State Services Exam Rule Barring Meritorious Reserved Category Candidates From Merging In General Seats Discriminatory: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court on Thursday, struck down Rule 4(3)(d)(III) of M.P. State Services Examination Rules, 2015 which barred meritorious candidates from reserved categories to secure birth as unreserved candidates at the stage of preliminary and main examinations, as unconstitutional. Observing that the impugned rule led to 'Artificial classification', the division bench of Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice D.D. Bansal called it 'arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of equality clause enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution'- The meritorious reserve category candidates cannot be put to a comparative disadvantageous position because of their birth mark if they are otherwise equal or more meritorious than the last UR category candidate. The impugned Amended Rule, for no valid reasons deprives such reserved category candidate and, therefore, the impugned Rule deserves to be declared as ultra vires.The Court was dealing with a batch of petitions, 49 of which were assailing constitutionality of Section 4(4) of Madhya Pradesh Lok Seva (Anusuchit Jatiyon, Anusuchit Jan Jatiyon Aur Anya Pichhade Vargon Ke Liye Arakshan) Adhiniyam, 1994 ('Adhiniyam') whereas the rest of them were praying to declare Rule 4(3)(d) III of Amendment dated 17.02.2020 in Madhya Pradesh State Service Examination Rules, 2015 (Examination Rules) as ultra vires. Facts of the case were that Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission (PSC) had published an advertisement on 14.11.2019 for conducting State Service Examination, 2019. In furtherance thereof, the Petitioners submitted their candidature in prescribed form for appearing in the said examination. On 12.01.2020, preliminary exam was conducted by PSC. Soon thereafter, the impugned amendment in the Rules came into being by publishing it in the Official Gazette on 17.02.2020. The result of said examination was declared on 21.12.2020 on the basis of the amended Rules of 2020. Aggrieved by the same the batch of petitions were filed. In these petitions, the State was put to notice and in turn, they filed reply. After receiving notices in the petitions, yet another amendment dated 20.12.2021 was published in the Official Gazette on 20.12.2021, amending the said Examination Rules. On 31.12.2021 the PSC declared the result of said examination (mains) and proceeded further to take interview of the candidates. Constitutionality of Section 4(4) of Adhiniyam The Court observed that Section 4(4) of the Adhniyam, which provides that a reserved category candidate getting selected on the basis of merit shall not be adjusted against vacancies for their respective category, could not be declared as unconstitutional. The Court placed its reliance on the decision of a division bench of the Court in Smt. Rajshri Tiwari v. State of M.P., wherein it was held that the said provision was in consonance with the interpretation of Article 16(4) of the Constitution given by the Apex Court in the Indra Sawhney & Ors. v. UoI & Ors. The Court examined the decision of another division bench in Hemraj Rana v. State of M.P., that was heavily relied upon by the State while opposing the petitions, which had interpreted the term 'selected' in Section 4(4) of the Adhniyam as the final stage of selection, and not during preliminary and main examinations. The Court noted that observations made in the Hemraj case were in the context of the Examination Rules of 2001- At the cost of repetition, it is noteworthy that in para-4 of judgment of Hemraj Rana (supra), this Court considered the word 'selected' as appears in Sub-section (4) of Section 4 of Adhiniyam whereas in para-6, the Court considered Sub-section (4) of Section 4 of Adhiniyam in the light of Rules of 2001…Pertinently, the subsequent events show that New Examination Rules, 2015 came into being. As per these Rules, the State itself decided to apply the said principle in favour of such reserve category candidates, who have secured equal or more marks than general category candidates in all levels of selection including preliminary and main examination. This is trite that judgment of a Court must be treated as a precedent for the principle which has been actually decided by it and not for something which logically flows from it. The Court, thus, opined that the introduction of Examination Rules of 2015 changed the scenario and a conjoint reading of para-7 of Hemraj's judgment and unamended Examination Rules of 2015 permitted the bench to uphold the constitutionality of Section 4(4) of the Adhiniyam- …combined reading of Sub-section (4) of Section 4 with unamended Rules of 2015 makes it obligatory for the respondents to apply the principle desired by the petitioner i.e. in all stages of selection, the reserve category candidate received more or equal marks qua UR candidate are entitled to secure a birth in UR category. Thus, we are unable to persuade ourselves ...

State Services Exam Rule Barring Meritorious Reserved Category Candidates From Merging In General Seats Discriminatory: MP High Court

Zeeshan Thomas

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Zeeshan Thomas

State Services Exam Rule Barring Meritorious Reserved Category Candidates From Merging In General Seats Discriminatory: MP High Court

Zeeshan Thomas

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Zeeshan Thomas

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers