Delve into the intricate legal analysis surrounding age relaxation and reservation policies in the context of the Gujarat Forest Services selection process. This case discusses the interpretation of state circulars and government resolutions in light of the Supreme Court judgment, impacting the eligibility criteria for candidates like in the case of Special Civil Application No. 1100 of 2015 before the Gujarat High Court.
Facts
- The appellant submitted an application in the SEBC category and was listed at serial no. 138 in the selected candidates’ list.
- The appellant alleges that GPSC ignored a judgment of the Supreme Court in a particular case while preparing the merit list.
- The appellant then filed Special Civil Application No. 1100 of 2015 before the High Court of Gujarat challenging the correctness of the select list.
- The Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal filed by GPSC.
- The order of the learned Single Judge was set aside.
- The State of Gujarat’s reservation policy was considered based on Government Resolution dated 11.2.1986 and circulars dated 29.1.2000 and 23.7.2004.
- Candidates belonging to reserved categories, if they avail benefits like age relaxation, are to be considered as having relaxation in standards.
- Those candidates who benefited from age relaxation are not entitled to be considered in the general category, and their cases should be considered only for reserved category positions.
Also Read: Illegal Sand Mining Case: Supreme Court Judgment
Issue
- The issue in this appeal is whether a candidate who availed of age relaxation as a result of belonging to a reserved category can seek accommodation in the general category seat.
- The appeal pertains to a selection process conducted by the Gujarat Public Service Commission for Assistant Conservator of Forests and Range Forest Officer posts.
- The question is whether a candidate who initially applied under a reserved category can later be accommodated in the general category seat.
Also Read: Land Dispute Resolved: High Court Decision Overturned by Supreme Court
Arguments
- Mr. V.K. Garg, senior counsel for the appellant, argues that the age relaxation for reserved category candidates at the preliminary test stage is not equivalent to granting reservation benefits.
- He refers to Circulars from the Government of Gujarat to support his argument that age relaxation at the initial stage does not constitute reservation benefits.
- Mr. Garg also highlights that the U.P. Public Services Act has a similar provision regarding age relaxation as the Gujarat Circulars, reinforcing his point that such relaxation is not reservation.
- He contends that the decision in the case of Jitendra Kumar Singh does not apply to this case, as the relaxation of age is a standard adjustment as per state policy and not a reservation benefit.
- Mr. Garg emphasizes that the criterion for selection should be based on examination and interview performance alone, as outlined in the Circulars.
- Therefore, he asserts that the principles from the Jitendra Kumar Singh case are directly relevant to the current case, supported by other judgments like Ajithkumar P. and Vikas Sankhala.
Also Read: Validity of Will: Harbans Lal vs. Surinder Pal Sharma
Analysis
- The court considered the interpretation of Sub-section (6) of Section 3 of U.P. Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994 and Government Instructions dated 25.03.1994.
- Sub-section (6) of Section 3 provides for reservation in favor of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes.
- If a person from these categories gets selected based on merit in open competition with general candidates, he cannot be adjusted against vacancies reserved for the same category.
- The State of U.P. issued Instructions on reservation for these categories in public services.
- The judgment in Jitendra Kumar Singh was referred to regarding relaxed standards for selection of candidates from these categories and their consideration for general category vacancies.
- The Court disagreed with the proposition that relaxed standards would not be a bar for these candidates to be considered for general category vacancies.
- The State Government formulated a policy for SC/ST and OBC members selected on merit to be considered for unreserved posts.
- Candidates selected based on relaxed standards for reserved categories should be counted against reserved posts.
- Judgments in various cases like Jitendra Kumar Singh, Deepa, and Gaurav Pradhan supported the reservation policies.
- Specific circulars clarified the treatment of candidates who availed relaxations in age, experience, and qualifications.
- State circulars regarding reservation policies superseded general principles laid down in previous judgments.
- The State of Gujarat established rules for recruitment in Forest Services with provisions for age relaxation.
- Article 16(4) of the Constitution allowed states to make provisions for reservation in favor of backward classes.
- The judgment emphasized the importance of following circulars and notifications issued by the State Government regarding reservation policies.
- Instructions clarified the treatment of reserved category candidates who availed relaxations in selection processes.
- Judgments like Ajithkumar were distinguished based on the specific facts and statutory interpretations involved.
- Availing age relaxation at initial stage implies availing it at final stage.
- Age relaxation for SC/ST and SEBC candidates is a form of reservation under Article 16(4) of the Constitution.
- Distinction between preliminary and final examination regarding age relaxation is incorrect.
Decision
- Parties are directed to bear their own costs
- No merit in the appeal
- Appeal is dismissed
Case Title: NIRAVKUMAR DILIPBHAI MAKWANA Vs. GUJRAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND ORS
Case Number: C.A. No.-005185-005185 / 2019
