UPSC Civil Services Exam : Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea To Quash Select List For Violating 50% Reservation Limit

The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a writ petition filed by a civil service exam candidate seeking to quash the final selection list for Union Public Services Commission(UPSC) Civil Services Examination 2020 to the extent it violates the 50% reservation ceiling.The petitioner, Nitish Shankar, who had appeared in the 2020 civil services exam, argued that by implementing the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) quota, the reservation has become 60% and only 40% was left for the general category. It was argued in the petition that UPSC has recommended 34.55% candidates for appointment against the general category and 65.44% against the reserved category and this sabotaged merit in selection.A bench comprising Justice L Nageswara Rao and Justice BR Gavai expressed disinclination to entertain the petition. At one stage of the hearing, the bench warned the petitioner's lawyer that the petition will be dismissed with a cost of Rupees one lakh. The bench pointed out that the EWS reservation was introduced as per the 103rd Constitutional Amendment, the validity of which is now referred to a larger bench. The petitioner's counsel requested that the writ petition be tagged along with the petitions relating to the EWS quota before the 5-judge bench and the vacant seats may not be filled in the meanwhile. The bench said that the petitioner cannot seek to stall the appointments while the issue is pending before the larger bench.After the bench observed that it is dismissing the matter, the counsel continued to argue again and submitted that if Parliament intended the reservation to exceed 50% the same would have been specified, but it wasn't done. The bench then warned, "We'll dismiss with cost of 1 lakhs." "You should also understand your limits. You've referred to the same thing three times. We've heard you, we see no point. What do we do if we continue? Right to hearing also comes with some restrictions", Justice Rao remarked. "You want us to give a direction not to fill any post of the civil services? Don't give advice to people to file these writ petitions and come to this court. If you have a grievance you go to the High Court", Justice Rao said. "You make submissions, but don't make submissions to rub the court on the wrong side. We would have interfered if there was a point. When we say we don't want to interfere you should immediately stop", Justice Rao told the CounselThe bench asked why the petitioner has approached the Supreme Court instead of moving the High Court. The counsel replied that since it was a pan-India issue, the Supreme Court was approached. The bench was not convinced with his reply.The petitioner's lawyer then sought to withdraw the petition with liberty to approach the High Court. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed with liberty to approach the High Court, if the petitioner is so advised.The petition stated that UPSC has acted blatantly in violation of the 50% mandate for reservation as held by in Indra Sawhney vs UOI reported in (1992) Supp. (3) SCC 217, which lead to his non selection for personality test and subsequent appointment after appearing for the mains examination (written test)."The 60% reservation given by the respondents is a result of 50% reservation to SC, ST & OBC and 10% reservation to Economically Weaker Sections. 10% reservation is a result of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment," the petition stated.The petitioner in his writ petition has also sought for issuance of directions to publish a fresh list of successful candidates in mains examination in the general quota considering the petitioner's case.Relief has also been sought to conduct their personality test and make recommendations for appointments in general quota against 50% of the total vacancies.Case Title: Nitish Shankar v. Union of India & Ors |W.P.(C) No. 1134/2021Click Here To Read/Download Order

UPSC Civil Services Exam : Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea To Quash Select List For Violating 50% Reservation Limit

Srishti Ojha

Tags