Reducing Cut-Off Marks After Publication Of Results Only To Provide Employment To A Particular Category Violates Article 14 : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has recently disapproved of a departmental selection committee’s decision to reduce the qualifying marks after the publication of results to facilitate the appointment of a special category of candidates comprising women, persons with disabilities, and former members of the armed forces, to the post of ‘Supervisor Instructor, ClassIII’ in various industrial training institutes across the state of Gujarat.Reducing the cut-off marks after the publication of results only for the purpose of providing employment to a particular category, when the others have already acquired some right would be an affront to Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the Court held. A division bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and M.M. Sundresh held: “The decision to reduce the cut-off marks is not based upon an objective criteria, namely, the suitability of the candidate to the post, but for extraneous reason, i.e., to accommodate otherwise ineligible candidates. In other words, earlier cut-off marks were fixed on a conscious consideration of the marks required to be eligible for the post, which could not be reduced, unless there is a sound reason that the reduced marks also would be sufficient to be suitable for that post.” According to the advertisement, in addition to ‘vertical’ reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes by way of prescribing different cut-off marks, 33 per cent of the total number of seats were reserved for women, 10 per cent for former service members, and three per cent for persons with physical disabilities (4-40 per cent), to be set off against the respective categories. It was also categorically mentioned that should a suitable candidate not be found for the seats reserved in this manner, the said vacancies would be filled by other suitable candidates of the respective categories who were not beneficiaries of this scheme of ‘horizontal’ reservation. What led to the controversy over appointments is a departure from this norm laid down by the labour department. Instead of selecting and appointing other suitable candidates in order to fill the vacancies, the Gujarat government in 2016 relaxed the cut-off marks for candidates belonging to the horizontal reserved categories. In other words, the state government took a decision to treat the special reservation, despite it being a horizontal one, as vertical reservation. Aggrieved by the move to accommodate the beneficiaries of horizontal reservation, appellants who would have otherwise been selected to fill the vacant seats approached the Gujarat High Court. Although initially, a single judge allowed the writ petitions, the decision was overturned by a division bench of the high court, when an appeal was preferred by candidates of the horizontal reserved categories who had been selected. The apex court put an end to the controversy by allowing the appeal and setting aside the selection committee’s decision to relax the cut-off marks to accommodate women, persons with disabilities, and former members of armed forced on the following grounds: First, unlike the eligibility criteria for making an application, the qualifying marks determining the eligibility of candidates who have already taken an examination could not be ‘tinkered with’ by facilitating anyone who acquired fewer marks. “There is a difference between qualification for making an application, and the eligibility to be determined in the process of selection. We are not concerned with the qualification for making an application in the present case, but rather an eligibility after the examination is conducted,” the court clarified. Second, in the absence of a duly introduced amendment, an advertisement made pursuant to a notification would bind the parties, since it had all the trappings of a statutory prescription, unless it became contrary to either a rule or an act. As such, any change could only be introduced by way of an amendment and nothing else. “The said advertisement has not been amended. It was sought to be modified on the advice of the government.” Third, while a candidate did not have a vested right to the advertised post, they had the right to be considered for appointment to the post in accordance with law. “A law which enables a candidate to get a post cannot be changed to facilitate another group of persons, since the candidate acquires a vested right to be considered in accordance with law,” Justice Sundresh explained. Fourth, even if such an amendment were permissible, it would still need to pass muster of the right of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. “An amendment could not be introduced to give an entry to a special reservation, in a case where a right becomes accrued to a candidate, under a policy decision reduced in the form of an advertisement, to be considered for a post in the absence of any eligible candidate from the ...

Reducing Cut-Off Marks After Publication Of Results Only To Provide Employment To A Particular Category Violates Article 14 : Supreme Court

Awstika Das

Tags