Supreme Court Upholds Reservation for Hindu Nadar Community in Kerala: Aswathy R.S. Karthika vs. Archana M. (2020)

Date of the Judgment: 29 July 2020

Citation: 2020 INSC 565

Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta, S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ.

Can a community, which was granted reservation retrospectively, claim the benefit of that reservation for vacancies that arose before the rules were amended? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a service law matter concerning the Hindu Nadar community in Kerala. The Court had to determine whether the shortfall in reservation for the Hindu Nadar community should be filled from the subsequent rank list or not. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta, and S. Ravindra Bhat, with the opinion authored by Justice Hemant Gupta.

Case Background

The appellants, belonging to the Hindu Nadar community, were applicants before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal. The Hindu Nadar community was included in the Other Backward Classes (OBC) in Kerala with a 1% reservation, effective from 21 November 2009. This was formalized in the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958, through a gazette notification on 3 August 2010, with retrospective effect from 21 November 2009. The Kerala Public Service Commission (Commission) issued a notification on 15 December 2012, inviting applications for Medical Officer (Homeo) posts. A rank list was published on 3 August 2015, where the appellants were listed at serial numbers 3, 4, 5, and 6 within the Hindu Nadar community.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Kerala Administrative Tribunal initially ruled in favor of the appellants on 15 November 2017, directing the Commission to address the reservation shortfall from the subsequent rank list. The Tribunal also passed an order in review on 15 October 2018. The private respondents, who were candidates from the Open Category, Anglo Indian, and Vishwakarma communities, challenged the Tribunal’s order in the High Court. The High Court set aside the Tribunal’s order, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around Rule 15(a) and Explanation II of the Annexure to Part II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958. Rule 15(a) states:

“15 (a) The integrated cycle combining the rotation in clause (c) of rule 14 and the sub-rotation in sub-rule (2) of rule 17 shall be as specified in the Annexure to this Part. Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of these rules or in the Special Rules if a suitable candidate is not available for selection from any particular community or group of communities specified in the Annexure, such vacancy shall be kept unfilled, notified separately for that community or group of communities for that selection year and shall be filled by direct recruitment exclusively from among that community or group of communities. If after re-notification, repeatedly for not less than two times, no suitable candidate is available for selection from the respective community or group of communities, the selection shall be made from available Other Backward Classes candidates. In the absence of Other Backward Classes candidates, the selection shall be made from available Scheduled Castes candidates and in their absence, the selection shall be made from available Scheduled Tribes candidates.”

Explanation II of the Annexure states:

“Explanation II – The short fall in reservation for ‘Nadars included in SIUC’, and ‘Hindu Nadars’ occurred in the advice by the Commission from the ranked lists published by the Commission on or after the 21st day of November, 2009 during the period commencing on and from the 21st day of November, 2009 to the date of publication of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services (Amendment) Rules, 2010 in the Gazette, i.e. till the date of commencement of this Explanation, shall be adjusted in the future vacancies without disturbing the advices already made.”

The Court also considered a circular issued by the Commission on 31 August 2010, which stated that the reservation would apply to rank lists published on or after 21 November 2009. The court noted that the explanation was to save the appointments already made before the rules were statutorily amended leaving an option open for adjustment of reservation in future vacancies.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that the reservation for the Hindu Nadar community was a result of persistent efforts and should not be denied.
• They contended that Explanation II of the Rules, as amended on 3 August 2010, mandated that the shortfall in reservation should be filled in future vacancies.
• They relied on the Commission’s admission that there was a shortfall of three posts for the Hindu Nadar community after the amendment of the Rules.
• They submitted that the vacancies arising after 21 November 2009, should be filled from the rank list published on 3 August 2015.

Private Respondents’ Arguments:

• The private respondents argued that the shortfall in reservation should only be adjusted for vacancies arising between 21 November 2009, and the date of the amendment of the Rules.
• They contended that as per Rule 15(a), if suitable candidates are not available, vacancies should be notified separately, which was not done.
• They argued that the appellants had not challenged the denial of reserved vacancies in the 2009 rank list and were thus time-barred.
• They stated that the right to claim appointment under the 2009 rank list was only for those in that list, which did not include the appellants.
• They argued that Article 16(4-B) of the Constitution is merely an enabling provision and does not grant any right to the appellants.

Commission’s Arguments:

• The Commission contended that Rule 15(a) was not applicable because it was not a case of temporary passing over of vacancies or non-availability of candidates.
• It submitted that the amended rules were applicable to all rank lists published on or after 21 November 2009.
• The Commission admitted that there was a shortfall of three posts for the Hindu Nadar community and that it had decided to fill up the shortfall by advising candidates from the rank list that came into force on 3 August 2015.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

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

1. Whether the shortfall in reservation for the Hindu Nadar community should be filled from the subsequent rank list published on 3 August 2015.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

• P.S. Gopinathan v. State of Kerala and Others, (2008) 7 SCC 70, Supreme Court of India: The private respondents relied on this case, but the Supreme Court found it inapplicable to the facts of the present case.
• Dr. G. Sarana v. University of Lucknow and Others, (1976) 3 SCC 585, Supreme Court of India: This case was also cited by the private respondents, but the Supreme Court found it not applicable to the present case.
• Inderpreet Singh Kahlon and Others v. State of Punjab and Others, (2006) 11 SCC 356, Supreme Court of India: This case was cited by the private respondents, but the Supreme Court found it not applicable to the present case.
• Rule 15(a) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958: The court analyzed this rule to determine how vacancies should be filled.
• Explanation II of the Annexure to Part II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958: The court interpreted this explanation to understand how shortfalls in reservation should be adjusted.

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The authorities cited by the private respondents, P.S. Gopinathan v. State of Kerala and Others, (2008) 7 SCC 70*, Dr. G. Sarana v. University of Lucknow and Others, (1976) 3 SCC 585*, and Inderpreet Singh Kahlon and Others v. State of Punjab and Others, (2006) 11 SCC 356*, were found to be not applicable to the facts of the case.
• The Court relied on Rule 15(a) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958, to determine how vacancies should be filled, but found it inapplicable to the present case.
• The Court interpreted Explanation II of the Annexure to Part II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958, to understand how shortfalls in reservation should be adjusted, and found that it did not preclude filling vacancies arising after the amendment of the rules.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to ensure that the Hindu Nadar community received the benefit of reservation that was granted to them. The Court emphasized that the reservation was provided after persistent efforts by the community and that the benefit could not be denied. The Court also considered the Commission’s admission that there was a shortfall of three posts for the Hindu Nadar community after the amendment of the rules. The court reasoned that the rank list published on 27.07.2009 was prior to the amendment in the Rules and has no application to the present case. The Court also noted that the Commission had not taken into consideration posts which have fallen vacant from the date of the amendment of the Rules till the date of the appointments advised from the rank list dated 3.8.2015.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court rejected the argument that the shortfall should only be adjusted for vacancies arising between 21 November 2009 and the date of the amendment of the Rules. The Court held that the posts available for the Hindu Nadar community after 21 November 2009 were required to be provided to them. The Court also rejected the argument that Rule 15(a) required a separate notification for the unfilled vacancies, holding that it was not applicable to the present case. The Court found that the Commission had not considered the posts that had fallen vacant from the date of the amendment of the Rules till the date of the appointments advised from the rank list dated 3 August 2015.

The Court stated:

“The present is a case of non–consideration of the vacancies accruing after 21.11.2009 while filling up the posts from the rank list published. The appellants were thus rightly appointed against the shortfall of vacancies which arose on or after 21.11.2009.”

The Court also noted:

“The Commission has admitted that there were three posts falling to the Hindu Nadar Community after amendment of the Rules. Such vacant posts had to be filled up. Since the only source of shortlisted candidates was the rank list issued in 2015, appointments had to be made from that List.”

The Court further clarified:

“The entire submission on behalf of the private respondents are misconceived and untenable. The appellants are not claiming any right whatsoever on the basis of the rank list published on 27.7 2009. The claim of their appointment is in respect of the vacancies which arose after 21.11.2009 when the Rules were amended and reservations for the Hindu Nadar community was provided.”

Key Takeaways

• Reservations granted to a community must be effectively implemented.
• Shortfalls in reservation must be addressed in subsequent recruitment processes.
• Rank lists must reflect the policy of reservation.
• Vacancies arising after the amendment of rules must be considered.
• The cause of action for claiming reservation arises when candidates are not appointed from the relevant rank list.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court and restored the order of the Tribunal, which had directed the Commission to fill the shortfall in reservation from the subsequent rank list.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that when a reservation is granted to a community retrospectively, the shortfall in vacancies that arose after the date of effect of the reservation must be filled from the subsequent rank list. This judgment clarifies that the benefit of reservation cannot be denied by limiting the adjustment of vacancies only to the period between the date of the decision of the government and the subsequent amendment of the rules. It also clarifies that the cause of action to claim reservation arises when candidates are not appointed from the relevant rank list.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court’s decision and restoring the Tribunal’s order. The Court held that the Hindu Nadar community was entitled to the benefit of reservation for vacancies that arose after 21 November 2009, and that the shortfall should be filled from the rank list published on 3 August 2015. The judgment emphasizes the importance of effectively implementing reservation policies and ensuring that communities receive the benefits that are granted to them.

Category

Parent Category: Service Law

Child Category: Reservation Policy

Child Category: Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958

Child Category: Rule 15(a), Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958

Child Category: Article 16(4-B), Constitution of India

FAQ

Q: What was the main issue in the case?

A: The main issue was whether the shortfall in reservation for the Hindu Nadar community in Kerala should be filled from the subsequent rank list.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide?

A: The Supreme Court decided that the shortfall in reservation should be filled from the subsequent rank list published on 3 August 2015.

Q: What is the significance of this judgment?

A: This judgment ensures that communities receive the benefit of reservation that is granted to them, and that shortfalls in reservation are addressed in subsequent recruitment processes.

Q: What is Rule 15(a) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958?

A: Rule 15(a) deals with the filling of vacancies if suitable candidates are not available from a particular community. The court found it inapplicable to the present case.

Q: What is Explanation II of the Annexure to Part II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958?

A: Explanation II deals with the adjustment of shortfalls in reservation for Nadars and Hindu Nadars. The court interpreted it to mean that shortfalls should be adjusted in future vacancies.

Q: What was the timeline for the reservation in this case?

A: The Hindu Nadar community was included in the OBC category with 1% reservation from 21 November 2009. This was formalized on 3 August 2010 with retrospective effect from 21 November 2009.