Union Public Service Commission Vs. A. Cletus & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 9007-9008/1996
C.A. No. 9009/1996, C.A. No.9012/1996, C.A. NO. 9010/1996, C.A. No. 9011/1996, SLP (C) … 2869/1999
C.A. No. 9009/1996, C.A. No.9012/1996, C.A. NO. 9010/1996, C.A. No. 9011/1996, SLP (C) … 2869/1999
Petitioner: Union Public Service Commission
Respondent: A. Cletus & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 9007-9008/1996
C.A. No. 9009/1996, C.A. No.9012/1996, C.A. NO. 9010/1996, C.A. No. 9011/1996, SLP (C) … 2869/1999
C.A. No. 9009/1996, C.A. No.9012/1996, C.A. NO. 9010/1996, C.A. No. 9011/1996, SLP (C) … 2869/1999
Judges: S. RAJENDRA BABU & DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Sep 08, 2001
Head Note:
SERVICE LAWS
Rules for Competitive Examination for Civil Services, 1995
Rules 15, 16 and 3 – Preliminary examination – Purpose – Candidates of SC/ST/OBC categories – Categorisation at preliminary and final stage of examination. Held that screening test is applicable to all candidates irrespective of the group to which they belong. There is no need to categorise them to different groups till they qualify preliminary examination. (Para 3)
JUDGEMENT:
Order
1. The rules that came up for consideration before the tribunal are:
“Rules 15 and 16 of rules for Competitive Examination for Civil Services, 1995:
15. Candidates who obtain such minimum qualifying marks in the preliminary examination as may be fixed by the commission at their discretion shall be admitted to the main examination; and candidates who obtain such minimum qualifying marks in the main examination (written) as may be fixed by the commission at their discretion shall be summoned by them for an interview for personality test. Provided that candidates belonging to the scheduled castes or scheduled tribes or other backward classes may be summoned for an interview for a personality test by the commission by applying relaxed standards in the preliminary examination as well as main examination (written) if the commission is of the opinion that sufficient number of candidates from these communities are not likely to be summoned for interview for a personality test on the basis of general standard in order to fill up the vacancies reserved for them.
16(i) After the interview, the candidates will be arranged by the commission in the order of merit as disclosed by the aggregate marks finally awarded to each candidates in the main examination (written) as well as interview, in that order so many candidates are found by the commission to be qualified at the examination shall be recommended for appointment upto the number of unreserved vacancies decided to be filled on the result of the examination.
(ii) The candidates belonging to any of the scheduled castes or the scheduled tribes or the other backward classes may, to the extent of the number of vacancies reserved for the scheduled castes and the scheduled tribes, and the other backward classes be recommended by the commission by a relaxed standard, subject to the fitness of these candidates for selection to the service.
Provided that the candidates belonging to the scheduled castes, the scheduled tribes and the other backward classes who have been recommended by the commission without resorting to the relaxed standard referred to in this sub-rule, shall not be adjusted against the vacancies reserved for the scheduled castes, the scheduled tribes and the other backward classes.”
and the said rules have to be read with rule 3 which provides for reservation:
“3. The number of vacancies to be filled on the result of the examination will be specified in the notice issued by the commission. Reservation will be made for candidates belonging to the scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and other backward classes in respect of vacancies as may be fixed by the government.
2. Having read these rules and considering the various contentions raised before the tribunal, the tribunal held as follows:
(i) Since marks obtained in the preliminary examination by the candidates who are declared qualified for admission to main examination, will not be counted for determining their final order of merit and since the preliminary examination is only a screening test, there is no obligation on part of the UPSC to publish the marks obtained or the cut off marks for the open competition and for each reserved category;
(ii) The UPSC is first required to fix a minimum qualifying marks for a pass in the preliminary examination and candidates who obtain such minimum qualifying marks as fixed by UPSC, have to be admitted to the main examination. Similarly for the written test and those candidates who obtain the marks so fixed by the UPSC have to be summoned for the interview for the personality test;
(iii) The UPSC instead of first following the procedure laid down in the main rule and then going to the proviso, has evolved a procedure based only on the proviso, totally ignoring the main rule. The main rule has thus been made inoperative;
(iv) A proviso cannot be permitted to defeat the basic intent expressed in the substantive provision. Nor can it be allowed to nullify the main rule or to make inoperative;
(v) A normal construction of rule 15 would require that a minimum qualifying marks are fixed for candidates irrespective of the community to which they belong. When the minimum qualifying marks are fixed for preliminary and for the main examination (written), the UPSC has no choice except to declare them as having qualified in the examination;
(vi) No minimum qualifying marks for the candidates as the whole has been fixed and no list of successful candidates on the basis of minimum qualifying marks has been prepared;
(vii) The UPSC has decided that out of the total number sent for main (written) examination, the OBC will only be 27%, SC 15% and ST 7.5% leaving the remaining 50.5% exclusively for the unreserved forward communities, the UPSC has fixed an upper ceiling on the percentage of candidates to be sent for the main (written) examination for each reserved community;
(viii) Instead of starting from the main part of rule 15 and then going to proviso, the UPSC had started with the proviso, and made the proviso alone the basis for the procedure which has been evolved;
(ix) The compartmentalisation right from the initial stage has resulted in 50.5% that is 4897 candidates being exclusively reserved for unreserved forward communities;
(x) The UPSC has completely inter-changed the role of the proviso and the main rule and evolved a procedure based on proviso. While a proviso is intended to take out a part of the main rule for special treatment and to operate in a contingency not provided for in the main rule, the UPSC has made the proviso the main rule and has made the main rule totally inoperative;
(xi) When the entire exercise starts from the roster percentage and ends with the roster percentage, the procedure solely based on the roster cannot divest itself from the twin principles of reservation set out by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.K. Sabbarwal & Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors. (JT 1995 (2) SC 351);
(xii) The UPSC should evolve a procedure so that the reserved community candidates who fall within the list of candidates selected for the unreserved posts at these two earlier stages are not considered as candidates of the reserved community while fixing the number to be called for the reserved posts;
(xiii) By computing the reserved community candidates who were selected without relaxed standard at the earlier stage of the examination against the reserved vacancies the UPSC had to extend the field of the unreserved community and call more candidates from this category than would have been called if these selected candidates of reserved community had been computed against the unreserved community;
(xiv) Instead of extending the field of the unreserved community the field ought to have been extended for the reserved community by excluding the candidates who were selected without relaxed standards for fixing the number to be called for the reserved vacancies;
(xv) the admitted law is that a reserved community candidate selected without relaxed standard is not to be considered against the reserved vacancies. It would be in violation of this law of land if such candidates are counted against reserved vacancies at the two earlier stages consequently depriving the other reserved community candidates from being considered for the reserved posts;
(xvi) The principle laid down in the proviso to rule 16(ii) ibid should be applied even at the stages of the preliminary and main examinations by the UPSC;
(xvii) The change in procedure to be followed by the UPSC should be conducted for the year 1996 onwards.
3. The interpretation placed before the tribunal appears to us to be perfectly in order inasmuch as the screening test done through a preliminary examination is applicable to all the candidates irrespective of the group to which they belong. There is no need to categorise the candidates as to whether they belong to different reserved categories or not and thereafter, find out the group to which they belong before they qualify in the preliminary examination.
4. Therefore, agreeing with the view made by the tribunal, we dismiss these appeals.
SLP (C) 2869/1996
5. Permission to file SLP is allowed.
6. The special leave petition is dismissed in terms of the order passed in C.A. Nos. 9007-9008/1996 etc.
1. The rules that came up for consideration before the tribunal are:
“Rules 15 and 16 of rules for Competitive Examination for Civil Services, 1995:
15. Candidates who obtain such minimum qualifying marks in the preliminary examination as may be fixed by the commission at their discretion shall be admitted to the main examination; and candidates who obtain such minimum qualifying marks in the main examination (written) as may be fixed by the commission at their discretion shall be summoned by them for an interview for personality test. Provided that candidates belonging to the scheduled castes or scheduled tribes or other backward classes may be summoned for an interview for a personality test by the commission by applying relaxed standards in the preliminary examination as well as main examination (written) if the commission is of the opinion that sufficient number of candidates from these communities are not likely to be summoned for interview for a personality test on the basis of general standard in order to fill up the vacancies reserved for them.
16(i) After the interview, the candidates will be arranged by the commission in the order of merit as disclosed by the aggregate marks finally awarded to each candidates in the main examination (written) as well as interview, in that order so many candidates are found by the commission to be qualified at the examination shall be recommended for appointment upto the number of unreserved vacancies decided to be filled on the result of the examination.
(ii) The candidates belonging to any of the scheduled castes or the scheduled tribes or the other backward classes may, to the extent of the number of vacancies reserved for the scheduled castes and the scheduled tribes, and the other backward classes be recommended by the commission by a relaxed standard, subject to the fitness of these candidates for selection to the service.
Provided that the candidates belonging to the scheduled castes, the scheduled tribes and the other backward classes who have been recommended by the commission without resorting to the relaxed standard referred to in this sub-rule, shall not be adjusted against the vacancies reserved for the scheduled castes, the scheduled tribes and the other backward classes.”
and the said rules have to be read with rule 3 which provides for reservation:
“3. The number of vacancies to be filled on the result of the examination will be specified in the notice issued by the commission. Reservation will be made for candidates belonging to the scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and other backward classes in respect of vacancies as may be fixed by the government.
2. Having read these rules and considering the various contentions raised before the tribunal, the tribunal held as follows:
(i) Since marks obtained in the preliminary examination by the candidates who are declared qualified for admission to main examination, will not be counted for determining their final order of merit and since the preliminary examination is only a screening test, there is no obligation on part of the UPSC to publish the marks obtained or the cut off marks for the open competition and for each reserved category;
(ii) The UPSC is first required to fix a minimum qualifying marks for a pass in the preliminary examination and candidates who obtain such minimum qualifying marks as fixed by UPSC, have to be admitted to the main examination. Similarly for the written test and those candidates who obtain the marks so fixed by the UPSC have to be summoned for the interview for the personality test;
(iii) The UPSC instead of first following the procedure laid down in the main rule and then going to the proviso, has evolved a procedure based only on the proviso, totally ignoring the main rule. The main rule has thus been made inoperative;
(iv) A proviso cannot be permitted to defeat the basic intent expressed in the substantive provision. Nor can it be allowed to nullify the main rule or to make inoperative;
(v) A normal construction of rule 15 would require that a minimum qualifying marks are fixed for candidates irrespective of the community to which they belong. When the minimum qualifying marks are fixed for preliminary and for the main examination (written), the UPSC has no choice except to declare them as having qualified in the examination;
(vi) No minimum qualifying marks for the candidates as the whole has been fixed and no list of successful candidates on the basis of minimum qualifying marks has been prepared;
(vii) The UPSC has decided that out of the total number sent for main (written) examination, the OBC will only be 27%, SC 15% and ST 7.5% leaving the remaining 50.5% exclusively for the unreserved forward communities, the UPSC has fixed an upper ceiling on the percentage of candidates to be sent for the main (written) examination for each reserved community;
(viii) Instead of starting from the main part of rule 15 and then going to proviso, the UPSC had started with the proviso, and made the proviso alone the basis for the procedure which has been evolved;
(ix) The compartmentalisation right from the initial stage has resulted in 50.5% that is 4897 candidates being exclusively reserved for unreserved forward communities;
(x) The UPSC has completely inter-changed the role of the proviso and the main rule and evolved a procedure based on proviso. While a proviso is intended to take out a part of the main rule for special treatment and to operate in a contingency not provided for in the main rule, the UPSC has made the proviso the main rule and has made the main rule totally inoperative;
(xi) When the entire exercise starts from the roster percentage and ends with the roster percentage, the procedure solely based on the roster cannot divest itself from the twin principles of reservation set out by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.K. Sabbarwal & Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors. (JT 1995 (2) SC 351);
(xii) The UPSC should evolve a procedure so that the reserved community candidates who fall within the list of candidates selected for the unreserved posts at these two earlier stages are not considered as candidates of the reserved community while fixing the number to be called for the reserved posts;
(xiii) By computing the reserved community candidates who were selected without relaxed standard at the earlier stage of the examination against the reserved vacancies the UPSC had to extend the field of the unreserved community and call more candidates from this category than would have been called if these selected candidates of reserved community had been computed against the unreserved community;
(xiv) Instead of extending the field of the unreserved community the field ought to have been extended for the reserved community by excluding the candidates who were selected without relaxed standards for fixing the number to be called for the reserved vacancies;
(xv) the admitted law is that a reserved community candidate selected without relaxed standard is not to be considered against the reserved vacancies. It would be in violation of this law of land if such candidates are counted against reserved vacancies at the two earlier stages consequently depriving the other reserved community candidates from being considered for the reserved posts;
(xvi) The principle laid down in the proviso to rule 16(ii) ibid should be applied even at the stages of the preliminary and main examinations by the UPSC;
(xvii) The change in procedure to be followed by the UPSC should be conducted for the year 1996 onwards.
3. The interpretation placed before the tribunal appears to us to be perfectly in order inasmuch as the screening test done through a preliminary examination is applicable to all the candidates irrespective of the group to which they belong. There is no need to categorise the candidates as to whether they belong to different reserved categories or not and thereafter, find out the group to which they belong before they qualify in the preliminary examination.
4. Therefore, agreeing with the view made by the tribunal, we dismiss these appeals.
SLP (C) 2869/1996
5. Permission to file SLP is allowed.
6. The special leave petition is dismissed in terms of the order passed in C.A. Nos. 9007-9008/1996 etc.
