Supreme Court settles the method of filling backlog vacancies in direct recruitment for reserved categories: The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. vs. K. Shobana Etc. Etc. (05 March 2021)

Date of the Judgment: 05 March 2021
Citation: Civil Appeal Nos. 3745-3754 of 2020
Judges: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J., Dinesh Maheshwari, J., Hrishikesh Roy, J.

How should backlog vacancies for reserved categories be filled in direct recruitment? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, clarifying the process for filling such vacancies in the State of Tamil Nadu. The Court held that meritorious candidates from reserved categories must first be considered for general category positions based on merit, and only then should the backlog vacancies be filled, followed by the current vacancies for the reserved category. This judgment clarifies the interpretation of Section 27(f) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Dinesh Maheshwari, and Hrishikesh Roy.

Case Background

In 2019, the Teachers’ Recruitment Board of Tamil Nadu issued a notification on 12.06.2019 for the direct recruitment of Post Graduate Assistants and Physical Education Directors. Among these, 356 posts were for Chemistry, with 117 reserved for Most Backward Class (MBC) and Denotified Community (DNC) candidates. This included 74 backlog vacancies and 43 current vacancies. The respondents, who were applicants for the Chemistry posts, were not selected in the provisional list published on 20.11.2019. They contended that meritorious candidates from the MBC/DNC category were wrongly placed against backlog vacancies instead of being considered under the general category. This, they argued, led to their non-selection.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The respondents filed writ petitions before the High Court of Madras, challenging the provisional selection list and seeking their appointment. The learned Single Judge ruled in their favor on 09.01.2020, which was upheld by the Division Bench on 19.03.2020. The appellants then approached the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The core of the dispute lies in the interpretation of Section 27(f) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016. The relevant part of the section states:

“27. Reservation for Appointments-
(f) If qualified and suitable candidates belonging to any of the Backward Classes, Backward Class Muslims including the Most Backward Classes and Denotified Communities are not available for selection for appointment by recruitment by transfer or by promotion in the turns allotted to them, the turns so allotted shall lapse and the selection for appointment for the vacancies shall be made by the next turn in the order of rotation:
Provided also that in the case of selection for appointment by direct recruitment, with effect on and from the 1st April 1989, there shall be a ban on dereservation of vacancies reserved for the candidates belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, Most Backward Classes and Denotified Communities to be appointed by direct recruitment. But, the above ban on dereservation of vacancies shall not be applicable to the vacancies reserved for the Backward Classes (other than Most Backward Classes and Denotified Communities), Backward Class Muslims and, therefore, if qualified and suitable candidates belonging to any of the Backward Classes (other than Most Backward Classes and Denotified Communities), Backward Class Muslims are not available for appointment, the turn so allotted to them shall lapse and the vacancy shall be filled by the next turn in the order of rotation. If sufficient number of qualified and suitable candidates belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, Most Backward Classes and Denotified Communities are not available for selection for appointment for the vacancies reserved for them by direct recruitment in the first attempt of recruitment, then, a second attempt shall be made for selection of the candidates belonging to the respective communities by direct recruitment in the same recruitment year or as early as possible before the next direct recruitment for selection of candidates against such vacancies. If the required number of candidates belonging to such communities are not available even then, the vacancies for which selection could not be made shall remain unfilled until the next recruitment year treating them as “backlog” vacancies. In the subsequent year, when direct recruitment is made for the vacancies of that year, namely, the current vacancies, the “backlog” vacancies shall also be announced for direct recruitment, keeping the vacancies of the particular recruitment year, namely, the current year vacancies and the “backlog” vacancies as two distinct groups as illustrated in Schedule-IX. 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:”

This section aims to ensure that reserved category vacancies do not lapse due to a lack of candidates. It mandates carrying forward such vacancies to the next year as “backlog” vacancies. The critical point of contention is the interpretation of the last sentence of the third proviso, which states that the selection for the next direct recruitment should be made “first for the backlog vacancies and then the normal rotation shall be followed.”

Arguments

Appellants’ Submissions:

• The appellants argued that Section 27(f) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016, should be interpreted literally. The word “first” in the third proviso means that backlog vacancies must be filled before any other vacancies, based on merit within the reserved category.
• They contended that meritorious candidates from the MBC/DNC category should be adjusted against backlog vacancies first, and only then should the general category be filled.
• They argued that the respondents’ interpretation would lead to a reservation exceeding the permissible 69%.
• The appellants relied on the principle that no word in a statute should be rendered redundant, citing Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab & Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 92.
• They also invoked Article 16(4B) of the Constitution of India, stating that backlog vacancies are a separate class and should be filled first.

Respondents’ Submissions:

• The respondents argued that the selection process should begin with the creation of a merit list, irrespective of the candidate’s category.
• They contended that reservation should apply only after the merit list is exhausted.
• Meritorious candidates should be placed in the general category, and only then should backlog and current vacancies for reserved categories be considered.
• The word “first” in Section 27(f) should apply to the filling of backlog vacancies within the reserved category, not before the general category vacancies are filled.
• They cited Rajesh Kumar Daria vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and Ors. (2007) 8 SCC 785, Indra Sawhney v. Union of India 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217, R.K. Sabharwal vs. State of Punjab (1995) 2 SCC 745, Union of India vs. Virpal Singh Chauhan (1995) 6 SCC 684, and Ritesh R Sah Vs. Dr. Y.L. Yamul (1996) 3 SCC 253 to support the principle that meritorious candidates should be adjusted in the general category.
• They also referred to Anil Kumar Gupta & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (1995) 5 SCC 173, and K.R. Shanthi vs. Secretary to Government, Education Department, Chennai & Anr. (2012) 7 MLJ 241, which outlined the steps for filling vacancies.
• They also relied on Saurav Yadav and Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1034, which reiterated the steps for implementing reservation lists.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. How should the backlog vacancies be filled in direct recruitment for reserved categories, particularly in light of Section 27(f) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

✓ The Supreme Court relied on Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab & Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 92* to emphasize that no word in a statute should be rendered redundant. However, it clarified that this principle does not apply in this case as the word “first” applies at the stage of filling the reserved category vacancies and not before.

✓ The Supreme Court followed Rajesh Kumar Daria vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and Ors. (2007) 8 SCC 785*, Indra Sawhney v. Union of India 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217*, R.K. Sabharwal vs. State of Punjab (1995) 2 SCC 745*, Union of India vs. Virpal Singh Chauhan (1995) 6 SCC 684* and Ritesh R Sah Vs. Dr. Y.L. Yamul (1996) 3 SCC 253* to reiterate that meritorious candidates from reserved categories should be adjusted against general category vacancies.

✓ The Supreme Court followed Anil Kumar Gupta & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (1995) 5 SCC 173* to support the principle that open quota seats should be filled first on the basis of merit.

✓ The Supreme Court followed K.R. Shanthi vs. Secretary to Government, Education Department, Chennai & Anr. (2012) 7 MLJ 241* to support the methodology for filling vacancies, emphasizing that candidates selected on merit under open quota should not be adjusted against reserved vacancies.

✓ The Supreme Court followed Saurav Yadav and Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1034* to reiterate the steps to be taken while implementing reservation lists.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the established principle that meritorious candidates from reserved categories should be considered for general category positions based on their merit. The Court emphasized that Section 27(f) of the Act should not be interpreted in a way that negates this principle. The Court also noted that the word “first” in the provision applies to the order of filling reserved category vacancies, not before filling general category vacancies.

Logical Reasoning

The Court rejected the interpretation that backlog vacancies should be filled first, irrespective of merit. It emphasized that the reservation principle should not override the merit principle when filling general category vacancies. The Court clarified that the word “first” in Section 27(f) of the Act applies to the order of filling reserved category vacancies, not before filling general category vacancies. The Court also noted that the manner of filling up the seats has been well enunciated in the judgment in K.R. Shanthi’s case (supra) by the Madras High Court itself and appears to have been consistently followed.

The Supreme Court observed:

“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 or argued in view of the catena of judgments cited aforesaid. 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.”

“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.”

Key Takeaways

• Meritorious candidates from reserved categories must be considered for general category positions based on merit.
• Backlog vacancies for reserved categories should be filled only after the general category seats are filled.
• The word “first” in Section 27(f) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016, refers to the order of filling reserved category vacancies, not before filling general category vacancies.
• This interpretation ensures that the merit principle is upheld while adhering to reservation policies.

Directions

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court’s decision. The candidates selected as per the impugned judgment were allowed to continue their appointments.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in direct recruitment, meritorious candidates from reserved categories should be considered for general category positions based on merit. Backlog vacancies should only be filled after the general category seats are filled, followed by the current vacancies for the reserved category. This judgment clarifies the interpretation of Section 27(f) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016, and reaffirms the principle that merit should be the primary consideration for filling general category vacancies.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. vs. K. Shobana Etc. Etc. clarifies the process for filling backlog vacancies in direct recruitment for reserved categories in Tamil Nadu. The Court held that meritorious candidates from reserved categories must first be considered for general category positions based on merit. This decision ensures that the merit principle is upheld while adhering to reservation policies.

Category

Parent Category: Service Law
Child Category: Reservation Policy
Child Category: Direct Recruitment
Child Category: Backlog Vacancies
Parent Category: Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016
Child Category: Section 27(f), Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016

FAQ

Q: What was the main issue in this case?
A: The main issue was how backlog vacancies for reserved categories should be filled in direct recruitment, particularly concerning the interpretation of Section 27(f) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide?
A: The Supreme Court decided that meritorious candidates from reserved categories should first be considered for general category positions based on merit. Backlog vacancies should be filled only after the general category seats are filled, followed by the current vacancies for the reserved category.

Q: What does the word “first” mean in Section 27(f)?
A: The word “first” in Section 27(f) refers to the order of filling reserved category vacancies, not before filling general category vacancies. It means backlog vacancies should be filled first within the reserved category, followed by current vacancies for that category.

Q: What is the practical implication of this judgment?
A: The practical implication is that candidates from reserved categories who score high marks will be placed in the general category based on their merit. This ensures that the merit principle is upheld while adhering to reservation policies.

Q: Does this judgment affect the reservation policy in Tamil Nadu?
A: This judgment clarifies the implementation of the existing reservation policy by ensuring that meritorious candidates are not disadvantaged. It does not change the overall reservation percentages.