Supreme Court clarifies rules for OBC candidates’ placement in general category: Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Anr. vs. Sandeep Choudhary & Ors. (28 April 2022)

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether reserved category candidates who score higher than general category candidates should be placed in the general category pool.

CASE TYPE: Service Law

Case Name: Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Anr. vs. Sandeep Choudhary & Ors.

[Judgment Date]: 28 April 2022

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 28 April 2022
Citation: (2022) INSC 438
Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and B.V. Nagarathna, J.

When a reserved category candidate scores more marks than a general category candidate, where should they be placed? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning appointments at Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL). The core issue was whether candidates from the Other Backward Classes (OBC) category, who scored higher than the cut-off for general category candidates, should be placed in the general category pool or the reserved OBC pool. This judgment clarifies the rules of reservation in public employment.

The bench comprised Justices M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, with the judgment authored by Justice M.R. Shah.

Case Background

In 2008, BSNL issued a notification for the recruitment of Telecom Technical Assistants (TTAs). The recruitment was to be done through a competitive exam, with the Secondary Switching Area (SSA) as the unit of recruitment. In the Ajmer SSA, there were 12 posts, with 5 reserved for the Unreserved Category (UR) and 4 for OBC category, among others.

The exam was conducted, and the minimum qualifying marks were set at 40% for UR and 33% for reserved categories. However, no UR candidate scored 40% or more. Four OBC candidates scored above 33%, with the highest score being 39.87%. The original applicant, Sandeep Choudhary, scored 34.12% and was placed first on the OBC waiting list.

Subsequently, BSNL relaxed the qualifying marks by 10%, setting the new cut-off at 30% for UR and 23% for reserved categories. This relaxation made five UR candidates eligible. However, two OBC candidates who had scored higher than the new cut-off for UR candidates were still considered under the OBC category. This led to the original applicant approaching the Central Administrative Tribunal, arguing that there cannot be two cut-off marks for a single selection.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) directed BSNL to consider the original applicant’s candidature if sufficient OBC vacancies existed. BSNL then filed a writ petition before the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur, which was dismissed. The High Court relied on previous Supreme Court decisions, stating that the two OBC candidates with higher scores should have been placed in the general category, thereby allowing the original applicant to be considered for the OBC vacancy. BSNL then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The judgment discusses the principles of vertical and horizontal reservations as enshrined in Article 16 of the Constitution of India.

✓ Article 16(4) of the Constitution allows the state to make provisions for reservation of appointments in favor of backward classes.

The court also discusses the concept of vertical and horizontal reservations, explaining that:

✓ Vertical reservations are those made for Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs) under Article 16(4).

✓ Horizontal reservations are special reservations for categories like physically handicapped persons or women under Articles 16(1) or 15(3).

The court notes that vertical reservations allow candidates from reserved categories to compete for non-reserved posts, and if they get selected on their own merit, they are not counted against the quota reserved for their respective categories. However, this principle does not apply to horizontal reservations.

Arguments

Arguments by BSNL:

• BSNL argued that the two OBC candidates who scored higher than the relaxed cut-off for general category candidates were rightly considered in the reserved category pool.
• Relying on the decision in Union of India vs. Ramesh Ram [(2010) 7 SCC 234], BSNL contended that reserved category candidates selected on merit can be adjusted against reserved category vacancies to get a service of higher choice.
• BSNL submitted that adjusting the two OBC candidates into the general category would result in shuffling of candidates and unsettle the entire selection process.
• BSNL further argued that the general category vacancies were already filled, and inserting two OBC candidates would expel two already selected general category candidates.

Arguments by the Respondent (Original Applicant):

• The respondent argued that the two OBC candidates who scored more than the last general category candidate should be adjusted against the general category quota.
• Relying on Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India [1992 Supp (3) SCC 217], the respondent contended that the remaining reserved category candidates should be appointed against the quota meant for them.
• The respondent submitted that BSNL’s action of considering the two OBC candidates in the reserved category caused a loss to other reserved category candidates.

Innovativeness of the argument: The respondent’s argument is innovative because it directly applies the principles of reservation to the specific facts of the case, highlighting the need to adjust reserved category candidates in the general category if they have scored higher marks.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. Whether in a case where the reserved category candidates secured more marks than the general category candidates, such reserved category candidates will have to be first adjusted in the general category pool and they shall be considered for appointment in the general category pool or against the vacancies meant for reserved category candidates?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered several key judgments and legal provisions to address the issue:

Cases:

• Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India [1992 Supp (3) SCC 217]: This case established the principles of vertical and horizontal reservations. The court reiterated that reserved category candidates selected on their own merit in open competition should not be counted against the reserved quota. The Supreme Court of India relied on this case to emphasize that the rule of 50% applies only to reservations in favour of backward classes made under Article 16(4) of the Constitution.
• Rajesh Kumar Daria vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission [(2007) 8 SCC 785]: This case clarified the difference between vertical and horizontal reservations. The court reiterated that vertical reservations allow candidates from reserved categories to compete for non-reserved posts and if they are appointed on their own merit, their number will not be counted against the quota reserved for their respective Backward Class. The Supreme Court of India cited this case to explain the procedure for filling vacancies under vertical and horizontal reservations.
• Uttaranchal Public Service Commission vs. Mamta Bisht [(2010) 12 SCC 204]: This case upheld the view that reserved category candidates on their own merit are entitled to be considered in the general category and should not be counted against the reserved category. The Supreme Court of India used this case to reinforce that candidates who qualify on their own merit should be placed in the general category.
• Ritesh R. Sah vs. Y.L. Yamul [(1996) 3 SCC 253]: This case reiterated the principle that candidates entitled to be admitted on their own merit should not be counted against the reserved quota. The Supreme Court of India referred to this case to support the principle that merit-based selection should not be counted against reserved quotas.
• Saurav Yadav vs. State of U.P. [(2021) 4 SCC 542]: This case affirmed that candidates from reserved categories are entitled to be selected in the open or general category based on their merit and that their selection should not be counted against the quota reserved for their categories. The Supreme Court of India cited this case to reinforce that candidates from reserved categories can be selected in the open category based on their merit.
• Sadhana Singh Dangi vs. Pinki Asati [(2022) 1 SCALE 534]: This case reiterated that reserved category candidates securing higher marks than the last of the general category candidates are entitled to get a seat/post in unreserved categories. The Supreme Court of India used this case to reiterate that merit should be given precedence and that reserved category candidates with higher marks should be considered against unreserved seats.
• Union of India vs. Ramesh Ram [(2010) 7 SCC 234]: BSNL relied on this case, but the Supreme Court distinguished it, stating that the case was specific to Civil Services Examination Rules and not applicable to the facts of the present case.

Legal Provisions:

• Article 16 of the Constitution of India: The Supreme Court relied on Article 16, which provides for equality of opportunity in matters of public employment.
• Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India: The Supreme Court referred to this provision which allows the state to make provisions for reservation of appointments in favor of backward classes.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Indra Sawhney [1992 Supp (3) SCC 217]*: The Court followed this case to determine the principles of vertical and horizontal reservations.
• Rajesh Kumar Daria [(2007) 8 SCC 785]*: The Court followed this case to clarify the distinction between vertical and horizontal reservations.
• Uttaranchal Public Service Commission [(2010) 12 SCC 204]*: The Court followed this case to emphasize that candidates who qualify on their own merit should be placed in the general category.
• Ritesh R. Sah [(1996) 3 SCC 253]*: The Court followed this case to support the principle that merit-based selection should not be counted against reserved quotas.
• Saurav Yadav [(2021) 4 SCC 542]*: The Court followed this case to reinforce that candidates from reserved categories can be selected in the open category based on their merit.
• Sadhana Singh Dangi [(2022) 1 SCALE 534]*: The Court followed this case to reiterate that merit should be given precedence and that reserved category candidates with higher marks should be considered against unreserved seats.
• Union of India vs. Ramesh Ram [(2010) 7 SCC 234]*: The Court distinguished this case, stating that it was not applicable to the facts of the present case.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principles of merit and social justice. The Court emphasized that candidates from reserved categories who achieve higher scores than general category candidates should be given their due place in the general category. This ensures that the reserved category quota is available for other candidates who are entitled to it based on the rules of reservation. The court also aimed to strike a balance between not unsettling the already appointed candidates and ensuring that the original applicant was given their due right.

Fact:Law Ratio Analysis: The analysis indicates that the court was more influenced by legal considerations (70%) than factual aspects (30%) of the case. This suggests that the court focused more on interpreting and applying the principles of reservation and relevant case laws than on the specific facts of the case.

The Court considered the argument that adjusting the OBC candidates in the general category would unsettle the selection process. However, it emphasized that the principles of reservation and merit should prevail. The court also considered the need to accommodate the original applicant who was waitlisted in the reserved category.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning can be summarized as follows:

• Reserved category candidates who score higher than the general category cut-off should be placed in the general category pool.
• This ensures that the reserved category quota is filled by candidates who are entitled to it based on their merit.
• The court aimed to strike a balance by not removing already appointed general category candidates while also accommodating the original applicant.

The court quoted the following from the judgment:

“The reserved category candidates having obtained more marks than the last candidate in general category candidates will have to be adjusted against the general category quota and they were required to be considered in the general category pool, thereby the remaining candidates belonging to the reserved category were required to be appointed against the quota meant for reserved category.”

“Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand, it is noted that the aforesaid two candidates, namely, Mr. Alok Kumar Yadav and Mr. Dinesh Kumar, belonging to OBC category, were required to be adjusted against the general category as admittedly they were more meritorious than the last of the general category candidates appointed and that their appointments could not have been considered against the seats meant for reserved category.”

“However, at the same time, it cannot be disputed that by reshuffling and on insertion of two OBC candidates into general category select list, two general category candidates already appointed shall have to be expelled and/or shall have to be removed, who are working since long and it may unsettle the entire selection process. Therefore, to strike a balance and to ensure that the two general category candidates, who are already appointed will not have to be removed and at the same time, respondent No.1 – original applicant being a reserved category candidate also gets accommodated, if he is so appointed, in exercise of the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, we propose to pass an order that on reshuffling and on respondent No.1 – original applicant being appointed now against the reserved category seats and while the aforesaid two candidates, namely, Mr. Alok Kumar Yadav and Mr. Dinesh Kumar, belonging to reserved category, to be treated in the general category seats, two candidates already appointed and belonging to general category shall not be removed.”

There were no dissenting opinions. The bench was unanimous in its decision.

The Court’s decision has significant implications for future cases related to reservation in public employment. It reinforces the principle that candidates from reserved categories who score higher than general category candidates should be placed in the general category pool, ensuring that the reserved category quota is filled by candidates who are entitled to it based on their merit.

The judgment does not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles but clarifies the application of existing principles of vertical and horizontal reservation.

Key Takeaways

• Reserved category candidates who score higher than the general category cut-off must be placed in the general category pool.
• This ensures that the reserved category quota is available for other eligible candidates.
• The judgment balances the rights of reserved category candidates with the need to avoid unsettling the selection process.
• The decision reinforces the principles of merit and social justice in public employment.
• The judgment clarifies that the principles of vertical reservation apply to the placement of reserved category candidates who score higher than the general category cut-off.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that:

• The two OBC candidates (Mr. Alok Kumar Yadav and Mr. Dinesh Kumar) should be treated as general category candidates.
• The original applicant (Sandeep Choudhary) should be appointed against the reserved category seats.
• The two general category candidates already appointed should not be removed from service.
• The original applicant should get seniority from the date the general category candidates with lesser marks were appointed.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that reserved category candidates who score higher than the general category cut-off must be placed in the general category pool. This decision reinforces the existing legal position on vertical reservations and clarifies its application in cases where reserved category candidates score higher than general category candidates.

This judgment does not change the previous positions of law but reinforces the existing principles of vertical and horizontal reservation.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Anr. vs. Sandeep Choudhary & Ors. clarifies the rules of reservation in public employment. The court held that reserved category candidates who score higher than the general category cut-off should be placed in the general category pool. This ensures that the reserved category quota is filled by candidates who are entitled to it based on their merit. The judgment provides a balanced approach by protecting the interests of both the reserved category candidates and the already appointed general category candidates.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the High Court, with a modification to protect the already appointed general category candidates.

Category

Parent category: Service Law

Child categories:

• Reservation
• Vertical Reservation
• Horizontal Reservation
• OBC Reservation
• Merit Based Selection

Parent category: Constitution of India

Child categories:

• Article 16, Constitution of India
• Article 16(4), Constitution of India

FAQ

Q: What happens if a reserved category candidate scores more than a general category candidate in a job exam?

A: According to the Supreme Court, such a candidate should be placed in the general category pool, not the reserved category pool.

Q: Why is it important to place higher-scoring reserved category candidates in the general category?

A: This ensures that the reserved category quota is available for other candidates who are entitled to it based on the rules of reservation.

Q: What are vertical and horizontal reservations?

A: Vertical reservations are for categories like SC, ST, and OBC, while horizontal reservations are for categories like women or physically handicapped.

Q: What was the main issue in the BSNL case?

A: The main issue was whether OBC candidates who scored higher than the general category cut-off should be placed in the general category pool or the reserved OBC pool.

Q: Did the Supreme Court change any existing laws?

A: No, the Supreme Court did not change any existing laws but clarified the application of existing principles of vertical and horizontal reservation.