para
H 45] [742-G-H; 743-A]
UNION OF INDIA v. RAMESH RAM & ORS. ETC. 707
Ritesh R. Sah v. Dr. Y.L. Yamul 1996 (2) SCR 695 =A
(1996) 3 sec 253, distinguished.
'
R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab 1995 ( 2) SCR 35 =
(1995) 2 sec 745, held inapplicable.
Anurag Patel vs. U.P. Public Service Commission & 8
Ors., 2004 (4) Suppl. SCR 888 - (2005) 9 sec 742,
referred to.
Case Law Reference:
2004 (4) Suppl. SCR 888 referred to para 8 c
1996 (2) SCR 695 distinguished para 13(111)
(2006) 3 SCR 789 held inapplicable para 17
1992 (2) Suppl. SCR 454 referred to para 29 D
(1998) 2 SCR 845 referred to para 30
(1976) 1 SCR 906 referred to para 31
1996 (5) Suppl. SCR696 referred to para 36
E
2006 (7) Suppl. SCR 336 referred to para 38
1995 ( 2) SCR 35 held inapplicable para 46
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDJCTION : Civil Appeal Nos.
4310-4311 of 2010. F
From the Judgment & Order dated 20.03.2008 of the High
Court of Judicature at Madras in W.P. No. 1814 and 1815 bf
2008.
G
WITH
C.A. Nos. 4315-4316 of 2010
C.A. Nos. 4319 of 2010
H
708 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 6 S.C.R.
A C.A. Nos. 4324-4328 of 2010
W.P. (C) No. 297, 312, 336, 414, 416 and 539 of 2008.
GopahSubramanium, Sol. Genl. of India, Indira Jaisingh,
ASG, A. M~iarputham, Raju Ramchandra, Prof. Ravi Verma
B Kumar, Nidesh Gupta, P.S. Patwalia, P.P. Rao, Raju
Ramchandran, Tufail A. Khan, Chinmoy P. Shama, Aman
Ahluwalia, Madhuima Tatia, Anil Katiyar, Shree Prakash Sinha,
Vijay Kumar, Shankar N. Mrigank Prabhakar, Shekhar Kumar,
E.C. Vidyasagar, Shiva Pujan Singh, Prabhash Kumar Yadav,
C P. Soma Sundaram, Anadaselvam, Anirudh Sharma, Shaffi
Mather (for Subramonium Prasad), Ajay Bansal, Devendra
Singh, Ajay Choudhary, Vibha Datta Makhija, Ajay Pratap
Singh, Tushar Bakshi, Ajit Singh, Rudreshwar Singh, Philemon
Nongbri, Kumar Ranjan, Y.C. Simhadri, Shishir Pinaki, Kaushik
D Poddar, Gopal Jha, Sukant Vikram, Tapesh Kumar Singh,
Ramesh, Divya Singh, Sharad Pandey, Praveen Aggrawal ,
Vijay Kumar, Santosh Paul, Arvind Gupta, S.N. Bundela, K.K.
Bhat, M.J. Paul, Dharsam Bir Raj Vohra, Binu Tamta, V.
Mohana, Sanjay Jain, Vinay Kumar Garg, Dharmendra Kr.
E Sinha, M.M. Singh, S.K. Singh of the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI. 1. Leave granted.
F 2. The constitutional validity of sub-rules (2) to (5) of Rule
16 of the Civil Service Examination Rules (hereinafter 'Rules')
relating to civil services examinations held by the Union Public
Service Commission in the years 2005 to 2007 is the subject-
matter of these appeals by special leave. A three Judge Bench
G of this Court, by order dated 14.5.2009 has referred these
cases to the Constitution Bench as it raises an important legal
question as to whether candidates belonging to reserved
category, who get recommended against general/unreserved
vacancies on account of their merit (without the benefit of any
H
UNION OF INDIA v. RAMESH RAM & ORS. ETC. 709
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI.]
relaxation/concession), can opt for a higher choice of service A
earmarked for Reserved Category and thereby migrate to
rese1vation category.
3. Selection to three All India Services (Indian
Administrative Service, Indian Foreign Service and Indian 8
Police Service) and fifteen Group 'A' Services'and three Group
'B' officers in various Government departments are made by
the Union Public Service Commission (hereinafter 'UPSC'), by
conducting Civil Service Examinations periodically. Civil
Service Examinations are held as per the Civil Service
Examinations Rules notified in regard to each examination. The C
Rules for the Civil Service Examination which was to be held
in 2005 by the UPSC were published by the Department of
Personnel and Training (hereinafter 'DOP&T') vide Notification
dated 4.12.2004.
D
4. To appreciate the issue, it will be necessary to refer to
the relevant rules. The Preamble to the Rules enumerates 21
services. Rule 1 provides that the examination will be conducted
by the UPSC in the manner prescribed in Appendix-I to the
Rules. E
(4.1) Rule 2 of the Rules relates to preferences and is
extracted below:
"2. A candidate shall be required to indicate in his/her
application form for the Main Examination his/her order of F
preferences for various services/posts for which he/she
would like to be considered for appointment in case he/
she is recommended for appointment by Union Public
Service Commission.
G
A candidate who wishes to be considered for IAS/IPS shall
be required to indicate in his/her application if he/she
would like to be considered for allotment to the State to
which he/she belongs in case he/she is appointed to the
IAS/IPS. H
710 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 6 S.C.R.
A Note.-The candidate is advised to be very careful while
indicating preferences for various seNices/posts. In this
connection, attention is also invited to rule 19 of the Rules.
The candidate is also advised to indicate all the seNices/
posts in the order of preference in his/her application form.
B In case he/~he does not give any preference for any
seNices/posts, it will be assumed that he/she has no
specific preference for those seNices. If he/she is not
allotted to any one of the seNices/posts for which he/she
has indicated preference, he/she shall be allotted to any
c of the remaining services/posts in which there are
vacancies after allocation of all the candidates who can be
allocated to services/posts in accordance with their
preferences."
(4.2) Rule 3 relates tr number of vacancies and provision
D for reseNation and it reads as follows:
"3. The number of vacancies to be filled on the result of
the examination will be specified in the Notice issued by
the Commission.
E
ReseNation will be made for candidates belonging to the
Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward
Classes and physically disabled categories in respect of
vacancies as may be fixed by the Government."
F (4.3) Rule 15 provides for three examinations namely
preliminary examination, main written examination and inteNiew
test as follows:
"15. Candidates who obtained such minimum qualifying
G marks in the Preliminary Examination as may be fixed by
the Commission at their discretion shall be admitted to the
Main Examination; and candidates who obtain such
minimum qualifying marks in the Main Examination
(written) as may be fixed by the Commission at their
H
UNION OF INDIA v. RAMESH RAM & ORS. ETC. 711
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI.]
discretion shall be summoneel by them for an interview for A
personality test:
Provided that candidates belonging to the Scheduled
Castes or Scheduled Tribes or Other Backward Classes.
may be summoned for an interview for a personality test. B
by the Commission by applying relaxed standards in the
Preliminary Examination as well as Main Examination
(Written) if the Commission is of the opinion that sufficient
number of candidates from these communities are not
likely to be summoned for interview for a personality test C
on the basis of the general standard in order to fill up
vacancies reserved for them."
(4.4) Rule 16 lays down the manner of selection,
preparation of merit list and selection of candidates. The said
rule is extracted below: D
"16.(1) After interview, the candidates will be arranged by
the Commission in the order of merit as disclosed by the
aggregate marks finally awarded to each candidate in the
Main Examination. Thereafter, the Commission shall, for E
the purpose of recommending candidates against
unreserved vacancies, fix a qualifying mark (hereinafter
referred to as general qualifying standard) with reference
to the number of unreserved vacancies to be filled up on
the basis of the Main Examination. For the purpose of F
recommending Reserved Category candidates belonging
to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other
Backward Classes against reserved vacancies, the
Commission may relax the general qualifying standard with
reference to number of reserved vacancies to be filled up
in each of these categories on the basis of the Main G
Examination:
Provided that the candidates belonging to the Scheduled
C~stes, Scheduled Tribes and the Other Backward
Classes who have not availed themselves of any of the H
712 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 6 S.C.R.
A concessions or relaxations in the eligibility or the selection
criteria, at any stage of the examination and who after
taking into account the general qualifying standards are
found fit for recommendation by the Commission shall not
be recommended against the vacancies reserved for
B Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and the Other
Backward Classes.
(2) While making service allocation, the candidates
belonging to the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes
or Other Backward Classes recommended against
c unreserved vacancies may be adjusted against reserved
vacancies by the Govt. if by this process they get a service
of higher choice in the order of their preference.
(3) The Commission may further lower the qualifying
D standards to take care of any shortfall of candidates for
appointment against unreserved vacancies and any
surplus of candidates against reserved vacancies arising
out of the provisions of this rule, the Commission may
make the recommendations in the manner prescribed in
E sub-rules (4) and (5).
(4) While recommending the candidates, the Commission
shall, in the first instance, take into account the total number
of vacancies in all categories. This total number of
recommended candidates shall be reduced by the number
F of candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, the
Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes who
acquire the merit at or above the fixed general qualifying
standard without availing themselves of any concession or
relaxation in the eligibility or selection criteria in terms of
G the proviso to sub-rule (1 ). Along with this list of
recommended candidates, the Commission shall also
declare a consolidated reserve list of candidates which will
include candidates from general and reserved categories
ranking in order of merit below the last recommended
H
UNION OF INDIA v. RAMESH RAM & ORS. ETC. 713
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI.]
candidate under each category. The number of candidates A
in each of these categories will be equal to the number of
Reserved Category candidates who were included in the
first list without availing of any relaxation or concession in
eligibility or selection criteria as per proviso to sub-rule (1 ).
Amongst the reserved categories, the number of B
candidates from each of the Scheduled Caste, the
Scheduled Tribe and Other Backward Class categories in
the reserve list will be equal to the respective number of
vacancies reduced initially in each category.
(5) The candidates recommended in terms of the
c
1
provisions of sub-rule (4), shall be allocatea by the
Government to the services and where certain vacancies
still remain to be filled up, the Government may forward a
requisition to the Commission requiring it to recommend,
in order of merit, from the reserve list, the same number D
of candidates as requisitioned for the purpose of filling up
the unfilled vacancies in each category."
(4.5) Rule 19 provides that due consideration will be given
at the time of making allocation on the results of the E
examination to the preferences expressed by a candidate for
various services at the time of his application and the
appointment to various services will also be governed by the
Rules/Regulations in force, as applicable to the respective
Services at the time of appointment. F
5. The total vacancies notified by the participating services
for the Civil Service Examination, 2005 were 457 made up of
General Category : 242, OBC category : 117, Scheduled
Castes: 166 and Scheduled Tribes: 32. As per Rule 16(1) and
(4), UPSC recommended 425 candidates in the first phase G
made up of the following: General - 210, OBC - 117
(including 31 merit candidates); Scheduled Castes - 66
(in_cluding 1 merit candidate) and Scheduled Tribes - 32. A
consolidated Reserve list (wait-list) was also prepared
consisting of 64 candidates. The DOP&T after allocation of the H
714 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 6 S.C.R.
A candidates from the first list, made a requisition for
recommendation of candidates through the operation 'of the
reserve list. 26 Meritorious OBC candidates and one
Meritorious Scheduled Caste candidate recommended against
unreserved vacancies, opted for reserved vacancies as by that
B process, they got a service of higher choice in the order of
preference. If the said 27 meritorious reserved category
candidates had been considered only for service allocation
against unreserved vacancies in competition with the General
Category candidates, they would have got a service of lower
c choice. Rule 16(2) enabled the meritorious candidate of any
of the reservation categories to get a service of higher
preference so that he may not be placed at a disadvantaged
position vis a vis other candidates of his category.
6. The DOP&T could therefore adjust only 5 out of the 31
D Meritorious Category OBC candidates through their merit-cum-
service preference option as General Candidates. As a result,
the UPSC recommended under Rule 16(5) of the Rules, 27
General Category candidates and 5 OBC candidates from the
consolidated Reserve List.
E '
7. Certain OBC candidates in the Reserve (wait list) filed
applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras
Bench, challenging Rule 16(2). It was contended that adjustment
of OBC merit candidates against OBC reservation vacancies
F was illegal. According to them, such candidates should be
adjusted against the general (unreserved) vacancies, as that
would have allowed more posts for OBC candidates and would
have allowed the lower ranked OBC candidates a better choice
of service. They contended that more meritorious OBC
G candidates should be satisfied with lower choice of service as
they became general (unreserved) candidates by reason of
their better performance.
8. The Tribunal, after interpreting amended Rule 16(2) in
the light of the various judgments of this Court, concluded that
H
UNION OF INDIA v. RAMESH RAM & ORS. ETC. 715
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI.]
meritorious OBC candidates who were selected on merit must A
be adjusted against the 'General Category'. However, it
ordered that Rule 16(2) may be applied in terms of decision
of this Court in Anurag Patel vs. U.P. Public Service
Commission & Ors., (2005) 9 SCC 742, to ensure that
allocation of service is in accordance with rank-cum-preference B
with priority given to meritorious candidates for service
allocation.
9. The Union of India and other aggrieved candidates
preferred Writ Petitions before the Madras High Court C
challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal.
Some other aggrieved candidates got themselves impleaded
in the said proceedings. By the impugned order dated
20.3.2008, the High Court held Rule 16(2) as unconstitutional.
Consequently, the High Court set aside the select lists and
directed the Government of India and UPSC to redo service D
allocation de hors Rule 16(2).
10. The first batch of civil appeals @ SLP [CJ Nos. 13571-
13572 of 2008 is filed by the Union of India against the said
order dated 20.3.2008 in W.P. [CJ Nos.1814 & 1815 of 2008. E
Other persons aggrieved by the said order have filed the
remaining civil appeals. Being aggrieved by the action of the
Union Public Service Commission and the Government of India
by which candidates in Reserved Category selected in General
Category were given choice to opt for service of higher F
preference in terms of Rule 16(2) of the Rules, some of the
reservation category candidates have filed Writ Petition (C)
Nos.297, 312, 336 & 416 of 2008 under Art. 32 of the
Constitution of India to declare Rule 16(2),(3),(4) and (5) of the
Civil Services Examination Rules, 2005 as ultra vires being G
inconsistent with Rule 16(1) of the said Rules, as violative of
Articles 14, 16(4) and 335 of. Constitution of India,
consequential reliefs.
11. We heard Mr. Gopal Subramanium, Learned Solicitor
H
716 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 6 S.C.R.
A Gene;al of India, on behalf of the Union of India. Ms. Indira
Jaisingh, Learned ASG appeared in W.P. (C) No. 297/1008.
Mr. P.P. Rao, Sr. Adv., Mr. P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv. and Mr.
Anirudh Sharma, Adv. represented the appellants in the other
appeals. Mr. Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Adv., Mr. Nidheesh
B Gupta, Sr. Adv., Prof. Ravi Varma Kumar, Sr. Adv., Mr. Santosh
Paul, Adv., Mr. S.P. Sinha, Adv., Mr. Praveen Agarwal, Adv.,
and Mr. Shiv Pujan Singh Adv., appeared on behalf of the writ
petitioners and the respondents in the writ appeals.
12. The case of the contesting respondents is that the
C newly introduced system which is different from the single list
system followed earlier (prior to amendment of CSE Rules) will
undermine the rights of the Reserved Category candidates to
get assigned to services of higher preference (e.g. IAS, IPS
or IRS). They also urged that this system will reduce the
D aggregate number of reserved candidates who will be selected
while simultaneously increasing the number of general
candidates. It also puts candidates who come through the
second list at a disadvantage in terms of seniority and
promotions for rest of their career in their respective services.
E By the impugned order, the High Court had vindicated these
grievances, particularly those raised by OBC candidates.
13. In the light of the submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing for different appellants, the following
F questions arise for consideration:
I. Whether the Reserved Category candidates who were
selected on merit (i.e. MRCs) and placed in the list of
General Category candidates could be considered as
Reserved Category candidates at the time of "service
G allocation"?
II. Whether Rule 16 (2), (3), (4) and (5) of the CSE Rules
are inconsistent with Rule 16 (1) and violative of Articles
14, 16 (4) and 335 of the Constitution of India?
H
UNION OF INDIA v. RAMESH RAM & ORS. ETC. 717
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI.]
Ill. Whether the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal A
was valid to the extent that it relied on Anurag Patel v. Uttar
Pradesh Public Service Commission and Others, (2005)
9 sec 742 (which in turn had referred to the judgment in
Ritesh R. Sah v. Dr. Y.L. Yamul and Others, (1996) 3
sec 253, which dealt with reservations for the purpose B
of admission to post graduate medical courses); and
whether the principles followed for reservations in
admissions to educational institutions can be applied to
examine the constitutionality of a policy that deals with
reservation in civil services. c
Re: Question I
14. The relevant provision is Rule 16(2) of the Civil
Services Examination Rules which was amended by a
notification dated 4.12.2004 issued by the Ministry of D
Personnel, Public Grievances, and Pensions (DOP&T), New
Delhi. The appellants' contention is that the amended Rule 16
(2) intends to rectify an anomaly, as otherwise, the interests of
the Meritorious Reserved Category (hereinafter 'MRC')
candidates who have toiled hard to qualify as per the general E
qualifying standard would be jeopardized. Such candidates
could find themselves in a position where Reserved Category
candidates who are less meritorious than them can possibly
secure posts in a service of a higher preference. The Union
Government contends that the object of amending Rule 16 (2) F
is to ensure that such an adverse incongruous position does
not arise for more meritorious candidates.
15. Mr. Gopal Subramanium, the Learned Solicitor General
of India, has brought forth three implications and repercussions
of the amended Rule 16 once it comes into operation: G
(i) It affords a Meritorious Reserved Candidate the benefit
of reservation insofar as Service Allocation is concerned.
In other words, if such a Meritorious Reserved Candidate
- although entitled to a post in the General list- is able to H
718 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 6 S.C.R.
A secure a better (or more preferred) post in the Reserved
List, Rule 16 (2) comes to his aid, and he is able to secure
the better post. This preserves and protects inter se merit
amongst the Reserved Candidates.
B (ii) When Rule 16 (2) enables a Meritorious Reserved
Candidate to secure a post in the Reserved Category, that
Candidate is to be treated as a Reserved Candidate
(consistent with his Reserved Category status as per the
application form).
c (iii) Once Rule 16 (2) is operated, the General post that
would otherwise have been available to the Meritorious
Reserved Candidate is now filled up by a (Wait Listed)
General Candidate.
o The Respondents have objected to the effect of Rule 16 (2) in
so far as the second and third aspects are concerned. They
have no grievance with respect to the first aspect. They contend
that when an MRC candidate is entitled to a General Merit slot,
chooses to opt for a slot earmarked for a reservation category
E the result should be a mutual exchange between the meritorious
reserved candidate and the reserved candidate. The MRC
candidate will carry the tag of a general candidate even when
he occupies the reservation post and the occupant of the
reservation post will migrate to the general merit slol"vacated
F by the MRC candidate. If the MRC candidate migrating to
reservation category slot is counted as a reservation candidate,
to that extent there will be a reduction in the posts meant for
reservation category candidates.
16. The Civil Services Examination conducted by Union
G Public Service Commission (UPSC) has three stages:
Preliminary Examination, Main Examination, and Interview. The
candidates appearing in the Examination have to render
information in the application form indicating their status as
General, Other Backward Class (OBC), Scheduled Castes (SC)
H
UNION OF INDIA v. RAMESH RAM & ORS. ETC. 719
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI.]
or Scheduled Tribes (ST). Moreover, at a later stage the A
candidates have to furnish their preferences of services in
which they have to indicate their choices in the event of
qualification. This has been spelt out in Rule 2 of the CSE Rules.
17. In support of their contentions, the respondents have B
relied upon the following observations of this Court in Union of
India v. Satya Prakash, (2006) 4 SCC 550, (at paras. 18, 19
and 20):
"18. By way of illustration, a Reserved Category candidate,
recommended by the Commission without resorting to C
relaxed standard (i.e. on merit) did not get his[ own
preference 'say IAS' in the merit/open categorV:- For that, -
he may opt a preference from the Reserved Category. But
simply because he opted a preference from the Reserved
Category does not exhaust quota of OBC category D
candidate selected under relaxed standard. Such
preference opted by the OBC candidate who has been
recommended by the Commission without resorting to the
relaxed standard (i.e. on merit) shall not be adjusted
against the vacancies reserved for the Scheduled Castes, E
Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes. This is the
mandate of proviso to Sub-rule 2 of Rule 16.
19. In other words, while a Reserved Category candidate
recommended by the Commission without resorting to the
F
relaxed standard will have the option of preference from
the Reserved Category recommended by the Commission
by resorting to relaxed standard, but while computing the
quota/percentage of reservation he/she will be deemed to
have been allotted seat as an open category candidate (i.e.
on merit) and not as a Reserved Category candidate . G
recommended by the Commission by resorting to relaxed
standard.
20. If a candidate of Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe
and other Backward Class, who has been recommended H
720 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 6 S.C.R.
A by the Commission without resorting to the relaxed
standard could not get his/her own preference in the
merit list, he/she can opt a preference from the Reserved
Category and in such process the choice of preference of
the Reserved Category recommended by resorting to the
B relaxed standard will be pushed further down but shall be
allotted to any of the remaining services/posts in which
there are vacancies after allocation of all the candidates
who can be allocated to a service/post in accordance with
their preference."
c 18. The decision in Satya Prakash was rendered prior to
the amendment of Rule 16(2) and the learned judge had not
contemplated the present version of the rule. Hence, this
decision is clearly distinguishable from the present case. Prior
to the decision in Satya Prakash's case (supra.), the practice
D had been that a single list of successful candidates was
released in respect of all the vacancies. At that time, MRC
candidates were initially treated as general candidates and had
Rule 16(2) not been amended, a single list would have been
released for all 457 posts which were vacant in the year under
E consideration. Accordingly, such a list would have contained
242 General candidates (including 32 MRC candidates). There
would have been a separate list for 117 OBCs, 66 SCs and
32 STs (excluding MRC candidates). When the MRC
Candidates were shifted from the general list to the reserved
F list, there was an ouster of the relatively lower ranked Reserved
Category candidates who were initially selected as part of the
reserved list. For example when 27 MRC candidates (26
belonging to OBC and 1 SC) would have moved from the
General List to the Reserved List, 26 OBC and 1 SC
G candidates who were ranked lower among the 117 OBC and
66 SC candidates initially selected in the Reserved Category,
would have been ousted.
19. The unamended as well as amended Rule 16 (2) are
as follows:-
H
UNION OF INDIA v. RAMESH RAM & ORS. ETC. 721
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI.]
Rule 16 (2) in the old Civil Rule 16 (2) in the current A
Service Examination Rules Civil Service Examination
Rules (vicie notification
dated 4.12.2004)
B
The candidates belonging to While making service
any of the Scheduled Castes allocation, the candidates
or Scheduled Tribes or the belonging to the Scheduled
Other Backward Classes Castes, the Scheduled Tribes
may, to the extent of the or Other Backward Classes
number of vacancies recommended against C
reserved for the Scheduled unreserved vacancies may be
Castes and the Scheduled adjusted against reserved
Tribes and the Other vacancies by the Government,
Backward Classes be if by this process, they get a
recommended by the service of higher choice in the D
Commission by a relaxed order of their preference.
standard, subject to the
fitness of these candidates
· for selection to services.
E
Provided that the candidates
belonging to the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes and the Other
Backward Classes who have F
been recommended by the
Commission without resorting
to the relaxed standard
referred to in this sub-rule
shall not be adjusted against G
the vacancies reserved for the
Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes and the
Other Backward Classes.
H
722 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 6 S.C.R.
A 20. The UPSC declares results in two stages and the
same was done in the year 2006. As per the final result of CSE
2005, out of 457 vacancies, 425 candidates were
recommended for appointment which included 210 General,
117 OBC, 66 SC and 32 ST candidates. The UPSC was
B maintaining a consolidated reserve list, i.e. a Wait List of 64
candidates (consisting of 32 general, 31 OBC and 1 SC
candidate) ranking in order of merit below the last
recommended candidate under each of these categories as
per Rule 16 (4) and (5) of the CSE Rules, 2005. Admittedly,
c 31 OBC category candidates who had qualified in the General
Merit List were not included in the General Category and
instead they were part of 117 OBC category candidates
selected as part of the Reserved Category. Hence, an equal
number of OBC category candidates who were ranked lower
in the order of merit as part of the Reserved Category seats
0
were initially ousted. The purpose of including those OBC
category candidates who had qualified in the General Category
was to give them a higher preferred service from the vacancies
under the OBC category. The CSE rules were accordingly
E amended to allow for such a migration.
21. The Learned Solicitor General has described in detail
how along with the list of recommended candidates, the UPSC
also prepares a Consolidated Reserve List. This Consolidated
Reserve List is a Wait List for filling the remaining 32
F vacancies. It contained two parallel sub-lists: Wait List A
consisting of 32 General Candidates and Wait List B consisting
of 32 Reserved Candidates (31 OBCs and 1 SC) the 1 SC
candidate would be positioned in the Wait List at the same
position in which the 1 SC candidate was placed amongst the
G 32 MRC candidates. Two Wait Lists are prepared so that
depending on how the 32 MRCs are placed and in whatever
contingency - whether they are adjusted against General or
Reserved Posts - there will remain a sufficient number of
candidates (both general and reserved) to be adjusted against
H the balance 32 posts in the second stage.
UNION OF INDIA v. RAMESH RAM & ORS. ETC. 723
.[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI.]
22. When Department of Personnel and Training (DoP&T) A
·received the Lists, the 32 MRC candidates were added to the ·
list of 210 General candidates but at the same time they were
positioned in the reserved lists of 117 OBC candidates and 66
SC candidates as well. The UPSC list counts the MRC
candidates as part of the Reserved List for the purpose of B
ascertaining the reservation quota in terms of percentage. The
rationale cited for this method is that for the purpose of service
allocation, the DOP&T initially counts the MRC candidates in
both the General and the Reserved Lists. These candidates are
then placed against the better of the two services available to c
them under either of these categories which is of course based
on their order of preference. A Service is allocated by moving
downwards in the merit list in a serial manner, with each
candidate in the merit list getting the best available option as
per his/her preference.
D
23. The respondents have also placed strong reliance on
this Court's decision in Ritesh R. Sah v. Dr. Y.L. Yamu/ (1996)
3 sec 253). The question in that case was whether a
Reserved Category candidate who is entitled to be selected
for admission in open competition on the basis of his/her own E
merit should be counted against the quota meant for the
Reserved Category or should he be treated as a general
candidate. The Court reached the conclusion that when a
candidate is admitted to an educational institution on his own
merit, then such admission is not to be counted against the F
quota reserved for Schedule Castes or any other Reserved
Category. However, it is pertinent to note that this decision was
given in the context of admissions to medical colleges in which
G.B. Pattanaik J. (as His Lordship then was) had held:
G
"17 .... In view of the legal position enunciated by this Court
in the aforesaid cases the conclusion is irresistible that a
student who is entitled to be admitted on the basis of merit
though belonging to a Reserved Category cannot be
considered to be admitted against seats reserved for
Reserved Category. But at the same time the provisions H
724 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 6 S.C.R.
A should be so made that it will not work out to the
disadvantage of such candidate and he may not be placed
at a more disadvantageous position than the other less
meritorious Reserved Category candidates. The aforesaid
objective can be achieved if after finding out the
B candidates from amongst the Reserved Category who
would otherwise come in the open merit list and then
asking their option for admission into the different colleges
which have been kept reserved for Reserved Category and
thereafter the cases of less meritorious Reserved Category
c candidates should be considered and they will be allotted
seats in whichever colleges the seats should be available.
In other words, while a Reserved Category candidate
entitled to admission on the basis of his merit will have the
option of taking admission to the colleges where a
specified number of seats have been kept reserved for
D
Reserved Category but while computing the percentage
of reservation he will be deemed to have been admitted
as an open category candidate and not as a Reserved
Category candidate ... "
E 24. There is an obvious distinction between qualifying
through an entrance test for securing admission in a medical
college and qualifying in the UPSC examinations since the
latter examination is conducted for filling up vacancies in the
various civil services. In the former case, all the successful
F candidates receive the same benefit of securing admission in
an educational institution. However, in the latter case there are
variations in the benefits that accrue to successful candidates
because they are also competing amongst themselves to
. secure the service of their choice. For example, most
G candidates opt for at least one of the first three services [i.e.
Indian Administrative Service (IAS), Indian Foreign Service
(IFS) and Indian Police Service (IPS)] when they are asked for
preferences. A majority of the candidates prefer IAS as the first
option. In this respect, a Reserved Category candidate who has
H qualified as part of the general list should not be disadvantaged
UNION OF INDIA v. RAMESH RAM & ORS. ETC. 725
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI.]
by being assigned to a lower service against the vacancies in A
the General Category especially because if he had availed the
benefit of his Reserved Category status, he would have got a
service of a higher preference. With the obvious intention of
preventing such an anomaly, Rule 16 (2) provides that an MRC
candidate is at liberty to choose between the general quota or B
the respective Reserved Category quota.
25. Some factual examples can clarify the position. In
2005, an MRC (OBC) candidate attained 21st Rank overall.
With respect to his position in the General Merit List, there were C
General Category IAS vacancies available, and he occupied
the 17th out of 45 General vacancies in the IAS. Thus, he did
not need the assistance of Rule 16(2) to get a post in a more
preferred service since he was adjusted against the General
List. Accordingly, he opted out of the Reserved Category. This
was in line with the proposition that when a candidate is entitled D
to a certain post on his merit alone, he should not be counted
against the reserved quota. In contrast, another candidate who
was an MRC (OBC) candidate obtained 64th Rank overall in
the CSE 2005. At his position in the General List, he was
entitled to a post in the IPS since the General Category IAS E
vacancies had been exhausted by candidates above him in the
General merit list. However, IPS was his second preference
while IAS was his first preference. If he were to be considered
against the vacancies in the Reserved Category, he would be
entitled to a post in the IAS because the 22 OBC IAS vacancies F
had not been exhausted at that point of time. By the operation
of Rule 16 (2), he was able to secure a post in the IAS, while
retaining his Reserved Status. Having availed of this benefit,
he was adjusted against the Reserved (OBC) category.
G
26. Learned Counsel for respondent questioned the
rationale of declaring the CSE results in two phases in order
to support the proposition that even if MRC candidates are
given a service of a higher preference, they should not oust
lower-ranked Reserved Category candidates. However, Rule
H
726 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 6 S.C.R.
A 16 (2) should not be interpreted in an isolated manner since it
was designed to protect the interests of MRC candidates. MRC
candidates having indicated their status as SC/ST/OBC at the
time of application, begin their participation in the examination
process as Reserved Candidates. Having qualified as per the
B general qualifying standard, they have the additional option of
opting out of the Reserved Category and occupying a General
Post. Where, however, they are able to secure a better post in
the Reserved List their placement in the General List should
not deprive them of the same. In that respect, the adjustment
c referred to in Rule 16 (2) does not, in fact, denote any change
in the status of the MRC from General to Reserved. To the
contrary, it is an affirmation of the Reserved Status of the MRC
candidate. Rule 16(2) exists to protect this Reserved Status of
the MRC candidates.
D 27. We must also take note of the fact that when MRC
candidates get adjusted against the Reserved Category, the
same creates corresponding vacancies in the General Merit
List (since MRC candidates are on both lists). These vacancies
are of course filled up by general candidates. Likewise, when
E MRC candidates are subsequently adjusted against the General
Category [i.e. without availing the benefit of Rule 16 (2)], the
same will result in vacancies in the Reserved Category which
must in turn be filled up by Wait Listed Reserved Candidates.
Moreover, the operation of Rule 16 does not result in the ouster
F of any of the candidates recommended in the first list. Many of
the wait-listed candidates are accommodated in the second
stage, and the relatively lower ranked wait-listed candidates are
excluded. It is pertinent to note that these excluded candidates
never had any absolute right to recruitment or even any
G expectation that they would be recruited. Their chances depend
on how the MRC candidates are adjusted.
28. In the impugned judgment, the High Court had reasoned
that allocation to a particular post cannot be distinguished from
allocation to a service for the purpose of reservation. However,
H
UNION OF INDIA v. RAMESH RAM & ORS. ETC. 727
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI.]
the High Court had not considered the fact that in the CSE A
examination, the candidates are not competing for similar
posts in one service but are instead competing for posts in
different services that correspond to varying preferences.
Furthermore, the impugned judgment did not appreciate the
possibility that wnen an SC/ST/OBC .candidate qualifies on B
merit (i.e. without any relaxation/concession) there can be a
situation where a lower ranked OBC candidate gets allotted to
a better service in comparison to a higher ranked SC/ST/OBC
candidate simply because the higher ranked OBC candidate
performed well enough to qualify in the General Category. Such c
a situation is anomalous. As we have already discussed, the
High Court's reliance on the decision of this Court in Union of
India v. Satya Prakash, (supra.), is not tenable since it dealt
with the effect of Rule 16 (2) as it existed prior to the amendment
notified on 4.12.2004.
D
29. A significant aspect which needs to be discussed is
that the aggregate reservation should not exceed 50% of all the
available vacancies, in accordance with the decision of this
Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, (1992) Supp 3 SCC
217. If the MRC candidates are adjusted against the Reserved E
Category vacancies with respect to their higher preferences and
the seats vacated by them in the General Category are further
allotted to other Reserved Category candidates, the aggregate
reservation could possibly exceed 50 % of all of the available
posts. F
30. In Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and
Research v. Faculty Association, (1998) 4 SCC 1, G.N. Ray
J. had clearly stated that the upper ceiling of 50% reservations
should not be breached:
G
"32. Articles 14, 15 and 16 including Articles 16(4), 16(4-
A) must be applied in such a manner so that the balance
is struck in the matter of appointments by creating
reasonable opportunities for the reserved classes and also
H
728 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 6 S.C.R.
A for the other members of the community who do not belong
to reserved classes. Such a view has been indicated in
the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Balaji case,
Devadasan case and Sabharwal case. Even in Indra
Sawhney case the same view has been held by indicating
B that only a limited reservation not exceeding 50% is
permissible. It is to be appreciated that Article 15 (4) is
an enabling provision like Article 16 (4) and the reservation
under either provision should not exceed legitimate limits.
In making reservations for the backward classes, the State
c cannot ignore the fundamental rights of the rest of the
citizens. The special provision under Article 15 (4) (sic 16
(4)] must therefore strike a balance between several
relevant considerations and proceed objectively. In this
connection reference may be made to the decisions of this
Court in State of A. P. v. U.S. V. Bairam and C.A.
D
Rajendran v. Union of India. It has been indicated in Indra
Sawhney that clause (4) of Article 16 is not in the nature
of an exception to clauses (1) and (2) of Article 16 but an
instance of classification permitted by clause (1). It has also
been indicated in the said decision that clause (4) of .
E Article 16 does not cover the entire field covered by
clauses (1) and (2) of Article 16. In Indra Sawhney case
this Court has also indicated that in the interests of the
backward classes of citizens, the State cannot reserve all
the appointments under the State or even a majority of
F them. The doctrine of equality of opportunity in clause (1)
of Article 16 is to be reconciled in such a manner that the
latter while serving the cause of backward classes shall
not unreasonably encroach upon the field of equality."
G 31. In State of Kera/a v. N.M. Thomas, (1976) 2 SCC 310,
the same proposition was enunciated by A.N. Ray, C.J. who
had held:
"26. The respondent contended that apart from Article 16
(4) members of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes
H
UNION OF INDIA v. RAMESH RAM & ORS. ETC. 729
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI.]
were not entitled to any favoured treatment in regard to A
promotion. In T.Devadasan v. Union of India reservation
was made for backward classes. The number of reserved
seats which were not filled up was carried forward to the
subsequent year. On the basis of "carry forward" it was
found that such reserved seats might destroy equality. To B
illustrate, if 18 seats were reserved and for two successive
years the reserved seats were not filled and in the third
year there were 100 vacancies the result would be that 54
reserved seats would be occupied out of 100 vacancies.
This would destroy equality. On that ground "carry forward" c
principle was not sustained in Devadasan's case (supra).
The same view was taken in the case of M.R.Balaji v. State
of Mysore. It was said that not more than 50 per cent
should be reserved for backward classes. This ensures
equality. Reservation is not a constitutional compulsion but
0
is discretionary according to the ruling of this Court in
Rajendran's case (supra)."
32. Therefore, we are of the firm opinion that MRC
candidates who avail the benefit of Rule 16(2) and are
eventually adjusted in the Reserved Category should be E
counted as part of the reserved pool for the purpose of
computing the aggregate reservation quotas. The seats vacated
by MRC candidates in the general pool will therefore be
offered to General Category candidates. This is the only viable
solution since allotting these General Category seats (vacated F
by MRC candidates) to relatively lower ranked Reserved
Gategory candidates would result in aggregate reservations
exceeding 50% of the total number of available seats. Hence,
we see no hurdle to the migration of MRC candidates to the
Reserved Category. G
Re: Question II
33. We have extracted Rule 16 of the Civil Service
Examination Rules, as per notification dated 4.12.2004 issued
by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions H
L
730 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 6 S.C.R.
A (Department of Personnel and Training), New Delhi. A perusal
of the rule discloses the following: Rule 16 (1) mandates that
after the interview phase, the candidates will be arranged in the
order of merit on the basis of aggregate marks obtained in the
main examination. Later on, the UPSC shall fix a qualifying
B mark for recommending the candidates for the unreserved
vacancies. Proviso to sub-rule (1) lays down that a candidate
who belongs to the SC, ST & OBC categories and who has
qualified on his own in the merit list shall not be recommended
against the vacancies reserved for such classes if such
c candidate has not availed of any of the concessions or
relaxations in the eligibility or the selection criteria. The other
sub-rules provide as to how Meritorious Reserve Category
candidates are to be adjusted and once they get services of
~heir preference after availing the benefit of their reserved status
D (as SC, ST, OBC or any other applicable category), the
candidates whose names are in the consolidated reserve lists
are to be subsequently adjusted. The consolidated wait list
includes the candidates from General Category and Reserved
Category. If an MRC candidate who belongs to OBC category
has availed the benefit of his status for better service allocation
E then the seat vacated by him will go to a General Category
candidate. If he chooses not to avail the benefits of special
status then he would be counted in General Category and the
seat vacated by him in the Reserved Category will automatically
go to a candidate who belongs to the same Reserved
F Category.
34. As per the submissions made before this Court, in the
year 2005, 27 MRC candidates were adjusted against
Reserved Category and 5 MRC candidates were adjusted in
G General Category. As already explained, the current process
entails that a Reserved Candidate, although having done well
enough in the examination to have qualified in the open
category, does not automatically rescind his/her right to a post
in the Reserved Category. Furthermore, Rule 16(2) operates
H to recognize the inter se merit amongst the Reserved Category
UNION OF INDIA v. RAMESH RAM & ORS. ETC. 731
·. [K.G. BALAkRISHNAN, CJI.] .
Candidates. The two stage process is designed in a manner A
that no person included in the first recommended list is
subsequently eliminated. However, since the wait list contains
more candidates than available posts, it is inevitable that some
persons in the wait list will necessarily be excluded. Such
exclusion is on the basis of merit and the aggrieved parties B
were never promised a post.
35. The following chart presented by the Learned Solicitor
General explains how service allocation has been done for the
years 2005, 2006 and 2007:
c
Service Allocation in the Years 2005, 2006. 2007
Vacancy Position
Year General OBC SC ST Total
Vacancies Vacancies Vacancies Vacancies Vacancies D
2005 242 117 66 32 457
2006 273 144 80 36 533
2007 382 190 109 53 734
Candidates Recommended Against vacancies in the first case E
Year General OBC SC ST Total
Candidates Candidates Candidates Candidates Candidates
2005 210 117 66 32 425
(including (including
31 merit 1 merit) F
candidates) candidates)
2006 214 144 80 36 474
(including (including (including
41 merit 15 merit 2 merit
candidates) candidates) candidates)
G
2007 286 190 109 53 638
(including (including (including 1
76 merit 19 merit merit
candidates) candidates canidates
H
732 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 6 S.C.R
A However, we have been· apprised that on account of the
intervening order of the CAT Chennai Bench (dated 17.09.07
in O.A. No. 690 and 775 of 2006), the Department of Personnel
& Training (DOP&T) has not been able to proceed with service
allocation against the second list. Similarly, for the years 2006
B and 2007, the UPSC is maintaining a Consolidated Reserve
List of 116 and 192 candidates respectively, but DOP&T has
not sent any requisition for the second list as per Rule 16(5).
36. In State of Bihar v. M .Neeti Chandra, (1996) 6 SCC
36, this Court was confronted with broadly analogous issues.
C In that case, the Controller of Examinations, Health Services,
Government of Bihar, Patna had issued the prospectus for a
competitive examination for admission to post graduate
courses in Patna Medical College (Patna), Darbhanga Medical
College (Laheria Sarai), Rajendra Medical College (Ranchi)
D and Mahatma Gandhi Medical College (Jamshedpur) for the
year 1992. The prospectus contained the following provisions
with respect to reservations:
"The reservation of seats for various categories shall be
E as per the decision of the government. There will be no
economic criteria for the reservation.
Scheduled Caste 14%
Scheduled Tribe 10%
F
Extremely Backward Class 14%
Backward Class 9%
Ladies 3%
G
The Government of Bihar acting through the Department of
Personnel and Administrative Reforms published a resolution
dated 7-2-1992, bearing No. 11/K1-1022/91-K 20 [Hereinafter
"Resolution No. 20"]. Paragraph 6 of the same is reproduced
H below:
UNION OF INDIA v. RAMESH RAM & ORS. ETC. 733
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI.]
"As there is provision in direct appointment to the effect A
that the candidates belonging to reserved classes, who
are selected on the basis of merit would not be adjusted
against reserved seats, similarly maintaining the same
arrangement here also the candidates selected on the
basis of merit for admission into professional training B
institutes would not be adjusted against the reserved
quota for the candidates of the reserved classes".
The High Court of Patna which considered the matter devised
a method to remove the anomalies. It initiated a process of
allotment of seats by which the reserved seats were offered first C
(i.e. before the general seats are filled first) to the candidates
of the Reserved Category on merit, and after all the reserved
seats were so filled up, all other qualifying candidates of the
Reserved Category were 'adjusted' against open seats in the
General Category along with the general merit candidates and D
offered seats on merit-cum-choice basis. Furthermore, the High
Court made arrangement for the Reserved Category of girls
who could get seats under the reservation for girls or under
those reserved for SCs /STs etc., thereby retaining a choice
between one of the two reservations. The girls in excess of the E
reserved vacancies could seek admission on general merit.
The High Court held that by this procedure all the anomalies in
the procedure for allotment of seats could be removed. In the
meantime, another resolution was passed which was supposed
to rectify the anomalies arising out of the operation of the F
previous Resolution. The Resolution dated 22-3-1994 provided
that casual vacancies occurring at a later stage in the General
Category or Reserved Category would be filled from amongst
the candidates of the respective category on merit and in that
process no candidate would be allotted a college/course below G
the choice of the college or course already allotted. The High
Court observed that the resolution takes care of the grievances
of the candidates who by reason of readjustment at the State
for filling up subsequent vacancies often had to lose the college/
course of their choice but it did not address the anomaly that H
734 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 6 S.C.R.
A arises when preparing the main merit list as per Resolution No.
20.
State of Bihar moved this Court in appeal against the judgment
of the Patna High Court and the main ground was that if the
method suggested by the High Court was followed, all students
8
of Reserved Category who had secured the minimum marks
would have to be admitted even though there may not be
adequate number of vacancies for them. A.M. Ahmadi, C.J.
pronounced this contention to be very genuine and laid down:
c "10. 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
D 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
E 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 seats
F according to merit against the reserved seats but the
remaining will also have to be 'adjusted' against the open
seats for regular candidates. These will be those who are
not qualified according to general merit criteria and so will
necessarily displace 5 general candidates who would be
entitled to seats on merit.
G
11. In a particular year, the number of such candidates may
be much larger and thus the method evolved by the High
Court may create much hardship. The method will also not
be in tune with the principles of equality. Hence the method
H evolved by the High Court will have to be struck down.
UNION OF INDIA v. RAMESH RAM & ORS. ETC. 735
[K.G. BALAKRISHN.AN, CJI.]
12. If however, the word 'adjusted 'is read to mean A
considered along with the general merit list candidates, it
will lose much of its value. As per the above illustration,
the 5 candidates qualifying on Reserved Category criteria
having not secured enough marks according to general
criteria, cannot, at all be allotted any seat in the General B
Category.
13. 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.
However, to the extent the meritorious among them are /
denied the choice of college and subject which they could
secureumder the rule of reservation, the circular cannot be
sustained. The circular, therefore, can be given effect only D
if the Reserved Category candidate qualifying on merit with
general candidates consents to being considered as a
general candidate on merit-cum-choice _b~sis~or allotment ·
of college/institution and subject."
E
37. Learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioner in W.P.(C)
No. 297 of 2008 has relied upon the following observations of
Jeevan Reddy J., in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (supra.)
(para 811):
"811 .... it is well to remember that the reservations under F
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 reserved for Scheduled Castes; they will G
be treated as open competition candidates."
The said observations are not of any assistance as no MRC
candidate occupying a General Category slot is being counted
against the quota for the Reserved Category. For example . H
736 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 6 S.C.R.
A those MRC candidates belonging to the OBC category who cut
across the general qualifying standard and are appointed to
general posts are not being counted within the 27% quota
earmarked for OBCs. However, MRC candidates who retain
their reserved status and avail of the benefit of Rule 16 (2) to
s occupy a reserved post are counted against the reservation
quota. When MRC candidates do not choose to accept the
General Category slot available to them on account of their
merit, but opt to occupy a slot reserved for reservation category
candidates, because that post is more attract~ve, then counting
C him/ her against reservation quota will not violate the law laid
down in Indra Sawhney (supra.).
38. In M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 212, a
Constitution Bench of this Court held:
D "102. . . . Equality has two facets- "formal equality" and
"proportional equality". Proportional equality is equality "in
fact" whereas "formal equality" is equality "in law". Formal
equality exists in the rule of law. In the case of proportional
equality the State is expected to take affirmative steps in
E favour of disadvantaged sections of society within the
framework of liberal democracy. Egalitarian equality is
proportional equality."
39. Article 16 (4) of the Constitution provides that nothing
in Article 16 shall prevent the State from making any provision
F for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any
backward classes of citizens which, in the opinion of the State,
is not adequately represented in the services under the State.
Article 16(4) empowers the State to initiate measures in order
to protect and promote the interests of backward classes
G (OBC, SC & ST). The impugned measures in no way offend
the equality clause since this particular clause was inserted to
safeguard the concerns of certain classes and shield their
legitimate claims in the domain of public employment. On behalf
of the respondents in the appeals, it was submitted Rules 16
H (2), (3), (4) & (5) infringes Article 16(4). We do not accept this
UNION OF INDIA v. RAMESH RAM & ORS. ETC. 737
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI.]
proposition since Rule 16 (2) and the subsequent sub-rules A
merely recognize and advance inter se merit among the
Reserved Category candidates in the manner that has been
demonstrated before us by Learned Solicitor General.
40. Therefore, Rule 16 protects the interests of a Reserved B
Category candidate selected in the general (unreserved)
category by giving him the option either to retain his position
in the open merit' category or to be considered for a vacancy
in the Reserved Category, if it is more advantageous to him/
her. The need for incorporating such a provision is to arrest C
arbitrariness and to protect the interests of the Meritorious
Reserved Category candidates. If such rule is declared
redundant and unconstitutional vis-a-vis Article 14, 16 and 335
then the whole object of equality clause in the Constitution would
be frustrated and the MRC candidates selected as per the
general qualifying standard would be disadvantaged since the D
candidate of his/her category who is below him/her in the merit
list, may by availing the benefits of reservation attain a better
service when allocation of services is made. Rule 16 in
essence and spirit protects the pledge outlined in the Preamble
of the Constitution which conceives of equality of status and E
opportunity.
Re: Question Ill
41. Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench in O.A.
F
No. 690 of 2006 and 775 of 2006 had given the following
directions -:
"(i) The impugned Rule 16 (2) is declared as valid so long
as it is confined to allocation of services and confirms to
the ratio of Paras 4 to 6 of Anurag Patel order of the G
Hon'ble Apex Court.
(ii) The Supplementary List issued by the second
respondent to the first respondent dated 3.4.2007 is set
aside. This would entail issue of a fresh supplementary H
738 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 6 S.C.R.
A result from the reserved list of 64 in such a way that
adequate number of OBCs are announced in lieu of the
OBCs who have come on merit and brought under General
Category. The respondents are directed to rework the
result in such a way the select list for all the 457 candidates
B are announced in one lot providing for 242-general, 117
OBC, 57 SC and 41 ST and also ensure that the
candidates in OBC, SC & ST who come on merit and
without availing any reservation are treated as general
candidates and ensure that on equal number of such
c reserved candidates who are of merit under General
Category, are recruited for OBC, SC & ST respectively
and complete the select list for 457. Having done this
exercise, the respondents should apply Rule 16 (2) to
ensure that allocation of the service is in accordance with
rank-cum-preference with priority given to meritorious
D
reserved candidates for service allocation by virtue of Rule
16 (2) which is as per para 5 of Anurag Patel order. The
entire exercise, as directed above, should be completed
as per the order.
E (iii) Applying the ratio of Anurag Patel decision of Hon'ble
Apex Court (Paras 6 & 7), if there is need for re-allocation
of services, the respondents will take appropriate
measures to that extent and complete this process also
within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
F order."
The CAT had also issued the following direction as to how the
results of the UPSC examinations (2005) should have been
announced:
G "52. If the UPSC had followed the decision of the Hon'ble
Apex Court cited supra and released the select list in one
go for all the 457 vacancies then it would have ensured
that the select list contained not only 117 OBCs but also
an additional number of OBC candidates by this number,
H
UNION OF INDIA v. RAMESH RAM & ORS. ETC. 739
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI.]
in additional to 117 under 27% reservation, while A
simultaneously be number of general candidates recruited
will be less to th.e extent of OBCs recruited on merit and
included in the general list in the result of Civil Services
Examination, 2005. Once this order is met, the successful
candidates list will include 242 candidates in the General B
Category which is inclusive of all those Reserved Category
candidates coming on merit plus 117 OBC, 57 SC and
41 ST exclusively from these respective reserved
categories by applying relaxed norms for them .. If such a
list is subjected to Rule 16(2) of Civil Services C
Examination, 200.5 in present form for making service
allocation only and· then services are allotted based on
Rule 16(2) in this context, then the announcement of
recruitment result and allocation services will be both in
accordance with law as per various judgments the Hon'ble D
Apex Court and in accordance with the e~tent orders
issued by the Respondent No.1 and also in keeping with
spirit of Rule 16 (2) so that, the meritorious reserved
candidates get higher preference service as compared to
their lower ranked counter parts in OBC, ST,SC. In doing
so, the respondents also would notice that the steps taken E
by them in accordance with the Rules 16 (3)(-)(5) are
redundant once they issue the result of recruitment in one
phase, instead of two as they have become primary cause
for the litigation and avoidable confusion in the minds of
the candidates seeking recruitment." F
42. We may refer to the brief facts in Anurag Patel v. Uttar
Pradesh Public Service Commission, (supra.), referred to by
the Tribunal. In the year 1990, the Uttar Pradesh Public Service
Commission [hereinafter 'UPPSC') conducted a combined G
State Services/Upper Subordinate Services examination for
selection to various posts such as Deputy Collectors in U.P.
Civil (Executive) Services, Deputy Superintendent of Police in
U.P. Police Services, Treasury Officers/Account Officers in U.P.
H
740 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 6 S.C.R.
A Finance and Accounts Services, Sales Tax Officers, Assistant
Regional Transport Officers, District Supply Officers and various
other posts. Pursuant to the notification issued by the UPPSC,
a large number of candidates appeared for selection. The
UPPSC published the list of selected candidates in August,
B 1992. Altogether 358 posts in various categories were filled up.
The candidates belonging to the Backward Classes were
entitled to get reservation in selection in respect of 57 posts in
various categories, out of a total number of 358 posts. The
posts in each category of service were filled up by choice of
C the candidate and the person who secured higher position in
the merit list opted for U.P. Civil (Executive) Service and those
who could not get the higher and important category of service
had to be satisfied with posts in services of lesser importance.
In each category of service, posts were reserved for SCs/STs,
Backward Classes and handicapped persons etc. The UPPSC
D treated the candidates belonging to SC/ST and Backward
Classes who got selection to the seats (posts) earmarked for
general candidates as candidates in the General Category and
allotted them to various services depending upon the rank
secured by them in the select list. SC/ST and BC Candidates,
E who got lower rank in merit lists of general category candidates
got posting in lesser important services. However, the SC/ST
and BC Candidates who got selected to posts reserved in each
category even though they secured lesser rank in the whole list
got appointed to reserved posts in each category. This mode
F of appointments caused serious injustice to candidates who
initially applied in the Reserved Category, yet they got selected
to the general seats (posts) as they were meritorious and were
entitled to get selected along with the general candidates.
However, their merit and ability did not pay any dividends as
G they got appointment only to lesser important posts. This Court
held:
"4 .... The authorities should have compared the candidates
who are to be appointed on general merit as also
H
UNION OF INDIA v. RAMESH RAM & ORS. ETC. 741
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI.]
candidates who are to be appointed as against the A
reserved vacancies and while making appointments the
inter se merit of the reserved candidates should have been
considered and they must have been given the option
treating each service separately. As this exercise was not
followed, less meritorious candidates got appointment to B
higher posts whereas more meritorious candidates had to
be satisfied with posts of lower category.
5 .... in the instant case, as noticed earlier, ,out of 8
petitioners in Writ Petition No. 22753 of 1993, two of them C
who had secured Ranks 13 and 14 in the merit list, were
appointed as Sales Tax Officer II, wher~as 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 persons who are more meritorious and directed that D
a list of all selected Backward Class candidates shall be
prepared separately including thbse candidates selected
in the General Category and their appointments to the
posts shall be made strictly in accordance with merit as
per the select list and preference of a person higher in the E
select list will be seen first and the. appointment given
accordingly, while preference of a person lower in the list
will be seen only later. We do not think any error or illegality
in the direction issued by the Division Bench of the High
Court. F
6. If these candidates who got selection in the General
Category are allowed to exercise preference and then are
appointed accordingly the candidates who were appointed
in the reserved categories would be pushed down in their G
posts and the vacancies thus left by the General Category
candidates belonging to Backward Classes. There will not
be any change in the total number of posts filled up either
by the General Category candidates or by the Reserved
Category candidates."
H
742 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010) 6 S.C.R.
A 43. The decision in Anurag Patel (supra.) rectified the
anomaly which had occurred since the U.P.P.S.C. had allotted
services of 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
B meritorious candidates were disadvantaged on account of
qualifying on merit which was pa~ntly offensive to the 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
c with priority given to meritorious candidates for service
allocation.
44. The decision in Anurag Patel (supra.) in turn referred
to the earlier decision in Ritesh R. Sah v. Dr. Y.L. Yamul and
Others (supra.). However, we have already distinguished the
D judgment in Ritesh R. Sah. That decision was given in relation
to reservation for admission to post-graduate medical courses
and the same cannot be readily applied in the present
circumstances where we are dealing with the examinations
conducted by the UPSC. The ultimate aim of Civil Services
E aspirants is to qualify for the most coveted services and each
of the services have quotas for reserved classes, the benefits
of 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
F institution is of a homogeneous nature. However, the benefits
accruing from successfully qualifying in the UPSC examination
are of a varying nature since some services are coveted more
than others.
45. The order of the CAT is valid to the extent that it relied
G
on the ratio propounded by this Court in Anurag Patel v. Uttar
Pradesh Public Service Commission (supra.). Even though
that decision had in turn relied on the verdict of this Court in
Ritesh R. Sah v. Dr. Y.L. Yamul and Others, (supra.), the latter
H case is distinguishable from the present case with respect to
UNION OF INDIA v. RAMESH RAM & ORS. ETC. 743
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI.]
the facts in issue. However, we cannot approve of the A
conclusions arrived at in the Central Administrative Tribunal
order as it failed to take note of the unique characteristics of
the UPSC examinations.
46. Reference was also made to R.K. Sabharwal v. State
of Punjab, (1995) 2 SCC 745, this Court had declared that the B
State shall not 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 C
considering the counsels' 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 State of Punjab. The decision D
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 should be stopped. Any post falling vacant in a cadre E
thereafter, is 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 be compared F
with the examination conducted by UPSC. The examination
conducted by UPSC is very prestigious and the top-most
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 secure appointments in G
. the most preferred services. This judgment is strictly confined
to the enabling rprovision of Article 16 (4) of the Constitution
under which th~ State Government has the sole power to
decide whether ~here is a requirement for reservations in favour
H
744 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 6 S.C.R.
A of the backward 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 the
UPSC. Therefore, the fact-situation in R.K. Sabharwa/'s case
8 is clearly distinguishable.
47. The proviso to Rule 16 (1) and Rule 16 (2) operate in
different dimensions and it is untenable to argue that these
provisions are contradictory or inconsistent with each other. As
mentioned earlier, in the examination for the year 2005, 32
C reserved candidates (31 OBC candidates and 1 SC candidate)
qualified as per the general qualifying standard [Rule 16 (1 )].
These MRC candidates did not avail of any of the concessions
and relaxations in the eligibility criteria at any stage of the
examination, and further they secured enough marks to place
D them above the general qualifying standard. MRC candidates
are entitled to one of the two posts - one depending on their
performance in the General list and other depending on their
position in the Reserved List. When MRC candidates are put
in the General list on their own merit they do not automatically
E relinquish their reserved status. By the operation of Rule 16 (2),
the reserved status of an MRC candidate is protected so that
his/ her better performance does not deny such candidate the
chance to be allotted to a more preferred service. Where,
however, an MRC is able to obtain his preferred post by virtue
F of his /her ranking in the General List, he/ she is not counted
as a Reserved Candidate and is certainly not counted amongst
the respective reservation quota.
48. We must also remember that affirmative action
measures should be scrutinized as per the standard of
G proportionality. This means that the criteria for any form of
differential treatment should bear a rational correlation with a
legitimate governmental objective. In this case a distinction has
been made between Meritorious Reserved Category
candidates and relatively lower ranked Reserved Category
H
UNION OF INDIA v. RAMESH RAM & ORS. ETC. 745
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI.]
candidates. The amended Rule 16(2) only seeks to recognize A
the inter-se merit between these two classes of candidates for
the purpose of allocation to the various c!vil services with due
rega•d for the preferences indicated by the candidates.
49. With regard to the specific characteristics of the UPSC
B
examinations we hold that Reserved Category candidates
(belonging to OBC, SC or ST categories among others) who
are selected on merit and placed in the list of general/
unreserved Category candidates can choose to migrate to the
respective reserved categories at the time of allocation of C
services. Such migration is enabled by Rule 16 (2) of the Civil
Services Examination Rules, which is not inconsistent with Rule
16 (1) of the same or even thef content of Articles 14, 16 (4)
and 335 of the Constitution of India.
//
50. We sum up our answers-: D
(i) MRC candidates who avail the benefit of Rule 16 (2)
and adjusted in the reserved category should be counted
as part of the reserved pool for the purpose of computing
the aggregate reservation quotas. The seats vacated by E
MRC candidates in the General Pool will be offered to
General category candidates.
(ii) By operation of Rule 16 (2), the reserved status of an
MRC candidate is protected so that his/ her better
performance does not deny him of the chance to be F
allotted to a more preferred service.
(iii) The amended Rule 16 (2) only seeks to recognize the
inter se merit between two classes of candidates i.e. a)
meritorious reserved category candidates b) relatively G
lower ranked reserved category candidates, for the
purpose of allocation to the various Civil Services with due
regard for the preferences indicated by them.
(iv) The reserved category candidates "belonging to OBC,
H
746 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 6 S.C.R.
A SC/ ST categories" who are selected on merit and placed
in the list of General/Unreserved category candidates can
choose to migrate to the respective reserved category at
the time of allocation of services. Such migration as
envisaged by Rule 16 (2) is not inconsistent with Rule 16
B (1) or Articles 14, 16 (4) and 335 of the Constitution.
51. In view of the above, the civil appeals are allowed and
the judgment of the Mc:dras High Cou·rt is set aside. The writ
petitions challenging the validity of Rule 16(2) are dismissed.
The validity of Rule 16 of Civil Service Examination Rules 2005
' c (vide notification dated 4.12.2004) is upheld. There will be no
order as to costs.
R.P. Matters disposed of.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "reservation"Sign in to search