State Services Exam Rule Barring Meritorious Reserved Category Candidates From Merging In General Seats Discriminatory: MP High Court

Observing that the impugned rule led to 'Artificial classification', the division bench of Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice D.D. Bansal called it 'arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of equality clause enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution'-

The meritorious reserve category candidates cannot be put to a comparative disadvantageous position because of their birth mark if they are otherwise equal or more meritorious than the last UR category candidate. The impugned Amended Rule, for no valid reasons deprives such reserved category candidate and, therefore, the impugned Rule deserves to be declared as ultra vires.

The Court was dealing with a batch of petitions, 49 of which were assailing constitutionality of Section 4(4) of Madhya Pradesh Lok Seva (Anusuchit Jatiyon, Anusuchit Jan Jatiyon Aur Anya Pichhade Vargon Ke Liye Arakshan) Adhiniyam, 1994 ('Adhiniyam') whereas the rest of them were praying to declare Rule 4(3)(d) III of Amendment dated 17.02.2020 in Madhya Pradesh State Service Examination Rules, 2015 (Examination Rules) as ultra vires.

Facts of the case were that Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission (PSC) had published an advertisement on 14.11.2019 for conducting State Service Examination, 2019. In furtherance thereof, the Petitioners submitted their candidature in prescribed form for appearing in the said examination. On 12.01.2020, preliminary exam was conducted by PSC. Soon thereafter, the impugned amendment in the Rules came into being by publishing it in the Official Gazette on 17.02.2020. The result of said examination was declared on 21.12.2020 on the basis of the amended Rules of 2020. Aggrieved by the same the batch of petitions were filed.

In these petitions, the State was put to notice and in turn, they filed reply. After receiving notices in the petitions, yet another amendment dated 20.12.2021 was published in the Official Gazette on 20.12.2021, amending the said Examination Rules. On 31.12.2021 the PSC declared the result of said examination (mains) and proceeded further to take interview of the candidates.

Constitutionality of Section 4(4) of Adhiniyam

The Court observed that Section 4(4) of the Adhniyam, which provides that a reserved category candidate getting selected on the basis of merit shall not be adjusted against vacancies for their respective category, could not be declared as unconstitutional. The Court placed its reliance on the decision of a division bench of the Court in Smt. Rajshri Tiwari v. State of M.P., wherein it was held that the said provision was in consonance with the interpretation of Article 16(4) of the Constitution given by the Apex Court in the Indra Sawhney & Ors. v. UoI & Ors.

The Court examined the decision of another division bench in Hemraj Rana v. State of M.P., that was heavily relied upon by the State while opposing the petitions, which had interpreted the term 'selected' in Section 4(4) of the Adhniyam as the final stage of selection, and not during preliminary and main examinations. The Court noted that observations made in the Hemraj case were in the context of the Examination Rules of 2001-

At the cost of repetition, it is noteworthy that in para-4 of judgment of Hemraj Rana (supra), this Court considered the word 'selected' as appears in Sub-section (4) of Section 4 of Adhiniyam whereas in para-6, the Court considered Sub-section (4) of Section 4 of Adhiniyam in the light of Rules of 2001…Pertinently, the subsequent events show that New Examination Rules, 2015 came into being. As per these Rules, the State itself decided to apply the said principle in favour of such reserve category candidates, who have secured equal or more marks than general category candidates in all levels of selection including preliminary and main examination. This is trite that judgment of a Court must be treated as a precedent for the principle which has been actually decided by it and not for something which logically flows from it.

The Court, thus, opined that the introduction of Examination Rules of 2015 changed the scenario and a conjoint reading of para-7 of Hemraj's judgment and unamended Examination Rules of 2015 permitted the bench to uphold the constitutionality of Section 4(4) of the Adhiniyam-

…combined reading of Sub-section (4) of Section 4 with unamended Rules of 2015 makes it obligatory for the respondents to apply the principle desired by the petitioner i.e. in all stages of selection, the reserve category candidate received more or equal marks qua UR candidate are entitled to secure a birth in UR category. Thus, we are unable to persuade ourselves that impugned provision of Adhiniyam should be struck down being unconstitutional.

Constitutionality of Rule 4(3)(d)(III)

The Court chalked out a comparative analysis of the Rules of 2015 and the subsequent amendments to it dated 17.02.2020 and dated 20.12.2021 and noted that the impugned amendment in the form of Rule 4(3)(d)(III) had become a hurdle for the meritorious reserved category candidates to be treated as U.R./Open Category Candidate-

The impugned amendment dated 17.02.2020, as per the argument of Shri Bernard, learned Additional Advocate General was necessitated in view of Division Bench order passed in the case of Vishal Jain (supra). On a minute scrutiny, we do not find any merit in this contention that the judgment of Vishal Jain (supra) can become a reason for amendment in the Rules with effect from 17.02.2020. A careful reading of order of Vishal Jain (supra) leaves no room for any doubt that this matter was decided after commencement of Rules of 2015. The Court did not consider the impact of the Rules, if read with Sub-section (4) of Section 4 of the Adhiniyam.

The Court found substance in the argument of the Petitioners that in absence of considering the statutory Rules (Examination Rules of 2015), the decision in MPPSC v. Vishal Jain & Ors. could not become a reason for introducing the impugned amendment dated 17.02.2020. The Court further observed that it was bound by the decision of the nine-judges bench of the Supreme Court in the Indra Sawhney case which has become the 'law of land under Article 141 of the Constitution'. Therefore, the Court held that there was no need for the State to introduce the amendment dated 17.02.2020 as the same was against the rationale laid out in Vishal Jain case.

Validity of Amendment Dated 17.02.2020 After Commencement of Selection Process

While dealing with the respective issue, the Court noted that as per the unamended Examination Rules, the reserved category candidates were entitled to secure a birth in U.R. category, if they had received same or more marks than an U.R. candidate. This norm/rule of game was admittedly changed to the detriment of Petitioners by bringing the impugned amendment-

Since the petitioners have obtained equal or more marks than last U.R. category candidates, they were having a valuable right to secure a position in U.R. category. This right of consideration and occupying a slot in U.R. category is sought to be taken away by bringing the impugned amendment, which in our opinion is arbitrary, impermissible and irrational.

Placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Budhan Choudhary & Ors. v. State of Bihar, the Court observed that when constitutionality of a provision is called in question, what is necessary to examine is whether there exists a nexus between the basis of classification and the object of the impugned provision under consideration. In the present case, the Court noted, the State had failed to establish the nexus between the object sought to be achieved and the impugned amendment, and therefore, the Court could not give the impugned amendment its seal of approval-

Since, it runs contrary to the binding precedent of Indra Sawhney (supra) consistently followed till Saurav Yadav (supra), the impugned amendment cannot sustain judicial scrutiny. By no stretch of imagination, withstanding a Nine Judges Bench judgment of Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney (supra), it was open to the Government to amend the Examination Rules contrary to the principles laid down in Indra Sawhney (supra) under the garb of order of Division Bench of this court in Vishal Jain (supra).

The Court went on to observe that in order to implement the decision in Indra Sawhney case, the benefit would have to be extended to meritoriously selected reserved category candidates to secure U.R. category births -

We are of the considered view that the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney (supra) can be translated into reality only when reserved category candidate secured equal or more marks with U.R. category candidate is given birth in U.R. category in all stages of selection including preliminary and the main examination. Any other interpretation will defeat the purpose and the constitutional scheme flowing from Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of the India. There is no justifiable reason for depriving a meritorious reserved category candidate who has competed with UR category candidate and secured same or more marks than him from being treated as U.R. candidate.

The Court further opined-

Depriving such candidate from the fruits of securing a birth in UR category results into dividing a homogeneous class of meritorious candidates. The Artificial classification which is outcome of impugned rule is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of equality clause enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution…We accordingly declare Rule 4 (3) (d) (III) of the Amended Rules as unconstitutional.

With the aforesaid observations the Court upheld the constitutionality of Section 4(4) of Madhya Pradesh Lok Seva (Anusuchit Jatiyon, Anusuchit Jan Jatiyon Aur Anya Pichhade Vargon Ke Liye Arakshan) Adhiniyam, 1994. However, it declared Rule 4(3)(d)(III), introduced by Amendment in Examination Rules on 17.02.2020 as ultra vires and was accordingly, set aside.

The Court further directed the State that the recruitment process must be conducted and completed in consonance with unamended Examination Rules of 2015.

Case Title: Kishor Choudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr., with connected matters

Citation:

Click Here To Read/Download Order