Date of the Judgment: 4 July 2019
Citation: Civil Appeal No. 5185 of 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 3938 of 2018)
Judges: S. Abdul Nazeer, J. and Indira Banerjee, J.

Can a candidate who uses age relaxation as a member of a reserved category be moved to a general category seat if they score high enough? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning recruitment to the Gujarat Forest Service. The core issue was whether candidates who availed age relaxation could be considered for unreserved posts based on merit. This judgment clarifies the rules regarding reservation policies and their application in public service recruitment.

The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice S. Abdul Nazeer and Justice Indira Banerjee. Justice S. Abdul Nazeer authored the judgment.

Case Background

The Gujarat Public Service Commission (GPSC) advertised 47 posts for Assistant Conservator of Forests (ACF) and 120 posts for Range Forest Officer (RFO) on March 1, 2010. The advertisement specified that 84 posts were for the unreserved category, with additional posts reserved for women, Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Socially and Economically Backward Classes (SEBC). The GPSC conducted a preliminary test on May 30, 2010, and a main written examination from May 27, 2013, to June 2, 2013. The results of the main examination were declared on May 21, 2014, and personal interviews were conducted from June 16, 2014, to July 31, 2014.

The appellant, Niravkumar Dilipbhai Makwana, applied under the SEBC category and successfully passed the examination. He was listed at serial no. 138 in the list of selected candidates published on September 25, 2014. The appellant contended that the GPSC did not follow the Supreme Court’s judgment in Jitendra Kumar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2010 (3) SCC 119, which he believed allowed for migration to the general category despite availing age relaxation. He filed a Special Civil Application before the High Court of Gujarat.

Timeline

Date Event
March 1, 2010 GPSC issues advertisement for ACF and RFO posts.
May 30, 2010 Preliminary test conducted by GPSC.
May 27, 2013 – June 2, 2013 Main written examination held.
May 21, 2014 Results of the main written examination declared.
June 16, 2014 – July 31, 2014 Personal interviews conducted.
September 25, 2014 List of selected candidates published, with the appellant at serial no. 138.
2015 Appellant files Special Civil Application No. 1100 of 1015 before the High Court of Gujarat.
June 11, 2015 Single Judge of the High Court allows the application.
March 15, 2017 Division Bench of the High Court allows the appeal filed by GPSC and sets aside the order of the Single Judge.
July 4, 2019 Supreme Court dismisses the appeal.

Course of Proceedings

The Single Judge of the High Court of Gujarat allowed the appellant’s application, stating that meritorious reserved category candidates who secured their position in the general category should not be confined to their respective reserved categories just because they availed a concession. The High Court held that such a concession cannot be considered as a “relaxation in merits” and relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Jitendra Kumar Singh (supra). However, a Division Bench of the High Court overturned this decision, stating that age relaxation is a relaxation in standards, and thus, candidates who availed it could not be considered for general category seats. The Division Bench held that the decision in Jitendra Kumar Singh (supra) would not be applicable to the facts of the present case.

Legal Framework

The judgment refers to several legal provisions and government resolutions:

  • Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India: This article empowers the State to make provisions for reservation of appointments or posts in favor of any backward class of citizens not adequately represented in State services.
  • Gujarat Civil Services Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules, 1967: Rule 8(2) allows the appointing authority to relax age limits for candidates belonging to SC/ST, SEBC, and women candidates.
  • Government Resolution dated 11.12.1986: This resolution states that SC/ST candidates selected on merit should be considered for unreserved posts without affecting their claims for reserved posts.
  • Circular No.PVS-1099-MVN-13-G-4 dated 29.01.2000: This circular clarifies that reserved category candidates selected on the same standards as general category candidates will be counted against unreserved posts. However, if relaxed standards are applied (e.g., age, experience, qualification), they will be counted against reserved posts. The circular states:

    “…only those Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Socially and Educationally Backward Classes candidates who are selected on the same standards as applied to the general category candidates, shall be counted/adjusted against unreserved posts and not against the reserved posts. When relaxed standard have been applied in selection of candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Socially and educationally Backward Classes in terms of the age limit, experience, qualification, permitted number of chances in written examination, extended zone of consideration larger than what is provided for general category, etc., then the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Socially and Educationally Backward Classes candidates selected under such arrangement shall be counted against the reserved posts. Such candidates would be deemed as unavailable for consideration against unreserved posts.”

  • Circular No.PVS-102003-900-G-4 dated 23.07.2004: This circular clarifies that candidates from reserved categories selected on merit without any relaxation in prescribed eligibility standards will not be adjusted against reserved posts. However, those who got selected by availing relaxation in qualifying marks in competitive written examination and personal interview shall be counted against the reserved posts. The circular states:

    “…candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe/ Socially and Educationally backward classes, who got selected on merit through competitive examination without availing any relaxation in prescribed standards for eligibility shall not be adjusted against the reserved posts but candidate belonging to the Scheduled Case/ Scheduled Tribe/ Socially and Educationally backward classes who got selected by availing relaxation in qualifying marks in competitive written examination and personal interview shall be counted against the reserved posts. However, reserved class candidates who have been granted exemption from paying examination fee shall not be barred from competing for an unreserved vacant post.”

  • Gujarat Forest Service Class II Recruitment Rules, 2007, 2008, and 2009: These rules regulate the recruitment to the post of ACF in Gujarat Forest Services.
  • Range Forest Officer Class II Recruitment Rules, 2008 and 2009: These rules regulate the recruitment to the post of RFO.
  • Examination Rules of 2008: These rules were framed by the State Government vide Notification dated 18.09.2008.
See also  Supreme Court reinstates employee terminated for alleged misrepresentation: Ganapati Bhikarao Naik vs. Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (2024)

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

  • The age relaxation granted to reserved category candidates is only to enable them to appear for the exam and does not grant any preferential advantage in the selection process.
  • The circulars from the Government of Gujarat show a concession in age, which cannot be treated as an incident of reservation under Article 16(4) of the Constitution.
  • Rule 4 of the ACF/RFO Competitive Examination Rules, 2008, stipulates that the preliminary test is only to qualify candidates for the written exam, with the final selection based on the written exam and interview performance alone.
  • The relaxation at the preliminary test stage should not be considered a grant of benefit for selection.
  • Section 8 of the U.P. Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Act, 1994, is similarly worded as the Gujarat circulars, and therefore, the ratio in Jitendra Kumar Singh (supra) should apply.
  • The appellant relied on Ajithkumar P. and Ors. v. Remin K.R. and Ors., 2015 (16) SCC 778 and Vikas Sankhala and Ors. v. Vikas Kumar Agarwal and Ors., 2017 (1) SCC 350, to support his submissions.

Respondent’s Arguments:

  • A candidate who has availed age relaxation as a result of belonging to a reserved category cannot be accommodated in general category seats.
  • The circulars dated January 29, 2000, and July 23, 2004, clearly state that candidates who avail age relaxation are to be considered only against reserved seats.
  • The judgment in Jitendra Kumar Singh (supra) is not applicable because it was rendered in the context of the policy adopted by the State of U.P.
  • The age relaxation granted at the initial stage is an incident of reservation under Article 16(4) of the Constitution.
  • The respondent relied on Deepa E.V. v. Union of India and Ors., 2017 (12) SCC 680 and Gaurav Pradhan and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., 2018 (11) SCC 352, to support their submissions.
Main Submission Sub-Submissions (Appellant) Sub-Submissions (Respondent)
Age Relaxation
  • Age relaxation is merely to enable participation, not a preferential advantage.
  • It is a concession, not an incident of reservation under Article 16(4).
  • Preliminary test relaxation does not equal benefit for selection.
  • Age relaxation is a benefit of reservation.
  • Candidates using age relaxation cannot migrate to the general category.
Applicability of Jitendra Kumar Singh
  • Section 8 of the U.P. Act is similar to Gujarat circulars.
  • The ratio in Jitendra Kumar Singh (supra) should apply.
  • Jitendra Kumar Singh (supra) is specific to U.P. policy.
  • It does not apply to the present case.
Interpretation of Rules
  • Rule 4 of the 2008 Rules treats preliminary test as a qualifying stage.
  • Age relaxation at any stage is a benefit of reservation.
Authorities Relied On
  • Ajithkumar P. and Ors. v. Remin K.R. and Ors., 2015 (16) SCC 778
  • Vikas Sankhala and Ors. v. Vikas Kumar Agarwal and Ors., 2017 (1) SCC 350
  • Deepa E.V. v. Union of India and Ors., 2017 (12) SCC 680
  • Gaurav Pradhan and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., 2018 (11) SCC 352

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The main issue framed by the Supreme Court was:

  1. Whether a candidate who has availed of an age relaxation in a selection process as a result of belonging to a reserved category can thereafter seek to be accommodated in/or migrated to the general category seat?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Issue Court’s Decision Brief Reasons
Whether a candidate who has availed of an age relaxation in a selection process as a result of belonging to a reserved category can thereafter seek to be accommodated in/or migrated to the general category seat? No The Court held that the State Government’s policy, as clarified by circulars dated 29.01.2000 and 23.07.2004, clearly specifies that a candidate who has availed age relaxation cannot be accommodated in the general category. The Court also distinguished the case from the ruling in Jitendra Kumar Singh (supra), stating that the latter was based on different statutory provisions.

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

Authority Court How Considered Legal Point
Jitendra Kumar Singh and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., 2010 (3) SCC 119 Supreme Court of India Distinguished The Court distinguished this case, stating that it was based on the statutory interpretation of the U.P. Act of 1994 and the instructions dated 25.03.1994, which are different from the statutory scheme under consideration in the present appeal.
Ajithkumar P. and Ors. v. Remin K.R. and Ors., 2015 (16) SCC 778 Supreme Court of India Not Applicable The Court held that this case was not applicable to the facts of the instant appeal, as it did not examine the effect of a statutory provision/circular granting age relaxation to reserved category candidates.
Vikas Sankhala and Ors. v. Vikas Kumar Agarwal and Ors., 2017 (1) SCC 350 Supreme Court of India Not Applicable The Court held that this case does not assist the appellant in any manner, as it dealt with the relaxation of marks in the TET examination, which was not part of the recruitment process.
Deepa E.V. v. Union of India and Ors., 2017 (12) SCC 680 Supreme Court of India Followed The Court followed this case, which held that when a relaxed standard is applied in selecting SC/ST/OBC candidates, they cannot be considered for general category vacancies.
Gaurav Pradhan and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., 2018 (11) SCC 352 Supreme Court of India Followed The Court followed this case, which held that the ratio of Jitendra Kumar Singh (supra) has to be read in the context of the statutory provisions and government orders and cannot be applied where the orders are to the converse effect.
Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India Constitution of India Explained The Court explained that this article empowers the State to make provisions for reservation of appointments or posts in favor of any backward class of citizens.
Rule 8(2) of the Gujarat Civil Services Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules, 1967 Gujarat Government Explained The Court explained that this rule allows the appointing authority to relax age limits for candidates belonging to SC/ST, SEBC, and women candidates.
Government Resolution dated 11.12.1986 Gujarat Government Explained The Court explained that this resolution states that SC/ST candidates selected on merit should be considered for unreserved posts without affecting their claims for reserved posts.
Circular No.PVS-1099-MVN-13-G-4 dated 29.01.2000 Gujarat Government Explained The Court explained that this circular clarifies that reserved category candidates selected on the same standards as general category candidates will be counted against unreserved posts, but those who availed relaxation will be counted against reserved posts.
Circular No.PVS-102003-900-G-4 dated 23.07.2004 Gujarat Government Explained The Court explained that this circular clarifies that candidates from reserved categories selected on merit without any relaxation will not be adjusted against reserved posts, but those who availed relaxation in qualifying marks will be counted against reserved posts.
See also  Supreme Court Upholds the Validity of Contesting from Two Seats in Elections: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs. Union of India (2023)

Judgment

Submission by the Parties How the Court Treated the Submission
Appellant’s submission that age relaxation is merely a concession to enable participation and not an incident of reservation. Rejected. The Court held that age relaxation is an incident of reservation under Article 16(4) of the Constitution.
Appellant’s submission that the preliminary test is only a qualifying stage and relaxation at that stage should not be considered a benefit of reservation. Rejected. The Court stated that the distinction between preliminary and final exams is misconceived, and age relaxation is a benefit availed at any stage of the process.
Appellant’s submission that the ratio in Jitendra Kumar Singh (supra) is applicable to the present case. Rejected. The Court held that the judgment in Jitendra Kumar Singh (supra) was based on a different statutory scheme and is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
Respondent’s submission that a candidate who has availed age relaxation cannot be accommodated in general category seats. Accepted. The Court upheld the State Government’s policy that candidates who avail age relaxation cannot be considered for unreserved posts.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

  • Jitendra Kumar Singh and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., 2010 (3) SCC 119*: The Court distinguished this case, stating it was based on different statutory provisions.
  • Deepa E.V. v. Union of India and Ors., 2017 (12) SCC 680*: This case was followed by the court, supporting the respondent’s argument.
  • Gaurav Pradhan and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., 2018 (11) SCC 352*: This case was also followed, reinforcing the view that the Jitendra Kumar Singh ruling is context-specific.
  • Ajithkumar P. and Ors. v. Remin K.R. and Ors., 2015 (16) SCC 778*: The Court found this case inapplicable to the present facts.
  • Vikas Sankhala and Ors. v. Vikas Kumar Agarwal and Ors., 2017 (1) SCC 350*: The Court found that this case did not assist the appellant.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the specific reservation policy of the State of Gujarat, as outlined in its circulars and rules. The Court emphasized that the State has the discretion to formulate policies for concessions, exemptions, preferences, or relaxations for backward classes. The Court noted that the State Government had clarified that candidates who avail age relaxation must be considered only against reserved posts. The Court also distinguished the case from Jitendra Kumar Singh (supra), highlighting that the earlier judgment was based on different statutory provisions and government instructions specific to Uttar Pradesh.

Sentiment Percentage
State Policy Emphasis 40%
Distinction from Jitendra Kumar Singh 30%
Rejection of Appellant’s Argument 20%
Support for Respondent’s Argument 10%
Ratio Percentage
Fact 30%
Law 70%

The Court’s reasoning was heavily based on the interpretation of the law and the specific policies of the State of Gujarat, with less emphasis on the factual aspects of the case.

Issue: Can a candidate who availed age relaxation be moved to the general category?

↓

Gujarat Government Policy: Circulars specify that age relaxation means reserved category consideration only.

↓

Distinction from Jitendra Kumar Singh: UP case based on different statutory provisions.

See also  Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Child Rape Case, Dismisses Special Leave Petition: Seelan @ Jeyaseelan vs. The Inspector of Police (2020)
↓

Court’s Decision: Candidate who availed age relaxation cannot be moved to general category.

The Court rejected the appellant’s argument that age relaxation was merely a concession to enable participation and not a benefit of reservation. The Court emphasized that the State has the discretion to formulate policies for reservations and that the Gujarat government had clearly stated that candidates who avail age relaxation must be considered only against reserved posts. The Court also rejected the argument that the preliminary test is merely a qualifying stage and that age relaxation at that stage should not be considered a benefit of reservation. The Court held that the distinction between preliminary and final exams is misconceived, and age relaxation is a benefit availed at any stage of the process.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the interpretation of the specific policies of the State of Gujarat and the fact that the judgment in Jitendra Kumar Singh (supra) was based on different statutory provisions and government instructions. The Court held that the principles laid down in Jitendra Kumar Singh (supra) cannot be applied to the facts of the present case.

The court quoted the following from the judgment:

“It is evident from the above two circulars that a candidate who has availed of age relaxation in the selection process as a result of belonging to a reserved category cannot, thereafter, seek to be accommodated in or migrated to the general category seats.”

“The State Government has clarified that when a relaxed standard is applied in selecting a candidate for SC/ST, SEBC category in the age limit, experience, qualification, permitting number of chances in the written examination etc., then candidate of such category selected in the said manner, shall have to be considered only against his/her reserved post. Such a candidate would be deemed as unavailable for consideration against unreserved post.”

“We are of the view that the age relaxation granted to the candidates belonging to SC/ST and SEBC category in the instant case is an incident of reservation under Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India.”

There was no minority opinion in this case. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench, and both judges concurred with the final decision.

The implications of this decision are that it reinforces the State’s authority to implement reservation policies as it deems fit. It clarifies that age relaxation is indeed a benefit of reservation, and candidates who avail it cannot then seek to be considered for general category seats. This has a significant impact on how recruitment processes are conducted and how reserved category candidates are placed in government jobs.

This judgment does not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles but clarifies the application of existing reservation policies and principles.

Key Takeaways

  • Age relaxation is considered a benefit of reservation under Article 16(4) of the Constitution.
  • Candidates who avail age relaxation cannot be migrated to the general category, even if they score higher than the cut-off for the general category.
  • State governments have the discretion to formulate policies for reservations and related concessions.
  • The judgment in Jitendra Kumar Singh (supra) is context-specific and does not apply universally.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment. The appeal was dismissed, and the parties were directed to bear their own costs.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a candidate who avails age relaxation as a member of a reserved category cannot be moved to a general category seat, even if they score higher than the cut-off for the general category. This judgment clarifies the application of existing reservation policies and principles and reinforces the State’s authority to implement reservation policies as it deems fit. There is no change in the previous position of law but a clarification of the same.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court. The Court clarified that age relaxation is a benefit of reservation, and candidates who avail it cannot be considered for general category seats. This judgment reinforces the State’s authority to implement reservation policies as it deems fit and clarifies the application of existing reservation principles.

Category

Parent Category: Reservation Policy
Child Categories:

  • Age Relaxation
  • General Category
  • Reserved Category
  • Article 16(4), Constitution of India
  • Gujarat Civil Services Rules, 1967

Parent Category: Constitution of India
Child Category:

  • Article 16(4), Constitution of India

Parent Category: Gujarat Civil Services Rules, 1967
Child Category:

  • Rule 8(2), Gujarat Civil Services Rules, 1967

FAQ

Q: What is the main issue in this Supreme Court judgment?

A: The main issue was whether a candidate who used age relaxation as a member of a reserved category could be moved to a general category seat if they scored high enough in the exam.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide about age relaxation and general category migration?

A: The Supreme Court decided that a candidate who has availed age relaxation as a member of a reserved category cannot be moved to a general category seat, even if they score higher than the cut-off for the general category.

Q: Why did the Supreme Court distinguish the case from Jitendra Kumar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh?

A: The Supreme Court distinguished the case because the Jitendra Kumar Singh ruling was based on specific statutory provisions and government instructions in Uttar Pradesh, which were different from the policies in Gujarat.

Q: What does this judgment mean for candidates applying for government jobs?

A: This judgment means that if a candidate uses age relaxation as a member of a reserved category, they will be considered only for reserved category seats and not for general category seats, regardless of their score.

Q: Does this judgment introduce any new legal principles?

A: No, this judgment does not introduce any new legal principles but clarifies the application of existing reservation policies and principles.

Source: Age Relaxation and General Category Migration in Public Service Recruitment