Summary
An SC candidate who cleared the Indian Forest Service preliminary examination only by the relaxed SC cut-off, but ranked above a general candidate in the final list, claimed the General Insider vacancy in the Karnataka cadre. The Supreme Court held that the preliminary examination is an integral stage of the examination, so relaxation availed there is relaxation 'at any stage' under the Exam Rules, 2013; such a candidate is not selected on general standards and cannot be allocated an unreserved vacancy under paragraph 9 of the Cadre Allocation Policy.
Issues
- Whether a reserved category candidate who availed the relaxed cut-off in the Preliminary Examination, but ranked higher than a general candidate in the final merit list, can be treated as selected on 'general standards' and allocated a General Insider vacancy in cadre allocation.
- Whether the Preliminary Examination, being a screening test whose marks are not counted for final merit, is a 'stage of the examination' for the proviso to Rule 14(ii) of the Exam Rules, 2013.
Provisions considered
- Rules 1 and 13 (with proviso), Rules for the Indian Forest Service competitive examination held by UPSC in 2013 (Exam Rules, 2013)Rule 1 makes the examination two-tier with the Preliminary Examination as the first tier that every candidate must clear; Rule 13 and its proviso allow relaxed standards for SC, ST and OBC candidates in both the Preliminary and Main Examination. The Court held the High Court overlooked these rules. (¶¶ 18, 19, 20, 26, 29, 38)
- Rule 14 and proviso to Rule 14(ii), Rules for the Indian Forest Service competitive examination held by UPSC in 2013 (Exam Rules, 2013)Rule 14(i) provides for the merit list and a general qualifying standard for unreserved vacancies; Rule 14(ii) allows recommendation of reserved candidates by relaxed standard. The proviso, referring to relaxation or concession 'at any stage of the examination', was read to mean that relaxation availed even at the Preliminary stage bars adjustment against unreserved vacancies. (¶¶ 18, 21, 22, 27, 28, 29, 36)
- Rule 17, Rules for the Indian Forest Service competitive examination held by UPSC in 2013 (Exam Rules, 2013)Cadre allotment is governed by the cadre allocation policy in force, with due regard to the candidate's preferences. (¶¶ 18, 23, 28)
- Paragraph 9, Cadre Allocation Policy dated 10.04.2008 (amended 21.04.2011)A reserved category candidate 'selected on general standards' may be allocated an unreserved vacancy by merit and preference. The Court held this requires selection without any relaxed standard; a candidate who availed relaxation is allocated against a vacancy of his own category. (¶¶ 23, 24, 25, 36, 39)
- Articles 14, 16 and 16(4), Constitution of IndiaThe respondent's plea that denying him the unreserved vacancy violated meritocracy and equality was rejected; the Court relied on precedent treating relaxation as an incident of reservation under Article 16(4), with its effect governed by the applicable rules. (¶¶ 15, 32)
Held
- Under Rule 14(ii) and its proviso read with paragraph 9 of the Policy, only a reserved category candidate selected without availing any relaxation or concession in eligibility or selection criteria at any stage of the examination can be allocated an unreserved vacancy; one who availed relaxation is allocated, by merit and preference, against a vacancy of his own category. (¶¶ 21, 22, 24, 27, 28)
- Though the Preliminary Examination is a screening test whose marks do not count towards final merit, it is an integral stage of the examination; relaxation availed there falls within 'any stage of examination' in the proviso to Rule 14(ii). (¶¶ 26, 29)
- A candidate who could reach the Main Examination only because of a relaxed cut-off in the Preliminary Examination cannot later claim selection on 'general standard' because he outperformed general candidates at later stages; relaxation at the initial stage operates as relaxation through the final stage. (¶¶ 32, 36, 37)
- Following Deepa E.V., Gaurav Pradhan, Niravkumar Dilipbhai Makwana and Sajib Roy, where the rules impose an embargo, reserved candidates who availed relaxation cannot migrate to unreserved vacancies. Jitendra Kumar Singh, Ajithkumar P. and Vikas Sankhala were distinguished: the first turned on instructions permitting migration, the second on a preliminary test lacking statutory basis, the third on TET relaxation not being a concession in recruitment. (¶¶ 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35)
- The High Court erred in reading 'general standards' in paragraph 9 of the Policy as only the general qualifying standard of Rule 14(i) based on the Main Examination; the General Insider vacancy was rightly allocated to the general candidate, and the respondent was rightly given the Tamil Nadu cadre. (¶¶ 25, 26, 37, 38, 39)
Result
Appeals allowed; judgments of the High Court and the Central Administrative Tribunal set aside; MoEFCC notification dated 13.03.2015 allocating the Karnataka cadre to Respondent No. 3 and the Tamil Nadu cadre to Respondent No. 1 upheld; no order as to costs.