Supreme Court clarifies OBC reservation for central posts in Uttarakhand: Khilendra Singh & Ors. vs. Union of India (28 November 2017)

Case Background

The cases involve individuals from various castes (Jaat, Saini, Momin (Ansar), Gujjar, and Kahar) who sought appointments to central government posts in Uttarakhand under the Other Backward Classes (OBC) category. These individuals were initially considered for OBC positions based on their respective state OBC status, but were later denied due to discrepancies with the Central List of OBCs. The core issue revolves around the complex interplay between state and central OBC lists, particularly in the context of the newly formed state of Uttarakhand.

In the first case, Khilendra Singh applied for the post of Subject Matter Specialist and was appointed in 2008 under the OBC category. However, his appointment was later terminated because the “Jaat” caste was not included in the Central List of OBCs at the time of his appointment. In the second case, Kamal Kishore & Ors. applied for the post of Constable G.D. in CRPF in 2010. They were initially considered under the OBC category but were later moved to the general category as their castes were not in the Central List of OBCs for Uttarakhand at that time. Both cases challenged the denial of OBC reservation for central government posts.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

In the case of Khilendra Singh, the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital dismissed his writ petition challenging the termination of his services. The High Court held that the list prepared by the State of Uttarakhand would be applicable for appointment to Central posts. In the case of Kamal Kishore & Ors., the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital allowed the writ petitions, directing the Union of India to consider their appointments to the post of Constable G.D. in CRPF under the OBC category. The Union of India’s appeals against the Single Judge’s decision were dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court. Aggrieved by these decisions, the Union of India and Khilendra Singh approached the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The judgment refers to the following legal provisions:

• The National Commission for Backward Classes Act, 1993 (Act 27 of 1993): This Act established the National Commission for Backward Classes.
• Section 9 of the National Commission for Backward Classes Act, 1993: This section empowers the Commission to examine requests for inclusion of any class of citizens as a backward class in the lists and hear complaints of over-inclusion or under-inclusion of any backward class in such lists and tender such advice to the Central Government as it deems appropriate.
• Section 2(c) of the National Commission for Backward Classes Act, 1993: This section defines “lists” as:“lists” means lists prepared by the Government of India from time to time for purposes of making provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of backward classes of citizens which, in the opinion of that Government, are not adequately represented in the services under the Government of India and any local or other authority within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India.

The legal framework is based on the principle of reservation for OBCs in government jobs, as established in the case of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India [(2001) 1 SCC 168]. The Central Government is responsible for maintaining lists of OBCs for the purpose of reservation in central government jobs. The National Commission for Backward Classes plays a crucial role in advising the government on these lists.

Arguments

Arguments on Behalf of the Appellants (Union of India):

• The Union of India argued that the respondents were not entitled to be considered for appointment in the posts reserved for OBCs as the castes to which they belong were not included in the Central List of OBCs for Central Government services in Uttarakhand, as per “Swamy’s Compilation on Reservations and Concessions” book.
• They contended that the Central List of OBCs for Uttarakhand, as it existed in 2010, only included one caste, Rai-Sikh (Mahatam), and the other OBCs were included only in 2011. Since the selections were conducted in 2010, the respondents could not be considered for OBC posts.
• The Union of India relied on a proceeding dated 12th March, 2007, to support their claim that only one caste was included in the Central List for Uttarakhand.

Arguments on Behalf of the Respondents (Khilendra Singh, Kamal Kishore & Ors.):

• The respondents argued that they belong to castes that are recognized as OBCs in the State of Uttar Pradesh and, therefore, should be considered for OBC reservations in central government jobs in Uttarakhand.
• They relied on a letter dated 28th July, 2011, issued by the National Commission for Backward Classes, stating that the Central List for OBCs for the State of Uttarakhand was under process and that till it was finalized, the List for Uttar Pradesh would be applicable for appointment to Central posts in the State of Uttarakhand.
• They contended that the National Commission for Backward Classes had supported their claim in its counter affidavit.

The innovativeness of the argument made by the respondents was that they relied on the communication of the National Commission for Backward Classes to claim that the Uttar Pradesh list was applicable to Uttarakhand till a separate list was finalized.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue that the court addressed was:

1. Whether the appellants were right in denying the OBC reservation to the respondents on the ground that their castes were not included in the Central List of OBCs for Uttarakhand as per “Swamy’s Compilation on Reservations and Concessions” book.
2. Whether the list of OBCs of Uttar Pradesh can be applied to the State of Uttarakhand for the purpose of appointment to Central Government posts, till a separate list is finalized for Uttarakhand.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court referred to Indra Sawhney v. Union of India [(2001) 1 SCC 168] to highlight the implementation of 27% reservation for OBCs in civil posts and services.
• The Court relied on the judgment of the High Court of Uttarakhand in Deepak Kumar v. Gurukul Kangri University, Haridwar, which referred to a letter from the National Commission for Backward Classes stating that the Uttar Pradesh OBC list would apply to Uttarakhand until a separate list was finalized.
• The Court referred to Section 9 and Section 2(c) of the National Commission for Backward Classes Act, 1993 to highlight the powers of the National Commission for Backward Classes and to define “lists” as lists prepared by the Government of India from time to time for purposes of making provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of backward classes of citizens.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The Court emphasized the importance of following the official lists and resolutions of the National Commission for Backward Classes and the Central Government, rather than relying on private publications like “Swamy’s Compilation on Reservations and Concessions.”
• The Court considered the fact that the National Commission for Backward Classes had clarified that the Central List for OBCs of Uttar Pradesh would be applicable to Uttarakhand until a separate list was finalized.
• The Court also took into account the fact that the respondents belonged to castes that were recognized as OBCs in the State of Uttar Pradesh.

The Court’s reasoning was primarily focused on ensuring that the benefit of reservation is not denied to deserving candidates due to administrative confusion or reliance on unofficial sources.

Key Takeaways

• The judgment clarifies that for central government jobs in Uttarakhand, the Central List of OBCs for Uttar Pradesh would be applicable until a separate list for Uttarakhand is finalized.
• It emphasizes that official lists and resolutions of the National Commission for Backward Classes and the Central Government should be the basis for determining OBC status, and not private publications.
• The court deprecated the practice of relying upon private books for the purpose of defeating the rights of citizens.
• The judgment ensures that deserving candidates are not denied the benefit of reservation due to administrative confusion or reliance on unofficial sources.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the Appellants to consider the Respondents for appointment as Constables G.D., CRPF in the posts reserved for OBCs in the advertisement dated 24th July, 2010. The Appellants were further directed not to deny the appointment to the Respondents on the ground that they are now over-aged provided they fulfil the condition of fitness.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that the Central List of OBCs for the State of Uttar Pradesh would be applicable to the State of Uttarakhand for the purpose of appointment to Central Government posts till a separate list is finalized for Uttarakhand. The judgment also clarifies that the official lists and resolutions of the National Commission for Backward Classes and the Central Government should be the basis for determining OBC status, and not private publications. This judgement clarifies the confusion that was prevailing in the State of Uttarakhand regarding the applicability of the OBC list for the purpose of appointment to Central Government posts.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in the cases of Khilendra Singh and Kamal Kishore & Ors. clarifies the applicability of OBC lists for central government jobs in Uttarakhand. The Court held that the Central List of OBCs for Uttar Pradesh would be applicable to Uttarakhand until a separate list was finalized. The Court also deprecated the practice of relying on private books for determining OBC status. This judgment ensures that deserving candidates are not denied the benefit of reservation due to administrative confusion or reliance on unofficial sources.