Reservation Category Candidates Who Make It On Their Own Merit Have To Be Adjusted Against General Category : SC Reiterates

The Supreme Court has reiterated that reservation category candidates, who score more than the cut-off marks for the general category candidates, have to be adjusted against general category based on their meirt and not reserved category.

"The principle that such of the reservation category candidates who make it on their own merit have to be adjusted against the general category candidates has not been in doubt", the Court observed in the case The State of Tamil Nadu and others v K Shobhana Etc, referring to several precedents.

A three judge bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Dinesh Maheshwari and Hrishikesh Roy was considering an appeal filed by the State of Tamil Nadu against the judgments of the Madras High Court.

The issue in the case related to the order of filling up of vacancies as per Section 27(f) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016. The matter arose out of direct recruitment process to the post of Post Graduate Assistants and Physical Education Directors, Grade-I.

The respondents in the case pointed out that some candidates, who would have got selected even without any reservation, were appointed in the quota for backlog vacancies under the categories of Most Backward Classes(MBC) and Denotified Communities(DNC). They argued that such meritorious candidates ought to have been appointed under general category, leaving the backlog vacancies to be filled up by other reserved category candidates.

The State of Tamil Nadu placed reliance on Section 27(f), which deals with the carrying forward of unfilled reservation vacancies to the next year and the mode of filling up of backlog vacancies in the next recruitment.

The last sentence of Section 27(f) read as :

The selection for appointment for the next direct recruitment shall be made first for the "backlog"vacancies and then the normal rotation shall be followed:

Stressing on the word "first" in the above provision, the State of Tamil Nadu and some other candidates argued that Section 27(f) mandates that on the basis of merit the backlog vacancies had to be first filled in. After those vacancies were filled, the appointment had to be made on merit in the General Turn.

On the other hand, the respondents argued that that the correct methodology was that first, the list has to be drawn up on the basis of merit, and then only the issue of application of reservation would arise.Thus, first the meritorious candidates would take their place in the general merit list where no reservation would apply. Reservation would apply thereafter, whereby the backlog vacancies would be filled in first,followed by the current year vacancies. In a nutshell, the argument was that Section 27 of the Act has nothing to do with the selection based on merit, and only applies to the mode of reservation post that stage.

Agreeing with the arguments of the respondents, the Supreme Court observed :

"In our view, Section 27(f) of the Act cannot be read in a manner, apart from any other reason, to negate this very principle. Section 27 deals with the reservation. It has nothing to do with the general candidates list/ General Turn vacancies. Such of the candidates who have made it on their own merit albeit, from reserved category, have not sought the benefit of the reservation. Thus, Section 27 of the Act would have nothing to do up to that point. Section 27 would apply only when the reservation principle begins, which is after filling up of the seats on merit"

The judgment also referred to the recent SC precedent in the case Saurav Yadav v State of Uttar Pradesh which held that the candidates belonging to reserved category, are eligible to fill general/open category vacancies also based on merit.

Regarding the application of Section 27, the Court explained :

"Section 27 would apply only when the reservation principle begins, which is after filling up of the seats on merit. Thus, the word "first" would apply at that stage, i.e., the backlog vacancies have to be filled in first and the current vacancies to be filled in thereafter. At the stage when the general category seats are being filled,there is thus no question of any carry forward or current vacancies for reserved category arising at all"

The judgment authored by Justice Kaul observed that the Section propagates the social philosophy of vacancies for reserved category not lapsing in case there are inadequate number of candidates. Thus, instead of offering it to the general category, a provision has been made to carry forward those vacancies for one year.

Referring to Saurav Yadav decision, the judgment explained the steps of appointment process as follows :

a) the general merit list to be first filled in;

(b) the backlog vacancies of the particular reserved category to be thereafter filled in "first"; and

(c) the remaining reserved vacancies for the current year to be filled thereafter.

Case Details

Title : The State of Tamil Nadu and others v K Shobhana Etc

Bench : Justices S K Kaul, Dinesh Maheshwari & Hrishikesh Roy

Appearances : Senior Advocates C A Sundaram, Nagamuthu for appellants; Senior Advocate N L Rajah for respondents.

Citation : LL 2021 SC 138

Click here to read/download the judgment