Difference between revisions of "Public Service Commission vs Mamta Bisht And Ors on 3 June, 2010"

From Advocatespedia, ASSN: 138223
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page with "Facts of the Case: The Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal published an advertisement dated 07.06.2002 inviting applications for 35 posts of Civil Judge, (Junior Division)...")
 
(No difference)

Latest revision as of 13:44, 1 July 2020

Facts of the Case: The Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal published an advertisement dated 07.06.2002 inviting applications for 35 posts of Civil Judge, (Junior Division) with a stipulation that the number of vacancies may be increased or decreased. It clarified that the reservation policy adopted by the State i.e. reservation in favour of SC/ST/OBC and horizontal reservation in favour of handicapped, and women etc. belonging to Uttaranchal would be applicable. Respondent No.1 applied in pursuance of the said advertisement seeking benefit of reservation in favour of Uttaranchal women. She qualified in the written examination and thus faced the interview held by the Commission. The final result of the selection was declared on 31.07.2003 and it was evident from the result that respondent No.1 was not selected. Instead of filling 35 vacancies, recommendations to fill up 42 vacancies were made as the decision had been taken in this regard prior to declaration of result. Out of 42 posts, 26 were filled up by general category and 16 by reserved category candidates. Some women candidates stood selected in the general category while others had been given the benefit of horizontal reservation being resident of Uttaranchal. Respondent No.1, being aggrieved preferred Writ Petition No.780 of 2003 (M/B) in the High Court of Uttaranchal seeking the quashing of select list dated 31.07.2003 mainly on the ground that women candidates belonging to Uttaranchal had secured marks making them eligible to be selected in general category and had it been done so, respondent No.1 could have been selected in reserved category being a woman of Uttaranchal. It had also been pleaded in the petition that some of the women candidates who not only claimed the benefit of horizontal reservation but have been selected giving the said benefit, did not submit their respective certificate of domicile at the time of filling up the application forms but they produced the said certificate at a later stage and it was accepted. The High Court accepted the first submission of respondent No.1 after examining the record of selection and came to the conclusion that the last selected woman candidate who was given the benefit of horizontal reservation for Uttaranchal women had secured marks higher than the last selected candidate in the general category. Thus, the said candidate ought to have been appointed against the general category vacancy and respondent No.1 ought to have been offered the appointment giving her the benefit of horizontal reservation for Uttaranchal women.


Issue: Is the view taken by the High Court on application of Horizontal reservation contrary to the law as laid down by the same court in Rajesh Kumar Daria Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Ors. ?

Judgement:

The Hon’ble Supreme Court was of the view that the view taken by the High Court on application of horizontal reservation is contrary to the law laid down by this Court in Rajesh Kumar Daria Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Ors. AIR 2007 SC 3127, wherein dealing with a similar issue this Court held as under: “The second relates to the difference between the nature of vertical reservation and horizontal reservation. Social reservations in favour of SC, ST and OBC under Article 16(4) are "vertical reservations". Special reservations in favour of physically handicapped, women, etc., under Articles 16(1) or 15(3) are "horizontal reservations". Where a vertical reservation is made in favour of a Backward Class under Article 16(4), the candidates belonging to such Backward Class, may compete for non- reserved posts and if they are appointed to the non- reserved posts on their own merit, their number will not be counted against the quota reserved for respective Backward Class. Therefore, if the number of SC candidates, who by their own merit, get selected to open competition vacancies, equals or even exceeds the percentage of posts reserved for SC candidates, it cannot be said that the reservation quota for SCs has been filled. The entire reservation quota will be intact and available in addition to those selected under the open competition category. (Vide Indra Sawhney, R.K. Sabharwal v.) Hence, The court came to a conclusion that it is evident that the judgment and order of the High Court is not in consonance with law laid down by this Court in Rajesh Kumar Daria (supra). The judgment and order impugned herein is liable to be set aside and all consequential orders become unenforceable and inconsequential. Thus, appeals succeeded and were allowed

Reasoning: The Hon’ble Supreme Court concurred with various other judgements like the Union of India v. Virpal Singh Chauhan and Ritesh R. Sah v. Dr. Y.L. Yamul among the above mentioned cases and stated that the order of the High Court is not in consonance with the law laid down by this Court in Rajesh Kumar Daria. Hence allowed the appeals and set aside the judgement of the High Court.