Summary
A wait-listed OBC candidate challenged BSNL’s allocation of higher-merit OBC candidates to reserved posts despite their entitlement to open-category seats after a general reduction of qualifying marks. The Court upheld his claim to the resulting reserved vacancy. Exercising Article 142, it protected two long-serving open-category appointees from removal while directing the claimant’s appointment with seniority linked to the relevant original appointments.
Issues
- Whether higher-merit OBC candidates should be counted against open seats rather than exhaust reserved vacancies in this recruitment.
- How the claimant’s entitlement should be reconciled with the position of existing appointees.
Provisions considered
- Article 16(4), Constitution of IndiaThe Court applied the principle that reserved-category candidates selected on open merit do not consume their category’s reserved quota. (¶ 8.1-9)
- Article 142, Constitution of IndiaExisting open-category appointees were protected from removal while the successful claimant received appointment and the specified seniority. (¶¶ 9, 11)
Held
- A candidate belonging to a vertically reserved category who qualified for selection on open merit had to be counted against the open category. Such selection left the reserved quota available to other eligible candidates of that category. On the admitted comparative merit here, the two identified OBC candidates should have been adjusted against open vacancies. (¶ 8.1-9)
- After that adjustment, the remaining OBC vacancies fell to other OBC candidates in order of merit. The respondent, first on the OBC waiting list, was entitled to appointment against the vacancy thereby available. (¶¶ 9, 11)
- Ramesh Ram concerned a specific Civil Services Examination rule permitting adjustment to a reserved vacancy to obtain a higher-preference service. That distinct allocation setting did not govern this recruitment, which involved no comparable service preference. (¶ 10)
- Removing two already appointed open-category candidates after their long service would unsettle the selection. Article 142 was therefore used to preserve their employment while accommodating the respondent and giving him seniority from the date of appointment of the relevant lower-merit open-category candidates. (¶¶ 9, 11)
Result
BSNL’s appeal dismissed without costs. The respondent’s entitlement to appointment and the specified seniority was upheld, with an express Article 142 direction that the two existing open-category appointees were not to be removed on reshuffling.