Jharkhand High Court Upholds JPSC's Allocation Decision For Reserved Category Candidates In Administrative Service Cadre

The court upheld the decision made by the Single Judge, stating that the petitioners did not meet the specialized subject graduation requirement mentioned in condition no.3 of the advertisement issued by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC) under Advertisement No.23 of 2016. Despite this, the JPSC chose not to cancel their candidature but considered their applications under the reserved category, placing them based on merit.

A division bench of Justices Sujit Narayan Prasad and Navneet Kumar observed, “We have examined the decision of the JPSC in the light of the very object and intent of the interest of the candidate belong to the scheduled caste category and since those candidates have not done graduation in the specialized subject as per the note as contained under condition no.3 of the advertisement, hence, if in that circumstances, the JPSC has taken decision instead of cancelling their candidature rather to consider their candidature under the reserved category and placing them as per the merit and by virtue of which they have been Jharkhand Administrative Service Cadre, it cannot be said to be unjustified.”

“It requires to refer herein again that in view of clause-8 based upon which the policy decision of the Personnel Department of the State of Jharkhand, it is not available for the writ petitioners to take the ground that any right has been said to be conferred under Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India since the State under the enabling provision as enshrined under Article 16(4) has not made out any policy decision for migration of such candidate to be treated under the reserved category and in that view of the matter if the decision has been taken by the JPSC not to migrate the said candidate who have secured marks at par with the open category candidates under the reserved category, it cannot be said to suffer from error,” the bench added.

FACTS

In light of the factual context of the case, the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC) issued Advertisement No.23 of 2016 to fill 326 vacancies as per the State's requisition for various services and categories.

The petitioners in this case belonged to a reserved category and achieved higher marks than candidates within their own category. However, despite their superior performance, they were treated on par with candidates in the open merit (UR) category and were allocated positions in the Jharkhand Information Service, Planning Service, and Finance Service Cadres.

The main concern of the petitioners before the court was that, even though they had outperformed the last selected candidates in the Jharkhand Administrative Services Cadre, they were allocated different services under the open category (UR) instead of being recognized as part of the reserved category.

Their grievance revolved around the perceived injustice of being treated unfairly due to their hard work and achieving scores equivalent to those in the open category. It was contended that they should have been considered under their respective reserved category, particularly in the case of the Jharkhand Administrative Service Cadre, given that candidates from the Scheduled Caste and other reserved categories who scored lower than the petitioners had been allocated positions in the Jharkhand Administrative Service Cadre.

As their concerns remained unaddressed, the petitioners filed the writ petitions seeking redressal. The writ petitions were heard by a Single Judge and by considering the condition stipulated under clause 8 of the advertisement which was based upon the executive instructions issued by the Personnel Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department as well as various pronouncements of the Apex Court wherein consideration was given to Article 16 (4) of the Constitution, the single-judge had dismissed the writ petitions. resulting in the present appeal.

VERDICT

The division bench observed that under the rules of executive business, the Personnel Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department is the Nodal Department to frame rules and once they had been framed, the same had to be followed by other departments, in view of the said rule being exercised under Article 166(3) of the Constitution.

Additionally, the Court observed that the State had made a policy decision on 31.10.2011, stating that candidates who scored marks equivalent to those of open-category candidates would be considered under the open category. This policy allowed room for other reserved category candidates to avail the benefits of reservation.

The Court highlighted that the petitioners had secured marks equal to those of the last selected candidate in the open category and possessed the necessary educational qualifications as outlined in condition no.3 of the advertisement. This information was presented in a tabular chart before the Court, clearly indicating that the petitioners had performed on par with open-category candidates.

Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the petitioners on meeting the requisite qualifications specified in condition no.3 of the advertisement for graduation, had their candidature considered under the open category due to the equivalent marks, resulting in them being allocated the respective service cadres.

Court observed that the writ petitioners had claimed that they were put in a detrimental situation since the candidates who had secured lesser marks than them, had been allocated Jharkhand Administrative Service Cadre, and the writ petitioners with higher marks in comparison to the other reserved category candidates, were put in a disadvantageous position by allocating them Jharkhand Finance Services, Jharkhand Planning Services and Jharkhand Information Services.

Placing reliance on Apex Court’s judgement in Manish Kumar Shahi Vrs. State of Bihar, reported in (2010) 12 SCC 576, the Court asserted, “The writ petitioners have appeared without any demeanor and even after seeing the said condition, participated in the process of selection and when the selection process was concluded then they by taking turn around, are now questioning the entire process of selection, but they cannot be allowed to turn around.”

The Court underlined that recruitment processes should adhere to recruitment rules, regulations, or policy decisions to ensure fairness and transparency. In this case, the State of Jharkhand had introduced a policy decision under circular no.12165 dated 31.10.2011, which was duly mentioned in the advertisement as clause 8. The selection process had been conducted based on this policy, and the Court found no error in the decision-making process.

Clause 8 read as follows: a candidate who is under the reserved category has secured marks at par with the candidate who is under the open category, will have to be considered to be a candidate under the open category if the candidature of such candidate has not been accepted under reserved category based upon any relaxation.  

It was noted that the candidates had been allocated cadres based on the criteria established by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission, and they had not challenged condition no.8, which was an integral part of the selection process. Hence, the Court upheld the principle that candidates who had actively and unquestioningly participated in the selection process cannot later challenge it, since the appellants had not challenged condition no 8 of the advertisement when they could have done so. 

The Court also noted that, according to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC), other candidates who had secured lower marks than the writ petitioners had been allocated to the Jharkhand Administrative Service Cadre, since these candidates had history as a subject, which made them ineligible for the Planning Service Cadre, as per condition no.3 of the advertisement.

The Court said, “The JPSC if, in such circumstances, had not considered the candidature of these candidates even though they have secured more than 600 marks at par with the open category candidates, can it be said to be justified in the context that if they would not have been considered under the open category candidate, then what would be the result.”

“The result would be that they would be thrown out from the process of selection. The benefit of reservation is for the purpose of extending the benefit to the OBC category candidates and when any legislation is being made for the purpose of extending the benefit, the same is to be construed to extend the benefit and not to frustrate the legislative intent and purpose of making it,” the Court added.

In conclusion, the Court affirmed that the Single Judge had considered the conditions specified in clause 8 and clause 14, and based on the reasons provided in the Single Judge's order, the Court found no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Consequently, all the appeals were dismissed.

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 81

Case Title: Chandan vs The State of Jharkhand and Ors

Case No.: L.P.A. No. 231 of 2021

Click Here To Read / Download Judgment