Summary
OBC candidates who availed three years' age relaxation in the Staff Selection Commission recruitment of Constables (GD), and who scored below the last selected OBC candidate but above the last selected unreserved candidate, were directed by the Tripura High Court to be considered in the unreserved category on the strength of Jitendra Kumar Singh. The Court set that direction aside: the DoPT Office Memorandum dated 01.07.1998 bars migration of reserved candidates who availed relaxed standards such as age, Jitendra Kumar Singh turned on U.P. statutory instructions that expressly permitted such migration, and whether migration is permissible depends on whether the governing recruitment rules impose an embargo.
Issues
- Whether the High Court erred in applying the ratio of Jitendra Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. to permit OBC candidates who had availed age relaxation to be considered against unreserved vacancies, in the teeth of the Office Memorandum dated 01.07.1998.
- Whether reserved-category candidates who availed relaxation in fees or upper age limit and scored higher than the last selected unreserved candidate have a general entitlement to migrate to unreserved seats.
- Whether Vikas Sankhala, Saurav Yadav, Ajithkumar, Sadhana Singh Dangi and BSNL v. Sandeep Chaudhary support such migration where the recruitment rules bar it.
Provisions considered
- Paras 2 and 3 (relaxations and concessions for SC/ST/OBC candidates), Office Memorandum No. 36011/1/98-Estt.(Res) dated 01.07.1998, Department of Personnel and TrainingOnly SC/ST/OBC candidates selected on the same standard as general candidates are not adjusted against reserved vacancies; where a relaxed standard is applied, for example in age limit, experience, number of chances or extended zone of consideration, such candidates are counted against reserved vacancies and deemed unavailable for unreserved vacancies. Applied as an embargo on migration of the respondents, who had availed age relaxation and had not challenged the memorandum's validity. (¶¶ 6, 8, 13, 14, 15, 33)
- Section 8(1) of the 1994 Act; Para 4 of the Instructions dated 25.03.1994, U.P. Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994 and Instructions dated 25.03.1994Section 8(1) empowered the State to grant concessions in age limit and fees to reserved categories, and Para 4 of the instructions expressly provided that a reserved candidate selected on merit in open competition is adjusted against unreserved vacancies irrespective of having availed such relaxation. These provisions, and not general principles, were the foundation of Jitendra Kumar Singh, which was therefore distinguished. (¶¶ 10, 11, 12, 15)
- Articles 14, 16(1), 16(4) and 335, Constitution of IndiaThe High Court had treated denial of migration as contrary to merit-based recruitment and Article 14, and the respondents invoked Articles 14 and 335; Jitendra Kumar Singh had described age and fee relaxations as incidental provisions giving effect to reservation under Article 16(4) which do not infringe Article 16(1). The Court did not decide any constitutional question, noting that the memorandum's validity was not challenged. (¶¶ 5, 9, 14, 22)
Held
- Jitendra Kumar Singh is not founded on general principles but on the interpretation of the U.P. 1994 Act, the G.O. dated 26.02.1999 and the government instructions dated 25.03.1994, which expressly permitted reserved candidates availing relaxation in fees or upper age limit to be adjusted against unreserved seats. Its ratio is distinguishable where, as here, the recruitment is regulated by the Office Memorandum dated 01.07.1998, which clearly bars such migration when relaxation in age, experience qualification and the like has been availed. The High Court erred in mechanically applying it without appreciating this difference in the factual matrix. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15)
- The ratio of a judgment must be read in the facts of the particular case and cannot have universal application; a case is only an authority for what it actually decides (Quinn v. Leathem), and one additional or different fact may make a world of difference, so that disposal of cases by blindly relying on a decision is improper (Haryana Financial Corporation v. Jagdamba Oil Mills). (¶¶ 16, 17)
- Whether the general observations in Jitendra Kumar Singh bind recruitments where migration is not permitted is no longer res integra: Deepa E.V. held them inapplicable in the face of the express bar in the same memorandum of 01.07.1998, Gaurav Pradhan confined the decision to the U.P. scheme, and these views were reiterated in Niravkumar Dilipbhai Makwana and affirmed by a three-judge Bench in Government (NCT of Delhi) v. Pradeep Kumar. (¶¶ 18, 19, 20, 21)
- The authorities relied on by the respondents do not assist them: in Vikas Sankhala the relaxation in TET pass marks conferred no advantage in the final score and the applicable circulars did not restrict migration; Ajithkumar concerned the power to hold a preliminary examination; Saurav Yadav and Sadhana Singh Dangi dealt with horizontal reservation for women where no rule prohibited adjustment against open seats or where vertical migration was permitted; and in BSNL v. Sandeep Chaudhary the cut-off was reduced for OBC and general candidates alike without any special concession. (¶¶ 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31)
- Whether a reserved candidate who has availed relaxation in fees or upper age limit to participate in open competition may be recruited against unreserved seats depends on the facts of each case: where there is no embargo in the recruitment rules or employment notification, such candidates who scored higher than the last selected unreserved candidate are entitled to migrate; where an embargo is imposed under the relevant recruitment rules, they cannot migrate to general category seats. (¶ 32)
- The respondents, having availed the age concession to participate in the recruitment process, having participated without demur and having not challenged the constitutional validity of the Office Memorandum dated 01.07.1998, could not be considered for appointment in the unreserved category; the High Court was wrong in applying Jitendra Kumar Singh to permit it. (¶¶ 14, 33)
Result
Appeals allowed; the common judgment of the High Court of Tripura dated 12.10.2018 in WP(C) Nos. 277, 279, 280 and 281 of 2017 and the order dated 26.02.2019 dismissing the review applications set aside; pending applications disposed of.