REPORTABLE  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.4310-4311 OF 2010 [Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.13571-72 of 2008]

Union of India                   … Appellant

Vs.

Ramesh Ram & Ors. etc.                           … Respondents With

CA Nos.4315-4316/2010 @ SLP (C) Nos.13297-98/2008 CA No.4319/2010 @ SLP (C) No. 13581 of 2008 CA Nos.4324-4328/2010 @ SLP (C) Nos. 14834-38 of 2008

And

WP(C) Nos. 297, 312, 336, 414, 416 & 539 of 2008

J U D G M E N T

K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI

1. Leave granted.

2. The constitutional validity of sub-rules (2) to (5) of Rule  

16  of  the  Civil  Service  Examination  Rules  (hereinafter  

‘Rules’)  relating to civil  services examinations held by the  

Union Public Service Commission in the years 2005 to 2007  

is  the subject-matter  of these appeals by special  leave.  A

three Judge Bench of this Court, by order dated 14.5.2009  

has  referred  these  cases  to  the  Constitution  Bench as  it  

raises an important legal question as to whether candidates  

belonging  to  reserved  category,  who  get  recommended  

against  general/unreserved vacancies  on account  of  their  

merit (without the benefit of any relaxation/concession), can  

opt for a higher choice of service earmarked for Reserved  

Category and thereby migrate to reservation category.   

3.  Selection  to  three  All  India  Services  (Indian  

Administrative  Service,  Indian Foreign Service  and Indian  

Police  Service)  and  fifteen  Group  ‘A’  Services  and  three  

Group ‘B’ officers in various Government departments are  

made by the Union Public Service Commission (hereinafter  

‘UPSC’),  by  conducting  Civil  Service  Examinations  

periodically. Civil Service Examinations are held as per the  

Civil Service Examinations Rules notified in regard to each  

examination.  The Rules  for  the  Civil  Service  Examination  

which was to be held in 2005 by the UPSC were published  

by the Department of Personnel  and Training (hereinafter  

‘DOP&T’) vide Notification dated 4.12.2004.  

2

4.  To appreciate the issue, it will be necessary to refer to  

the relevant rules. The Preamble to the Rules enumerates  

21 services.  Rule 1 provides that the examination will  be  

conducted  by  the  UPSC  in  the  manner  prescribed  in  

Appendix-I to the Rules.  

4.1) Rule  2  of  the  Rules  relates  to  preferences  and  is  

extracted below:

“2. A candidate shall be required to indicate in  his/her  application  form  for  the  Main  Examination his/her  order  of  preferences for  various services/posts for which he/she would  like to be considered for appointment in case  he/she  is  recommended  for  appointment  by  Union Public Service Commission.

A candidate who wishes to be considered for  IAS/IPS  shall  be  required  to  indicate  in  his/her application if he/she would like to be  considered for allotment to the State to which  he/she belongs in case he/she is appointed to  the IAS/IPS.

Note.—The  candidate  is  advised  to  be  very  careful while indicating preferences for various  services/posts. In this connection, attention is  also  invited  to  rule  19  of  the  Rules.  The  candidate  is  also  advised  to  indicate  all  the  services/posts  in  the  order  of  preference  in  his/her application form. In case he/she does  not give any preference for any services/posts,  

3

it will be assumed that he/she has no specific  preference for those services. If he/she is not  allotted  to  any  one  of  the  services/posts  for  which  he/she  has  indicated  preference,  he/she  shall  be  allotted  to  any  of  the  remaining  services/posts  in  which  there  are  vacancies after allocation of all the candidates  who  can  be  allocated  to  services/posts  in  accordance with their preferences.”       

4.2) Rule 3 relates to number of vacancies and provision for  

reservation and it reads as follows:

“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, Other Backward Classes and physically  disabled categories in respect of vacancies as  may be fixed by the Government.”  

4.3) Rule  15  provides  for  three  examinations  namely  

preliminary  examination,  main  written  examination  and  

interview test as follows:

“15. Candidates who obtained 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  

4

(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  the  general  standard in order to fill up vacancies reserved  for them.”

4.4) Rule  16  lays  down  the  manner  of  selection,  

preparation  of  merit  list  and selection of  candidates.  The  

said rule is extracted below:

“16.(1)  After interview, the candidates will  be  arranged by  the  Commission in  the  order  of  merit  as  disclosed  by  the  aggregate  marks  finally awarded to each candidate in the Main  Examination.  Thereafter,  the  Commission  shall,  for  the  purpose  of  recommending  candidates against unreserved vacancies, fix a  qualifying  mark  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  general qualifying standard) with reference to  the number of unreserved vacancies to be filled  up on the basis of the Main Examination. For  the  purpose  of  recommending  Reserved  Category  candidates  belonging  to  Scheduled  Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward  Classes  against  reserved  vacancies,  the  Commission may relax the general  qualifying  

5

standard with reference to number of reserved  vacancies  to  be  filled  up  in  each  of  these  categories  on  the  basis  of  the  Main  Examination:   

Provided that the candidates belonging to the  Scheduled  Castes,  Scheduled  Tribes  and the  Other Backward Classes who have not availed  themselves  of  any  of  the  concessions  or  relaxations  in  the  eligibility  or  the  selection  criteria,  at any stage of the examination and  who  after  taking  into  account  the  general  qualifying  standards  are  found  fit  for  recommendation by the Commission shall not  be  recommended  against  the  vacancies  reserved  for  Scheduled  Castes,  Scheduled  Tribes and the Other Backward Classes.

(2) While  making  service  allocation,  the  candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes,  the  Scheduled  Tribes  or  Other  Backward  Classes  recommended  against  unreserved  vacancies  may  be  adjusted  against  reserved  vacancies by the Govt. if by this process they  get a service of higher choice in the order of  their preference.

(3) The  Commission  may  further  lower  the  qualifying  standards  to  take  care  of  any  shortfall of candidates for appointment against  unreserved  vacancies  and  any  surplus  of  candidates against reserved vacancies arising  out  of  the  provisions  of  this  rule,  the  Commission may make the recommendations  in the manner prescribed in sub-rules (4) and  (5).

(4) While recommending the candidates, the  Commission shall,  in the  first  instance,  take  into account the total number of vacancies in  all  categories.  This  total  number  of  recommended candidates shall be reduced by  

6

the  number  of  candidates  belonging  to  the  Scheduled  Castes,  the  Scheduled  Tribes  and  Other Backward Classes who acquire the merit  at  or  above  the  fixed  general  qualifying  standard  without  availing  themselves  of  any  concession  or  relaxation  in  the  eligibility  or  selection  criteria  in  terms  of  the  proviso  to  sub-rule  (1).  Along  with  this  list  of  recommended  candidates,  the  Commission  shall also declare a consolidated reserve list of  candidates which will include candidates from  general  and  reserved  categories  ranking  in  order  of  merit  below  the  last  recommended  candidate under each category. The number of  candidates in each of these categories will be  equal  to  the  number  of  Reserved  Category  candidates who were included in the first list  without  availing  of  any  relaxation  or  concession in eligibility or selection criteria as  per  proviso  to  sub-rule  (1).  Amongst  the  reserved categories, the number of candidates  from  each  of  the  Scheduled  Caste,  the  Scheduled  Tribe  and  Other  Backward  Class  categories in the reserve list  will  be equal to  the  respective  number  of  vacancies  reduced  initially in each category.       

(5) The candidates recommended in terms of  the  provisions  of  sub-rule  (4),  shall  be  allocated  by  the  Government  to  the  services  and where certain vacancies still remain to be  filled  up,  the  Government  may  forward  a  requisition to the Commission requiring it  to  recommend, in order of merit, from the reserve  list,  the  same  number  of  candidates  as  requisitioned for the purpose of filling up the  unfilled vacancies in each category.”

4.5) Rule 19 provides that due consideration will be given  

at  the  time  of  making  allocation  on  the  results  of  the  

7

examination to the preferences expressed by a candidate for  

various  services  at  the  time  of  his  application  and  the  

appointment to various services will also be governed by the  

Rules/Regulations in force, as applicable to the respective  

Services at the time of appointment.

5.     The  total  vacancies  notified  by  the  participating  

services for the Civil  Service Examination, 2005 were 457  

made up of  General Category : 242, OBC category :  117,  

Scheduled Castes : 166 and Scheduled Tribes : 32. As per  

Rule 16(1) and (4), UPSC recommended 425 candidates in  

the first  phase made up of the following:  General --  210,  

OBC  --  117  (including  31  merit  candidates);  Scheduled  

Castes -- 66 (including 1 merit candidate)  and Scheduled  

Tribes -- 32. A consolidated Reserve list (wait-list) was also  

prepared  consisting  of  64  candidates.  The  DOP&T  after  

allocation  of  the  candidates  from  the  first  list,  made  a  

requisition for recommendation of candidates through the  

operation of the reserve list. 26 Meritorious OBC candidates  

and  one  Meritorious  Scheduled  Caste  candidate  

recommended  against  unreserved  vacancies,  opted  for  

8

reserved vacancies as by that process, they got a service of  

higher  choice  in  the  order  of  preference.  If  the  said  27  

meritorious  reserved  category  candidates  had  been  

considered  only  for  service  allocation  against  unreserved  

vacancies  in  competition  with  the  General  Category  

candidates, they would have got a service of lower choice.  

Rule 16(2) enabled the meritorious candidate of any of the  

reservation categories to get a service of higher preference  

so that he may not be placed at a disadvantaged position  

vis a vis other candidates of his category.  

6.     The DOP&T could therefore adjust only 5 out of the 31  

Meritorious  Category  OBC  candidates  through  their  

merit-cum-service preference option as General Candidates.  

As a result, the UPSC recommended under Rule 16(5) of the  

Rules,  27  General  Category  candidates  and  5  OBC  

candidates from the consolidated Reserve List.  

7. Certain OBC candidates in the Reserve (wait list) filed  

applications  before  the  Central  Administrative  Tribunal,  

Madras  Bench,  challenging  Rule  16(2).  It  was  contended  

9

that  adjustment  of  OBC  merit  candidates  against  OBC  

reservation vacancies was illegal. According to them, such  

candidates  should  be  adjusted  against  the  general  

(unreserved)  vacancies,  as  that  would  have  allowed  more  

posts for OBC candidates and would have allowed the lower  

ranked  OBC  candidates  a  better  choice  of  service.  They  

contended that more meritorious OBC candidates should be  

satisfied with lower choice of service as they became general  

(unreserved)  candidates  by  reason  of  their  better  

performance.  

8.    The Tribunal, after interpreting amended Rule 16(2) in  

the light of the various judgments of this Court, concluded  

that  meritorious  OBC  candidates  who  were  selected  on  

merit  must  be  adjusted  against  the  ‘General  Category’.  

However, it ordered that Rule 16(2) may be applied in terms  

of decision of this Court in  Anurag Patel vs. U.P. Public  

Service Commission & Ors., (2005) 9 SCC 742, to ensure  

that  allocation  of  service  is  in  accordance  with  

rank-cum-preference  with  priority  given  to  meritorious  

candidates for service allocation.  

10

9.  The  Union  of  India  and  other  aggrieved  candidates  

preferred  Writ  Petitions  before  the  Madras  High  Court  

challenging  the  order  of  the  Central  Administrative  

Tribunal. Some other aggrieved candidates got themselves  

impleaded in the said proceedings. By the impugned order  

dated  20.3.2008,  the  High  Court  held  Rule  16(2)  as  

unconstitutional.  Consequently,  the  High  Court  set  aside  

the select lists and directed the Government of India and  

UPSC to redo service allocation de hors Rule 16(2).

10. The  first  batch  of  civil  appeals  @  SLP  [C]  Nos.  

13571-13572 of 2008 is filed by the Union of India against  

the said order dated 20.3.2008 in W.P. [C] Nos.1814 & 1815  

of  2008.  Other  persons aggrieved by  the  said  order  have  

filed  the  remaining  civil  appeals.  Being  aggrieved  by  the  

action  of  the  Union  Public  Service  Commission  and  the  

Government  of  India  by  which  candidates  in  Reserved  

Category selected in General Category were given choice to  

opt for service of higher preference in terms of Rule 16(2) of  

the Rules, some of the reservation category candidates have  

filed  Writ  Petition  (C)  Nos.297,  312,  336  &  416  of  2008  

under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India to declare Rule  

11

16(2),(3),(4) and (5) of the Civil Services Examination Rules,  

2005 as ultra vires being inconsistent with Rule 16(1) of the  

said Rules, as violative of   Articles 14, 16(4) and 335 of  

Constitution of India, consequential reliefs.    

11.  We heard Mr.  Gopal  Subramanium, Learned Solicitor  

General of India, on behalf of the Union of India.  Ms. Indira  

Jaisingh, Learned ASG appeared in W.P. (C) No. 297/1008.  

Mr.  P.P.  Rao,  Sr.  Adv.,  Mr.  P.S.  Patwalia,  Sr.  Adv.  and  

Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Adv. represented the appellants in the  

other  appeals.  Mr.  Raju  Ramachandran,  Sr.  Adv.,  

Mr. Nidheesh Gupta, Sr. Adv., Prof. Ravi Varma Kumar, Sr.  

Adv.,  Mr.  Santosh  Paul,  Adv.,  Mr.  S.P.  Sinha,  Adv.,  

Mr. Praveen Agarwal, Adv., and Mr. Shiv Pujan Singh Adv.,  

appeared  on  behalf  of  the  writ  petitioners  and  the  

respondents in the writ appeals.  

12. The  case  of  the  contesting  respondents  is  that  the  

newly introduced system which is different from the single  

list  system  followed  earlier  (prior  to  amendment  of  CSE  

Rules) will undermine the rights of the Reserved Category  

12

candidates to get assigned to services of higher preference  

(e.g. IAS, IPS or IRS). They also urged that this system will  

reduce  the  aggregate  number of  reserved candidates  who  

will be selected while simultaneously increasing the number  

of  general  candidates.  It  also  puts  candidates  who  come  

through  the  second  list  at  a  disadvantage  in  terms  of  

seniority  and  promotions  for  rest  of  their  career  in  their  

respective services. By the impugned order, the High Court  

had vindicated these grievances, particularly those raised by  

OBC candidates.    

13.  In the  light  of  the  submissions  made by the  learned  

counsel  appearing  for  different  appellants,  the  following  

questions arise for consideration:

I.  Whether  the  Reserved  Category  candidates  who  were  

selected  on  merit  (i.e.  MRCs)  and  placed  in  the  list  of  

General  Category  candidates  could  be  considered  as  

Reserved  Category  candidates  at  the  time  of  “service  

allocation”?     

13

II.    Whether Rule 16 (2), (3), (4) and (5) of the CSE Rules  

are inconsistent with Rule 16 (1) and violative of Articles 14,  

16 (4) and 335 of the Constitution of India?

III.   Whether  the  order  of  the  Central  Administrative  

Tribunal  was valid to the extent that it  relied on  Anurag  

Patel v.   Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission and  

Others, (2005) 9 SCC 742 (which in turn had referred to the  

judgment in  Ritesh R. Sah v.  Dr. Y.L.Yamul and Others,   

(1996)  3  SCC 253,  which  dealt  with  reservations  for  the  

purpose  of  admission  to  post  graduate  medical  courses);  

and  whether  the  principles  followed  for  reservations  in  

admissions  to  educational  institutions  can  be  applied  to  

examine  the  constitutionality  of  a  policy  that  deals  with  

reservation in civil services.    

Re: Question I

14. The  relevant  provision  is  Rule  16(2)  of  the  Civil  

Services  Examination  Rules  which  was  amended  by  a  

notification  dated  4.12.2004  issued  by  the  Ministry  of  

Personnel, Public Grievances, and Pensions (DOP&T), New  

14

Delhi. The appellants’ contention is that the amended Rule  

16  (2)  intends  to  rectify  an  anomaly,  as  otherwise,  the  

interests of the Meritorious Reserved Category (hereinafter  

‘MRC’) candidates who have toiled hard to qualify as per the  

general  qualifying  standard  would  be  jeopardized.  Such  

candidates  could  find  themselves  in  a  position  where  

Reserved Category candidates who are less meritorious than  

them can  possibly  secure  posts  in  a  service  of  a  higher  

preference. The Union Government contends that the object  

of amending Rule 16 (2) is to ensure that such an adverse  

incongruous position  does  not  arise  for  more  meritorious  

candidates.  

15. Mr.  Gopal  Subramanium,  the  Learned  Solicitor  

General of India, has brought forth three implications and  

repercussions of the amended Rule 16 once it comes into  

operation:

(i) It affords a Meritorious Reserved Candidate the  benefit of reservation insofar as Service Allocation  is  concerned.  In  other  words,  if  such  a  Meritorious  Reserved  Candidate  -  although  entitled to a post in the General list-  is able to  secure  a  better  (or  more  preferred)  post  in  the  

15

Reserved List, Rule 16 (2) comes to his aid, and  he  is  able  to  secure  the  better  post.  This  preserves and protects inter se merit amongst the  Reserved Candidates.

(ii)  When  Rule  16  (2)  enables  a  Meritorious  Reserved  Candidate  to  secure  a  post  in  the  Reserved  Category,  that  Candidate  is  to  be  treated as a Reserved Candidate (consistent with  his Reserved Category  status  as  per  the  application form).

(iii) Once Rule 16 (2) is operated, the General post  that would otherwise have been available to the  Meritorious Reserved Candidate is now filled up  by a (Wait Listed) General Candidate.

The Respondents have objected to the effect of Rule 16 (2) in  

so far as the second and third aspects are concerned. They  

have  no  grievance  with  respect  to  the  first  aspect.  They  

contend  that  when  an  MRC  candidate  is  entitled  to  a  

General Merit slot, chooses to opt for a slot earmarked for a  

reservation  category  the  result  should  be  a  mutual  

exchange between the meritorious reserved candidate and  

the reserved candidate.  The MRC candidate will  carry the  

tag  of  a  general  candidate  even  when  he  occupies  the  

reservation post and the occupant of the reservation post  

will migrate to the general merit slot vacated by the MRC  

candidate.  If  the  MRC candidate  migrating  to  reservation  

16

category slot is counted as a reservation candidate, to that  

extent  there  will  be  a  reduction  in  the  posts  meant  for  

reservation category candidates.  

16. The  Civil  Services  Examination  conducted  by  Union  

Public  Service  Commission  (UPSC)  has  three  stages:  

Preliminary Examination, Main Examination, and Interview.  

The  candidates  appearing  in  the  Examination  have  to  

render information in the application form indicating their  

status as General, Other Backward Class (OBC), Scheduled  

Castes (SC) or Scheduled Tribes (ST). Moreover, at a later  

stage  the  candidates  have  to  furnish  their  preferences  of  

services in which they have to indicate their choices in the  

event of qualification. This has been spelt out in Rule 2 of  

the CSE Rules.

17. In support of their contentions, the respondents have  

relied  upon  the  following  observations  of  this  Court  in  

Union  of  India v.  Satya  Prakash, (2006)  4  SCC  550,  

(at paras. 18, 19 and 20):

17

“18. By way of illustration, a Reserved Category  candidate,  recommended  by  the  Commission  without resorting to relaxed standard (i.e. on mer- it) did not get his own preference 'say IAS' in the  merit/open category. For that, he may opt a pref- erence  from the  Reserved Category.  But  simply  because he opted a preference from the Reserved  Category does not exhaust quota of OBC category  candidate selected under relaxed standard. Such  preference opted by the OBC candidate who has  been recommended by the  Commission without  resorting to the relaxed standard (i.e.  on merit)  shall  not  be adjusted  against  the  vacancies  re- served  for  the  Scheduled  Castes,  Scheduled  Tribes and other Backward Classes. This is the  mandate of proviso to Sub-rule 2 of Rule 16.

19.  In  other  words,  while  a  Reserved  Category  candidate  recommended  by  the  Commission  without  resorting  to  the  relaxed  standard  will  have the option of preference from the Reserved  Category recommended by the Commission by re- sorting to relaxed standard, but while computing  the quota/percentage of  reservation he/she will  be deemed to have been allotted seat as an open  category candidate (i.e. on merit) and not as a Re- served Category candidate recommended by the  Commission by resorting to relaxed standard.

20. If a candidate of Scheduled Caste, Scheduled  Tribe and other Backward Class, who has been  recommended  by  the  Commission  without  resorting to  the  relaxed standard could  not  get  his/her own preference in the merit  list,  he/she  can opt a preference from the Reserved Category  and in such process the choice of preference of  the Reserved Category recommended by resorting  to  the  relaxed  standard  will  be  pushed  further  down but shall be allotted to any of the remaining  services/posts in which there are vacancies after  allocation  of  all  the  candidates  who  can  be  

18

allocated  to  a  service/post  in  accordance  with  their preference.”

18. The decision in  Satya Prakash was rendered prior to  

the amendment of Rule 16(2) and the learned judge had not  

contemplated the present version of  the rule.  Hence,  this  

decision  is  clearly  distinguishable  from the  present  case.  

Prior to the decision in  Satya Prakash’s case  (supra.), the  

practice had been that a single list of successful candidates  

was released in respect of all  the vacancies. At that time,  

MRC candidates were initially treated as general candidates  

and had Rule 16(2) not been amended, a single list would  

have been released for all 457 posts which were vacant in  

the year under consideration. Accordingly, such a list would  

have contained 242 General candidates (including 32 MRC  

candidates). There would have been a separate list for 117  

OBCs,  66  SCs  and  32  STs  (excluding  MRC  candidates).  

When the MRC Candidates were shifted from the general list  

to  the  reserved list,  there  was an ouster  of  the  relatively  

lower  ranked  Reserved  Category  candidates  who  were  

initially  selected as part  of  the reserved list.  For example  

when 27 MRC candidates (26 belonging to OBC and 1 SC)  

19

would have moved from the General  List  to the Reserved  

List, 26 OBC and 1 SC candidates who were ranked lower  

among the 117 OBC and 66 SC candidates initially selected  

in the Reserved Category, would have been ousted.  

19. The unamended as well as amended Rule 16 (2) are as  

follows:-

Rule 16 (2) in the old Civil  Service Examination Rules  

Rule 16 (2)  in the current  Civil  Service  Examination  Rules  (vide  notification  dated 4.12.2004)

The candidates  belonging to  any of the Scheduled Castes  or  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 services.   Provided that the candidates  belonging  to  the  Scheduled  Castes  and  the  Scheduled  Tribes  and  the  Other  Backward Classes who have  been  recommended  by  the  Commission  without  

While  making  service  allocation,  the  candidates  belonging  to  the  Scheduled  Castes, the Scheduled Tribes  or  Other  Backward  Classes  recommended  against  unreserved vacancies may be  adjusted  against  reserved  vacancies  by  the  Government,  if  by  this  process, they get a service of  higher choice in the order of  their preference.   

20

resorting  to  the  relaxed  standard  referred  to  in  this  sub-rule  shall  not  be  adjusted  against  the  vacancies  reserved  for  the  Scheduled  Castes  and  the  Scheduled  Tribes  and  the  Other Backward Classes.    

20. The UPSC declares results in two stages and the same  

was done in the year 2006. As per the final result of CSE  

2005,  out  of  457  vacancies,  425  candidates  were  

recommended for appointment which included 210 General,  

117  OBC,  66  SC and  32  ST  candidates.  The  UPSC was  

maintaining a consolidated reserve list, i.e. a Wait List of 64  

candidates  (consisting  of  32  general,  31  OBC  and  1  SC  

candidate)  ranking  in  order  of  merit  below  the  last  

recommended candidate under each of these categories as  

per Rule 16 (4) and (5) of the CSE Rules, 2005. Admittedly,  

31  OBC  category  candidates  who  had  qualified  in  the  

General  Merit  List  were  not  included  in  the  General  

Category and instead they were part of 117 OBC category  

candidates  selected  as  part  of  the  Reserved  Category.  

Hence, an equal number of OBC category candidates who  

were  ranked  lower  in  the  order  of  merit  as  part  of  the  

21

Reserved Category seats were initially ousted. The purpose  

of  including  those  OBC  category  candidates  who  had  

qualified in the General Category was to give them a higher  

preferred  service  from  the  vacancies  under  the  OBC  

category. The CSE rules were accordingly amended to allow  

for such a migration.

21. The Learned Solicitor General has described in detail  

how  along  with  the  list  of  recommended  candidates,  the  

UPSC  also  prepares  a  Consolidated  Reserve  List.  This  

Consolidated  Reserve  List  is  a  Wait  List  for  filling  the  

remaining 32 vacancies. It contained two parallel sub-lists:  

Wait List A consisting of 32 General Candidates and Wait  

List B consisting of 32 Reserved Candidates (31 OBCs and 1  

SC) the 1 SC candidate would be positioned in the Wait List  

at  the  same  position  in  which  the  1  SC  candidate  was  

placed amongst the 32 MRC candidates. Two Wait Lists are  

prepared so that depending on how the 32 MRCs are placed  

and in whatever contingency - whether they are adjusted  

against  General  or  Reserved  Posts  -  there  will  remain  a  

sufficient number of candidates (both general and reserved)  

22

to be adjusted against the balance 32 posts in the second  

stage.

22. When Department of Personnel and Training (DoP&T)  

received the Lists, the 32 MRC candidates were added to the  

list  of  210 General candidates but at the same time they  

were positioned in the reserved lists of 117 OBC candidates  

and 66 SC candidates  as well.  The UPSC list  counts the  

MRC candidates as part of the Reserved List for the purpose  

of ascertaining the reservation quota in terms of percentage.  

The rationale cited for this method is that for the purpose of  

service  allocation,  the  DOP&T  initially  counts  the  MRC  

candidates  in  both  the  General  and  the  Reserved  Lists.  

These candidates are then placed against the better of the  

two  services  available  to  them  under  either  of  these  

categories  which  is  of  course  based  on  their  order  of  

preference. A Service is allocated by moving downwards in  

the merit list in a serial manner, with each candidate in the  

merit  list  getting the best available option as per his/her  

preference.

23

23. The respondents have also placed strong reliance on  

this  Court’s  decision in  Ritesh R. Sah v.  Dr.  Y.L.Yamul  

(1996) 3 SCC 253). The question in that case was whether a  

Reserved Category candidate who is entitled to be selected  

for admission in open competition on the basis of his/her  

own merit should be counted against the quota meant for  

the Reserved Category or should he be treated as a general  

candidate. The Court reached the conclusion that when a  

candidate is admitted to an educational institution on his  

own  merit,  then  such  admission  is  not  to  be  counted  

against the quota reserved for Schedule Castes or any other  

Reserved Category. However, it is pertinent to note that this  

decision was given in the context of admissions to medical  

colleges in which G.B. Pattanaik J. (as His Lordship then  

was) had held:

“17. …In view of the legal position enunciated by  this Court in the aforesaid cases the conclusion is  irresistible  that a student who is  entitled to be  admitted on the basis of merit though belonging  to a Reserved Category cannot be considered to  be admitted against seats reserved for Reserved  Category.  But  at  the  same  time  the  provisions  should be so made that it will not work out to the  disadvantage of such candidate and he may not  be  placed  at  a  more  disadvantageous  position  than the other less meritorious Reserved Category  

24

candidates.  The  aforesaid  objective  can  be  achieved if after finding out the candidates from  amongst  the  Reserved  Category  who  would  otherwise come in the open merit list  and then  asking  their  option  for  admission  into  the  different colleges which have been kept reserved  for Reserved Category and thereafter the cases of  less  meritorious  Reserved  Category  candidates  should  be  considered  and  they  will  be  allotted  seats in whichever colleges the seats should be  available.  In  other  words,  while  a  Reserved  Category candidate entitled to admission on the  basis of his merit will have the option of taking  admission  to  the  colleges  where  a  specified  number  of  seats  have  been  kept  reserved  for  Reserved  Category  but  while  computing  the  percentage  of  reservation  he  will  be  deemed to  have  been  admitted  as  an  open  category  candidate  and  not  as  a  Reserved  Category  candidate…”

24. There  is  an  obvious  distinction  between  qualifying  

through an entrance test for securing admission in a medi-

cal college and qualifying in the UPSC examinations since  

the latter examination is conducted for filling up vacancies  

in the various civil services. In the former case, all the suc-

cessful candidates receive the same benefit of securing ad-

mission in an educational institution. However, in the latter  

case there are variations in the benefits that accrue to suc-

cessful  candidates  because  they  are  also  competing  

amongst  themselves  to secure the service  of  their  choice.  

25

For example, most candidates opt for at least one of the first  

three services [i.e. Indian Administrative Service (IAS), Indi-

an  Foreign  Service  (IFS)  and  Indian  Police  Service  (IPS)]  

when they are asked for preferences. A majority of the can-

didates prefer IAS as the first option. In this respect, a Re-

served Category candidate who has qualified as part of the  

general list should not be disadvantaged by being assigned  

to a lower service against the vacancies in the General Cate-

gory especially because if he had availed the benefit of his  

Reserved Category status, he would have got a service of a  

higher preference. With the obvious intention of preventing  

such an anomaly, Rule 16 (2) provides that an MRC candi-

date is at liberty to choose between the general quota or the  

respective Reserved Category quota.  

25. Some  factual  examples  can  clarify  the  position.  In  

2005, an MRC (OBC) candidate attained 21st Rank overall.  

With respect to his position in the General Merit List, there  

were General Category IAS vacancies available, and he oc-

cupied  the  17th out  of  45  General  vacancies  in  the  IAS.  

Thus, he did not need the assistance of Rule 16(2) to get a  

post  in  a  more  preferred  service  since  he  was  adjusted  

26

against the General List. Accordingly, he opted out of the  

Reserved  Category.  This  was  in  line  with  the  proposition  

that when a candidate is entitled to a certain post on his  

merit alone, he should not be counted against the reserved  

quota.  In  contrast,  another  candidate  who  was  an  MRC  

(OBC)  candidate  obtained  64th Rank  overall  in  the  CSE  

2005. At his position in the General List, he was entitled to  

a post in the IPS since the General Category IAS vacancies  

had been exhausted by candidates above him in the General  

merit list. However, IPS was his second preference while IAS  

was his first preference. If he were to be considered against  

the vacancies in the Reserved Category, he would be entitled  

to a post in the IAS because the 22 OBC IAS vacancies had  

not been exhausted at that point of time. By the operation of  

Rule 16 (2), he was able to secure a post in the IAS, while  

retaining his Reserved Status. Having availed of this benefit,  

he was adjusted against the Reserved (OBC) category.  

26. Learned Counsel for respondent questioned the ratio-

nale of declaring the CSE results in two phases in order to  

support the proposition that even if MRC candidates are giv-

en a service of a higher preference, they should not oust  

27

lower-ranked Reserved Category candidates. However, Rule  

16 (2) should not be interpreted in an isolated manner since  

it was designed to protect the interests of MRC candidates.  

MRC  candidates  having  indicated  their  status  as  

SC/ST/OBC at the time of application, begin their partici-

pation in the examination process as Reserved Candidates.  

Having qualified as per the general qualifying standard, they  

have the additional option of opting out of the Reserved Cat-

egory and occupying a General Post. Where, however, they  

are able to secure a better post in the Reserved List their  

placement in the General List should not deprive them of  

the same. In that respect, the adjustment referred to in Rule  

16 (2) does not, in fact, denote any change in the status of  

the MRC from General to Reserved. To the contrary, it is an  

affirmation of  the Reserved Status of  the MRC candidate.  

Rule 16(2) exists to protect this Reserved Status of the MRC  

candidates.

27. We must  also take  note  of  the  fact  that  when MRC  

candidates get adjusted against the Reserved Category, the  

same creates corresponding vacancies in the General Merit  

List (since MRC candidates are on both lists). These vacan-

28

cies are of course filled up by general candidates. Likewise,  

when MRC candidates  are  subsequently  adjusted  against  

the  General  Category  [i.e.  without  availing  the  benefit  of  

Rule 16 (2)],  the same will  result in vacancies in the Re-

served Category which must in turn be filled up by Wait  

Listed Reserved Candidates. Moreover, the operation of Rule  

16 does not result in the ouster of any of the candidates rec-

ommended in the first list.  Many of the wait-listed candi-

dates are accommodated in the second stage, and the rela-

tively lower ranked wait-listed candidates are excluded. It is  

pertinent to note that these excluded candidates never had  

any absolute right to recruitment or even any expectation  

that they would be recruited. Their chances depend on how  

the MRC candidates are adjusted.              

28.  In  the  impugned judgment,  the  High Court  had rea-

soned that allocation to a particular post cannot be distin-

guished from allocation to a service for the purpose of reser-

vation. However, the High Court had not considered the fact  

that in the CSE examination, the candidates are not com-

peting for similar posts in one service but are instead com-

peting for posts in different services that correspond to vary-

29

ing preferences. Furthermore, the impugned judgment did  

not  appreciate  the  possibility  that  when  an  SC/ST/OBC  

candidate  qualifies  on  merit  (i.e.  without  any  

relaxation/concession) there can be a situation where a low-

er ranked OBC candidate gets allotted to a better service in  

comparison to a higher ranked SC/ST/OBC candidate sim-

ply  because  the  higher  ranked OBC candidate  performed  

well enough to qualify in the General Category. Such a situ-

ation is anomalous. As we have already discussed, the High  

Court’s reliance on the decision of this Court in  Union of  

India v.  Satya Prakash,  (supra.),  is not tenable since it  

dealt with the effect of Rule 16 (2) as it existed prior to the  

amendment notified on 4.12.2004.  

29. A  significant  aspect  which  needs  to  be  discussed  is  

that the aggregate reservation should not exceed 50% of all  

the available vacancies, in accordance with the decision of  

this Court in  Indra Sawhney v.   Union of India,  (1992)  

Supp  3  SCC  217.  If  the  MRC  candidates  are  adjusted  

against  the  Reserved  Category  vacancies  with  respect  to  

their higher preferences and the seats vacated by them in  

the General Category are further allotted to other Reserved  

30

Category candidates, the aggregate reservation could possi-

bly exceed 50 % of all of the available posts.  

30. In  Post  Graduate  Institute  of  Medical  Education  

and  Research  v. Faculty  Association, (1998)  4  SCC 1,  

G.N. Ray J. had clearly stated that the upper ceiling of 50%  

reservations should not be breached:

“32.  Articles  14,  15  and  16  including  Articles  16(4), 16(4-A) must be applied in such a manner  so that the balance is struck in the matter of  appointments by creating reasonable opportuni- ties for the reserved classes and also for the other  members of the community who do not belong to  reserved classes. Such a view has been indicated  in the Constitution Bench decision of this Court  in  Balaji  case,  Devadasan  case  and  Sabharwal  case. Even in Indra Sawhney case the same view  has been held by indicating that only a limited  reservation not exceeding 50% is permissible. It is  to be appreciated that Article 15 (4) is an enabling  provision like Article  16 (4)  and the reservation  under  either  provision should not  exceed legiti- mate limits. In making reservations for the back- ward classes, the State cannot ignore the funda- mental rights of the rest of the citizens. The spe- cial provision under Article 15 (4) [sic 16 (4)] must  therefore  strike  a  balance  between several  rele- vant  considerations  and  proceed  objectively.  In  this connection reference may be made to the de- cisions of this Court in State of A.P. v. U.S.V. Bal- ram and C.A. Rajendran v. Union of India. It has  been indicated in Indra Sawhney that clause (4)  of Article 16 is not in the nature of an exception  to clauses (1) and (2) of Article 16 but an instance  of  classification  permitted  by  clause  (1).  It  has  

31

also  been  indicated  in  the  said  decision  that  clause (4) of Article 16 does not cover the entire  field covered by clauses (1) and (2) of Article 16.  In Indra Sawhney case this Court has also indi- cated that in the interests of the backward class- es of citizens, the State cannot reserve all the ap- pointments under the State or even a majority of  them. The doctrine of equality of opportunity in  clause (1) of Article 16 is to be reconciled in such  a manner that the latter while serving the cause  of backward classes shall  not unreasonably en- croach upon the field of equality.”

31. In  State  of  Kerala v.  N.M.  Thomas, (1976)  2  SCC  

310, the same proposition was enunciated by A.N. Ray, C.J.  

who had held:

“26. The respondent contended that apart  from  Article 16 (4) members of scheduled castes and  scheduled tribes were not entitled to any favoured  treatment in regard to promotion. In T.Devadasan  v. Union of India reservation was made for back- ward  classes.  The  number  of  reserved  seats  which were not filled up was carried forward to  the subsequent year. On the basis of “carry for- ward”  it  was  found  that  such  reserved  seats  might destroy equality. To illustrate, if  18 seats  were reserved and for two successive years the re- served seats were not filled and in the third year  there were 100 vacancies the result would be that  54 reserved seats would be occupied out of 100  vacancies.  This would destroy equality.  On that  ground  “carry  forward”  principle  was  not  sus- tained  in  Devadasan’s  case  (supra).  The  same  view was taken in the case of M.R.Balaji v. State  of Mysore. It was said that not more than 50 per  

32

cent  should  be  reserved  for  backward  classes.  This   ensures equality. Reservation is not a con- stitutional  compulsion  but  is  discretionary  ac- cording to the ruling of this Court in Rajendran’s  case (supra).”      

32. Therefore,  we  are  of  the  firm  opinion  that  MRC  

candidates  who  avail  the  benefit  of  Rule  16(2)  and  are  

eventually  adjusted  in  the  Reserved  Category  should  be  

counted  as  part  of  the  reserved  pool  for  the  purpose  of  

computing  the  aggregate  reservation  quotas.  The  seats  

vacated by MRC candidates in the general pool will therefore  

be offered to General Category candidates. This is the only  

viable solution since allotting these General Category seats  

(vacated  by  MRC  candidates)  to  relatively  lower  ranked  

Reserved  Category  candidates  would  result  in  aggregate  

reservations exceeding 50% of the total number of available  

seats.  Hence,  we see  no hurdle  to  the  migration of  MRC  

candidates to the Reserved Category.  

33

Re: Question II

33. We  have  extracted  Rule  16  of  the  Civil  Service  

Examination  Rules,  as  per  notification  dated  4.12.2004  

issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and  

Pensions  (Department  of  Personnel  and  Training),  New  

Delhi. A perusal of the rule discloses the following: Rule 16  

(1) mandates that after the interview phase, the candidates  

will  be  arranged  in  the  order  of  merit  on  the  basis  of  

aggregate marks obtained in the main examination. Later  

on, the UPSC shall fix a qualifying mark for recommending  

the  candidates  for  the  unreserved  vacancies.  Proviso  to  

sub-rule (1) lays down that a candidate who belongs to the  

SC, ST & OBC categories and who has qualified on his own  

in  the  merit  list  shall  not  be  recommended  against  the  

vacancies reserved for such classes if such candidate has  

not availed of any of the concessions or relaxations in the  

eligibility  or  the  selection  criteria.  The  other  sub-rules  

provide as to how Meritorious Reserve Category candidates  

are  to  be  adjusted  and  once  they  get  services  of  their  

34

preference after availing the benefit of their reserved status  

(as  SC,  ST,  OBC  or  any  other  applicable  category),  the  

candidates  whose  names  are  in  the  consolidated  reserve  

lists are to be subsequently adjusted. The consolidated wait  

list  includes  the  candidates  from  General  Category  and  

Reserved  Category.  If  an  MRC candidate  who  belongs  to  

OBC category has availed the benefit of his status for better  

service allocation then the seat vacated by him will go to a  

General Category candidate. If he chooses not to avail the  

benefits  of  special  status  then  he  would  be  counted  in  

General  Category  and  the  seat  vacated  by  him  in  the  

Reserved Category will automatically go to a candidate who  

belongs to the same Reserved Category.  

34. As per the submissions made before this Court, in the  

year  2005,  27  MRC  candidates  were  adjusted  against  

Reserved Category and 5 MRC candidates were adjusted in  

General Category. As already explained, the current process  

entails  that  a  Reserved  Candidate,  although  having  done  

well enough in the examination to have qualified in the open  

category, does not automatically rescind his/her right to a  

35

post  in  the  Reserved  Category.  Furthermore,  Rule  16(2)  

operates  to  recognize  the  inter  se merit  amongst  the  

Reserved  Category  Candidates.  The  two  stage  process  is  

designed in a manner that no person included in the first  

recommended  list  is  subsequently  eliminated.  However,  

since the wait list contains more candidates than available  

posts, it is inevitable that some persons in the wait list will  

necessarily be excluded. Such exclusion is on the basis of  

merit and the aggrieved parties were never promised a post.  

35. The following chart presented by the Learned Solicitor  

General explains how service allocation has been done for  

the years 2005, 2006 and 2007:   

Service Allocation in the Years 2005, 2006, 2007

Vacancy Position Year General  

Vacancies OBC  Vacancies

SC  Vacancies

ST  Vacancies

Total  Vacancies

2005 242 117 66 32 457 2006 273 144 80 36 533 2007 382 190 109 53 734

                  Candidates Recommended Against vacancies in the first case

Year General Candidat es

OBC  Candidate s

      SC     Candidates

     ST  Candidate s

    Total  Candidate s

2005 210 117  66       32 425

36

(including   31  merit  candidate s)

(including  1 merit    Candidate)

2006 214 144  (including  41  merit  candidate s)  

80  (including  15  merit  candidates)

36  (including  2  merit  candidate s)

474

2007 286 190  (including  76  merit  candidate s)

109  (including  19  merit  candidates)

53  (including  1  merit  candidate )

638

However,  we  have  been  apprised  that  on  account  of  the  

intervening  order  of  the  CAT  Chennai  Bench  (dated  

17.09.07 in O.A. No. 690 and 775 of 2006), the Department  

of  Personnel  &  Training  (DOP&T)  has  not  been  able  to  

proceed  with  service  allocation  against  the  second  list.  

Similarly,  for  the  years  2006  and  2007,  the  UPSC  is  

maintaining  a  Consolidated  Reserve  List  of  116  and  192  

candidates  respectively,  but  DOP&T  has  not  sent  any  

requisition for the second list as per Rule 16(5).   

36.  In  State of Bihar v. M .Neeti Chandra, (1996) 6 SCC  

36,  this  Court  was  confronted  with  broadly  analogous  

issues. In that case, the Controller of Examinations, Health  

37

Services,   Government  of  Bihar,  Patna  had  issued  the  

prospectus for a competitive examination for admission to  

post  graduate  courses  in  Patna  Medical  College  (Patna),  

Darbhanga  Medical  College  (Laheria  Sarai),  Rajendra  

Medical  College  (Ranchi)  and  Mahatma  Gandhi  Medical  

College  (Jamshedpur)  for  the  year  1992.  The  prospectus  

contained  the  following  provisions  with  respect  to  

reservations:

“The reservation of seats for various categories shall  be as   per the decision of the government. There will be no economic   criteria for the reservation.  

       Scheduled Caste 14% Scheduled Tribe 10% Extremely Backward Class 14% Backward Class 9% Ladies         3%

The Government of Bihar acting through the Department of  

Personnel  and  Administrative  Reforms  published  a  

resolution dated 7-2-1992,  bearing  No.  11/K1-1022/91-K  

20  [Hereinafter  “Resolution  No.  20”].  Paragraph  6  of  the  

same is reproduced below:

38

“As there is provision in direct appointment to the  effect  that  the  candidates  belonging  to  reserved  classes, who are selected on the basis of merit   would  not  be  adjusted  against  reserved  seats,   similarly maintaining the same arrangement here  also the candidates selected on the basis of merit   for admission into  professional training institutes  would not be adjusted against the reserved quota  for the candidates of the reserved classes”.    

The  High  Court  of  Patna  which  considered  the  matter  

devised  a method to  remove the  anomalies.  It  initiated a  

process of allotment of seats by which the reserved seats  

were offered first (i.e. before the general seats are filled first)  

to the candidates of the Reserved Category on merit,  and  

after  all  the  reserved  seats  were  so  filled  up,  all  other  

qualifying  candidates  of  the  Reserved  Category  were  

‘adjusted’ against open seats in the General Category along  

with  the  general  merit  candidates  and  offered  seats  on  

merit-cum-choice basis. Furthermore, the High Court made  

arrangement for the Reserved Category of girls who could  

get  seats  under  the  reservation  for  girls  or  under  those  

reserved  for  SCs  /STs  etc.,  thereby  retaining  a  choice  

between one of the two reservations. The girls in excess of  

the  reserved  vacancies  could  seek  admission  on  general  

39

merit. The High Court held that by this procedure all the  

anomalies in the procedure for allotment of seats could be  

removed. In the meantime, another resolution was passed  

which was supposed to rectify the anomalies arising out of  

the  operation  of  the  previous  Resolution.  The  Resolution  

dated 22-3-1994 provided that casual vacancies occurring  

at  a  later  stage  in  the  General  Category  or  Reserved  

Category would be filled from amongst the candidates of the  

respective  category  on  merit  and  in  that  process  no  

candidate  would  be  allotted  a  college/course  below  the  

choice of  the college or course already allotted.  The High  

Court  observed  that  the  resolution  takes  care  of  the  

grievances of the candidates who by reason of readjustment  

at the State for filling up subsequent vacancies often had to  

lose the college/course of their choice but it did not address  

the anomaly that arises when preparing the main merit list  

as per Resolution No. 20.  

State  of  Bihar  moved  this  Court  in  appeal  against  the  

judgment of the Patna High Court and the main ground was  

that  if  the  method  suggested  by  the  High  Court  was  

40

followed, all students of Reserved Category who had secured  

the minimum marks would have to be admitted even though  

there may not be adequate number of vacancies for them.  

A.M. Ahmadi,  C.J.  pronounced this contention to be very  

genuine and laid down:

“10.  Let  us  take  a  situation  in  which  in  a  particular Reserved Category there are x number  of seats but the candidates qualifying according  to criteria fixed for that category are x+5 with the  best  among  them  also  qualifying  on  merit  as  general candidates. According to the arrangement  made by Circular No. 20, the first candidate gets  a  choice  along  with  the  General  Category  candidate but being not high enough in the list,  gets a choice lesser than what he could secure in  the Reserved Category to which he was entitled.  The x  number  of  seats  could  then be  filled  up  with the four qualifying candidates being denied  admission  for  want  of  seats.  This  would  have  been  harsh  for  the  best  candidate  as  well  as  violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.  On the other  hand, if  the direction of the High  Court  is  followed,  the  first  x  number  of  candidates  get  seats  according  to  merit  against  the  reserved  seats  but  the  remaining  will  also  have to be ‘adjusted’ against the open seats for  regular candidates. These will  be those who are  not  qualified  according to  general  merit  criteria  and  so  will  necessarily  displace  5  general  candidates  who  would  be  entitled  to  seats  on  merit.

11.  In  a  particular  year,  the  number  of  such  candidates may be much larger  and  thus  the  method  evolved  by  the  High  Court  may  create  

41

much hardship. The method will  also not be in  tune  with  the  principles  of  equality.  Hence  the  method evolved by the High Court will have to be  struck down.  

12.  If  however,  the  word  ‘adjusted  ’is  read  to  mean considered along with the general merit list  candidates, it will lose much of its value. As per  the above illustration, the 5 candidates qualifying  on Reserved Category criteria having not secured  enough  marks  according  to  general  criteria,  cannot, at all be allotted any seat in the General  Category.   

13. At the same time, as pointed out above, all is  not well with the Government Circular No.20 as it  operates  against  the  very  candidates  for  whom  the  protective  discrimination  is  devised.  The  intention of Circular No. 20 is to give full benefit  of reservation to the candidates of the reserved.  However,  to  the  extent  the  meritorious  among  them are denied the choice of college and subject  which  they  could  secure  under  the  rule  of  reservation, the circular cannot be sustained. The  circular, therefore, can be given effect only if the  Reserved Category candidate qualifying on merit  with  general  candidates  consents  to  being  considered as a general candidate on merit-cum- choice  basis  for  allotment  of  college/institution  and subject.”   

37. Learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioner in W.P.(C)  

No. 297 of 2008 has relied upon the following observations  

of Jeevan Reddy J., in  Indra Sawhney v.  Union of India  

(supra.) (para 811) :

42

“811.  …it  is  well  to  remember  that  the  reservations under Article 16 (4) do not operate  like a communal reservation. It may well happen  that some members belonging to, say, Scheduled  Castes get selected in the open competition field  on the basis of their own merit; they will not be  counted against the quota reserved for Scheduled  Castes; they will be treated as open competition  candidates.”  

The said observations are not of any assistance as no MRC  

candidate  occupying  a  General  Category  slot  is  being  

counted against the quota for the Reserved Category. For  

example  those  MRC  candidates  belonging  to  the  OBC  

category who cut across the general qualifying standard and  

are appointed to general posts are not being counted within  

the  27%  quota  earmarked  for  OBCs.  However,  MRC  

candidates who retain their reserved status and avail of the  

benefit of Rule 16 (2) to occupy a reserved post are counted  

against the reservation quota. When MRC candidates do not  

choose to accept the General Category slot available to them  

on account of their merit, but opt to occupy a slot reserved  

for  reservation  category  candidates,  because  that  post  is  

more attractive, then counting him/ her against reservation  

43

quota will not violate the law laid down in  Indra Sawhney  

(supra.).  

38. In M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 212, a  

Constitution Bench of this Court held:

“102. … Equality has two facets- “formal equality”  and “proportional equality”. Proportional equality  is equality “in fact” whereas “formal equality” is  equality  “in  law”.  Formal  equality  exists  in  the  rule of law. In the case of proportional equality  the State is expected to take affirmative steps in  favour of disadvantaged sections of society within  the framework of  liberal  democracy.  Egalitarian  equality is proportional equality.”    

39.    Article 16 (4) of the Constitution provides that nothing  

in  Article  16  shall  prevent  the  State  from  making  any  

provision  for  the  reservation of  appointments  or  posts  in  

favour  of  any  backward  classes  of  citizens  which,  in  the  

opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the  

services under the State. Article 16(4) empowers the State to  

initiate  measures  in  order  to  protect  and  promote  the  

interests  of  backward  classes  (OBC,  SC  &  ST).  The  

impugned measures in no way offend the equality clause  

since this particular clause was inserted to safeguard the  

concerns  of  certain  classes  and  shield  their  legitimate  

44

claims in the domain of public employment. On behalf of the  

respondents in the appeals, it was submitted Rules 16 (2),  

(3), (4) & (5) infringes Article 16(4). We do not accept this  

proposition since Rule 16 (2) and the subsequent sub-rules  

merely  recognize  and  advance  inter  se merit  among  the  

Reserved Category candidates in the manner that has been  

demonstrated before us by Learned Solicitor General.         

40. Therefore, Rule 16 protects the interests of a Reserved  

Category  candidate  selected  in  the  general  (unreserved)  

category  by  giving  him  the  option  either  to  retain  his  

position in the open merit category or to be considered for a  

vacancy in the Reserved Category, if it is more advantageous  

to him/her. The need for incorporating such a provision is  

to  arrest  arbitrariness  and to protect  the  interests  of  the  

Meritorious Reserved Category  candidates.  If  such rule  is  

declared  redundant  and  unconstitutional  vis-à-vis  Article  

14, 16 and 335 then the whole object of equality clause in  

the  Constitution  would  be  frustrated  and  the  MRC  

candidates selected as per the general qualifying standard  

would  be  disadvantaged  since  the  candidate  of  his/her  

45

category  who is  below him/her  in  the  merit  list,  may by  

availing  the  benefits  of  reservation attain  a  better  service  

when allocation of services is made. Rule 16 in essence and  

spirit  protects  the pledge outlined in the Preamble of  the  

Constitution  which  conceives  of  equality  of  status  and  

opportunity.      

Re: Question III

41. Central  Administrative  Tribunal,  Chennai  Bench  in  

O.A.  No.  690  of  2006  and  775  of  2006  had  given  the  

following directions -:

“(i) The impugned Rule 16 (2) is declared as valid  so long as it is confined to allocation of services  and  confirms  to  the  ratio  of  Paras  4  to  6  of  Anurag Patel order of the Hon’ble Apex Court.

(ii) The Supplementary List issued by the second  respondent to the first respondent dated 3.4.2007  is  set  aside.  This  would entail  issue  of  a  fresh  supplementary result from the reserved list of 64  in such a way that adequate number of OBCs are  announced in lieu of the OBCs who have come on  merit and brought under General Category. The  respondents are directed to rework the result in  such  a  way  the  select  list  for  all  the  457  candidates are announced in one lot providing for  242-general, 117 OBC, 57 SC and 41 ST and also  ensure that the candidates in OBC, SC & ST who  come  on  merit  and  without  availing  any  

46

reservation are treated as general candidates and  ensure  that  on equal  number  of  such reserved  candidates  who  are  of  merit  under  General  Category,  are  recruited  for  OBC,  SC  &  ST  respectively and complete the select list for 457.  Having  done  this  exercise,  the  respondents  should apply Rule 16 (2) to ensure that allocation  of  the  service  is  in  accordance  with  rank-cum- preference  with  priority  given  to  meritorious  reserved  candidates  for  service  allocation  by  virtue of Rule 16 (2)  which is as per para 5 of  Anurag  Patel  order.  The  entire  exercise,  as  directed above, should be completed as per the  order.

(iii) Applying the ratio of Anurag Patel decision of  Hon’ble Apex Court (Paras 6 & 7), if there is need  for re-allocation of services, the respondents will  take  appropriate  measures  to  that  extent  and  complete  this  process  also  within  two  months  from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”    

The CAT had also issued the following direction as to how  

the results of the UPSC examinations (2005) should have  

been announced:

“52. If the UPSC had followed the decision of the  Hon’ble Apex Court cited supra and released the  select list in one go for all the 457 vacancies then  it  would  have  ensured  that  the  select  list  contained  not  only  117  OBCs  but  also  an  additional  number  of  OBC  candidates  by  this  number,  in  additional  to  117  under  27%  reservation,  while  simultaneously  be number of  general  candidates  recruited  will  be  less  to  the  extent of OBCs recruited on merit and included  

47

in the general list in the result of Civil Services  Examination, 2005. Once this order is met, the  successful  candidates  list  will  include  242  candidates  in  the  General  Category  which  is  inclusive  of  all  those  Reserved  Category  candidates coming on merit plus 117 OBC, 57 SC  and  41  ST  exclusively  from  these  respective  reserved categories by applying relaxed norms for  them.. If such a list is subjected to Rule 16(2) of  Civil Services Examination, 2005 in present form  for making service allocation  only  and  then  services are allotted based on Rule 16(2) in this  context,  then the  announcement  of  recruitment  result  and  allocation  services  will  be  both  in  accordance  with  law  as  per  various  judgments  the Hon’ble Apex Court and in accordance with  the extent orders issued by the Respondent No.1  and also in keeping with spirit of Rule 16 (2) so  that,  the  meritorious  reserved  candidates  get  higher  preference  service  as  compared  to  their  lower  ranked  counter  parts  in  OBC,  ST,SC.  In  doing so, the respondents also would notice that  the steps taken by them in accordance with the  Rules 16 (3)(-)(5) are redundant once they issue  the result of recruitment in one phase, instead of  two as they have become primary cause for the  litigation and avoidable confusion in the minds of  the candidates seeking recruitment.”               

42. We  may  refer  to  the  brief  facts  in  Anurag  Patel v.  

Uttar  Pradesh  Public  Service  Commission, (supra.),  

referred  to  by  the  Tribunal.  In  the  year  1990,  the  Uttar  

Pradesh  Public  Service  Commission  [hereinafter  ‘UPPSC’)  

conducted  a  combined  State  Services/Upper  Subordinate  

48

Services examination for selection to various posts such as  

Deputy Collectors in U.P. Civil (Executive) Services, Deputy  

Superintendent of  Police  in U.P.  Police Services,  Treasury  

Officers/Account  Officers  in  U.P.  Finance  and  Accounts  

Services,  Sales  Tax Officers,  Assistant  Regional  Transport  

Officers,  District  Supply Officers and various other posts.  

Pursuant to the notification issued by the UPPSC, a large  

number of  candidates  appeared for  selection.  The UPPSC  

published the list of selected candidates in August, 1992.  

Altogether  358 posts  in various  categories  were filled  up.  

The  candidates  belonging  to  the  Backward  Classes  were  

entitled to get reservation in selection in respect of 57 posts  

in various categories, out of a total number of 358 posts.  

The posts in each category of service were filled up by choice  

of  the  candidate  and  the  person  who  secured  higher  

position  in  the  merit  list  opted  for  U.P.  Civil  (Executive)  

Service  and  those  who  could  not  get  the  higher  and  

important category of service had to be satisfied with posts  

in services of lesser importance. In each category of service,  

posts  were  reserved  for  SCs/STs,  Backward  Classes  and  

handicapped persons etc. The UPPSC treated the candidates  

49

belonging  to  SC/ST  and  Backward  Classes  who  got  

selection  to  the  seats  (posts)  earmarked  for  general  

candidates  as  candidates  in  the  General  Category  and  

allotted them to various services depending upon the rank  

secured  by  them  in  the  select  list.  SC/ST  and  BC  

Candidates,  who  got  lower  rank  in  merit  lists  of  general  

category candidates got posting in lesser important services.  

However, the SC/ST and BC Candidates who got selected to  

posts reserved in each category even though they secured  

lesser rank in the whole list got appointed to reserved posts  

in each category. This mode of appointments caused serious  

injustice to candidates who initially applied in the Reserved  

Category, yet they got selected to the general seats (posts) as  

they were meritorious and were entitled to get selected along  

with the general candidates. However, their merit and ability  

did not pay any dividends as they got appointment only to  

lesser important posts. This Court held:

“4.  ... The authorities should have compared the  candidates  who are  to  be appointed on general  merit as also candidates who are to be appointed  as  against  the  reserved  vacancies  and  while  making  appointments  the  inter  se  merit  of  the  reserved candidates should have been considered  and  they  must  have  been  given  the  option  

50

treating each service separately. As this exercise  was not followed, less meritorious candidates got  appointment  to  higher  posts  whereas  more  meritorious candidates  had to  be satisfied with  posts of lower category.   

5. …in the instant case, as noticed earlier, out of  8 petitioners in Writ Petition No. 22753 of 1993,  two of them who had secured Ranks 13 and 14 in  the merit list, were appointed as Sales Tax Officer  II,  whereas the persons who secured Ranks 38,  72 and 97, ranks lower to them, got appointment  as Deputy Collectors and the Division bench of  the High Court held that it is a clear injustice to  the  persons  who  are  more  meritorious  and  directed that a list of all selected Backward Class  candidates shall be prepared separately including  those candidates selected in the General Category  and  their  appointments  to  the  posts  shall  be  made strictly in accordance with merit as per the  select list and preference of a person higher in the  select list will be seen first and the appointment  given  accordingly,  while  preference  of  a  person  lower in the list will be seen only later. We do not  think any error or illegality in the direction issued  by the Division Bench of the High Court.

6.  If  these  candidates  who got  selection  in  the  General  Category  are  allowed  to  exercise  preference  and  then  are  appointed  accordingly  the  candidates  who  were  appointed  in  the  reserved  categories  would  be  pushed  down  in  their  posts  and  the  vacancies  thus  left  by  the  General  Category  candidates  belonging  to  Backward Classes. There will not be any change  in the total number of posts filled up either by the  General Category candidates or by the Reserved  Category candidates.”

51

43. The  decision  in  Anurag  Patel (supra.)  rectified  the  

anomaly  which  had  occurred  since  the  U.P.P.S.C.  had  

allotted  services  of  lower  preference  to  the  candidates  of  

backward classes who were meritorious enough to qualify as  

per the criteria laid down for General Category candidates.  

Such meritorious candidates were disadvantaged on account  

of  qualifying  on merit  which was patently  offensive  to  the  

principles outlined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.  

This  Court  had  reached  such  conclusion  to  ensure  that  

allocation  of  service  is  in  accordance  with  the  rank-cum-

preference basis with priority given to meritorious candidates  

for service allocation.  

44. The decision in Anurag Patel (supra.) in turn referred to  

the earlier decision in  Ritesh R. Sah v.  Dr. Y.L.Yamul and  

Others (supra.). However, we have already distinguished the  

judgment  in  Ritesh  R.  Sah.  That  decision  was  given  in  

relation to reservation for admission to post-graduate medical  

courses  and  the  same  cannot  be  readily  applied  in  the  

present  circumstances  where  we  are  dealing  with  the  

examinations conducted by the UPSC. The ultimate aim of  

52

Civil  Services  aspirants  is  to  qualify  for  the  most  coveted  

services and each of  the  services  have quotas for  reserved  

classes, the benefits of which are availed by MRC candidates  

for  preferred  service.  As  highlighted  earlier,  the  benefit  

accrued by different candidates who secure admission in a  

particular  educational  institution  is  of  a  homogeneous  

nature.  However,  the  benefits  accruing  from  successfully  

qualifying in the UPSC examination are of a varying nature  

since some services are coveted more than others.     

45. The order of the CAT is valid to the extent that it relied  

on the ratio propounded by this Court in  Anurag Patel v.  

Uttar  Pradesh Public  Service  Commission (supra.).  Even  

though that decision had in turn relied on the verdict of this  

Court  in  Ritesh  R.  Sah v.  Dr.  Y.L.Yamul  and  Others,  

(supra.),  the latter case is distinguishable from the present  

case with respect to the facts in issue. However, we cannot  

approve  of  the  conclusions  arrived  at  in  the  Central  

Administrative Tribunal order as it failed to take note of the  

unique characteristics of the UPSC examinations.

53

46. Reference was also made to R.K. Sabharwal v.  State  

of Punjab, (1995) 2 SCC 745,  this Court had declared that  

the  State  shall  not  count  a  Reserved Category  candidate  

selected in the open category against the vacancies in the  

Reserved Category. However, by this it could not be inferred  

that if the candidate himself wishes to avail a vacancy in the  

Reserved Category,  he  shall  be  prohibited  from doing  so.  

After  considering  the  counsels’  submissions  and  

deliberations among ourselves, we are of the view that the  

ratio in that case is not applicable for the purpose of the  

present case. That case was primarily concerned with the  

Punjab Service of Engineers in the Irrigation Department of  

State of Punjab. The decision was rendered in the context of  

the posts earmarked for the Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled  

Tribes and Backward Classes on the roster.  It  was noted  

that once such posts are filled the reservation is complete.  

Roster cannot operate any further and it should be stopped.  

Any post falling vacant in a cadre thereafter, is to be filled  

from the category - reserved or general - due to retirement  

54

or removal of a person belonging to the respective category.  

Unlike the examinations conducted by UPSC which includes  

21 different services this case pertains to a single service  

and  therefore  the  same  cannot  be  compared  with  the  

examination  conducted  by  UPSC.  The  examination  

conducted  by  UPSC is  very  prestigious  and the  top-most  

services of this nation are included in this examination. In  

this  respect,  it  is  obvious that there  is  fierce  competition  

amongst  the  successful  candidates  as  well  to  secure  

appointments in the most preferred services. This judgment  

is strictly confined to the enabling provision of Article 16 (4)  

of the Constitution under which the State Government has  

the sole power to decide whether there is a requirement for  

reservations in favour of the backward class in the services  

under  the  State  Government.  However,  the  present  case  

deals with positions in the various civil services under the  

Union Government that are filled through the examination  

process  conducted  by  the  UPSC.  Therefore,  the  

fact-situation  in  R.K.  Sabharwal’s case  is  clearly  

distinguishable.   

55

47.  The proviso to Rule 16 (1) and Rule 16 (2) operate in  

different dimensions and it is untenable to argue that these  

provisions are contradictory or inconsistent with each other.  

As mentioned earlier, in the examination for the year 2005,  

32 reserved candidates (31 OBC candidates and 1 SC candi-

date) qualified as per the general qualifying standard [Rule  

16 (1)]. These MRC candidates did not avail of any of the  

concessions and relaxations in the eligibility criteria at any  

stage of the examination, and further they secured enough  

marks to place them above the general qualifying standard.  

MRC candidates are entitled to one of the two posts - one  

depending on their performance in the General list and oth-

er depending on their position in the Reserved List. When  

MRC candidates are put in the General list  on their own  

merit  they  do  not  automatically  relinquish  their  reserved  

status. By the operation of Rule 16 (2), the reserved status  

of an MRC candidate is protected so that his/ her better  

performance does not deny such candidate the chance to be  

allotted  to  a  more  preferred  service.  Where,  however,  an  

MRC is able  to obtain his preferred post by virtue of  his  

56

/her ranking in the General List, he/ she is not counted as  

a Reserved Candidate and is certainly not counted amongst  

the respective reservation quota.  

48.   We must also remember that affirmative action mea-

sures should be scrutinized as per the standard of propor-

tionality. This means that the criteria for any form of differ-

ential treatment should bear a rational correlation with a le-

gitimate governmental  objective.  In this case a distinction  

has been made between Meritorious Reserved Category can-

didates and relatively lower ranked Reserved Category can-

didates. The amended Rule 16(2) only seeks to recognize the  

inter-se merit between these two classes of candidates for  

the purpose of allocation to the various civil services with  

due regard for the preferences indicated by the candidates.   

49. With regard to the specific characteristics of the UPSC  

examinations  we  hold  that  Reserved  Category  candidates  

(belonging to OBC, SC or ST categories among others) who  

are selected on merit and placed in the list of general/unre-

57

served Category candidates can choose to migrate to the re-

spective reserved categories at the time of allocation of ser-

vices. Such migration is enabled by Rule 16 (2) of the Civil  

Services Examination Rules, which is not inconsistent with  

Rule 16 (1) of the same or even the content of Articles 14, 16  

(4) and 335 of the Constitution of India.  

50. We sum up our answers-:

i) MRC candidates who avail the benefit of Rule 16 (2) and  

adjusted in the reserved category should be counted as part  

of the reserved pool for the purpose of computing the aggre-

gate reservation quotas. The seats vacated by MRC candi-

dates in the General Pool will be offered to General category  

candidates.

ii)  By operation of  Rule  16 (2),  the  reserved status of  an  

MRC candidate is protected so that his/ her better perfor-

mance does not deny him of the chance to be allotted to a  

more preferred service.  

58

iii) The amended Rule 16 (2) only seeks to recognize the  

inter se merit between two classes of candidates i.e. a) meri-

torious  reserved  category  candidates  b)  relatively  lower  

ranked reserved category candidates, for the purpose of al-

location to the various Civil Services with due regard for the  

preferences indicated by them.

iv) The reserved category candidates “belonging to OBC,  

SC/ ST categories” who are selected on merit and placed in  

the list of General/Unreserved  category  candidates  can  

choose to migrate to the respective reserved category at the  

time of allocation of services. Such migration as envisaged  

by Rule 16 (2) is not inconsistent with Rule 16 (1) or Articles  

14, 16 (4) and 335 of the Constitution.  

51. In view of the above, the civil appeals are allowed and  

the judgment of the Madras High Court is set aside.  The  

writ petitions challenging the validity of Rule 16(2) are dis-

missed. The validity of Rule 16 of Civil Service Examination  

Rules  2005 (vide  notification  dated  4.12.2004)  is  upheld.  

There will be no order as to costs.    

59

         ……….……………………….. CJI    (K.G. BALAKRISHNAN)

        ………………...…………………. J.           (S.H. KAPADIA)

 …………………………….……..J.   (R.V. RAVEENDRAN)

                …………………………………..J.                     (B. SUDERSHAN REDDY)

                                    ………..………………………….J.                                      (P. SATHASIVAM)

NEW DELHI MAY 07, 2010     

60