# UNION OF INDIA v. RAMESH RAM & ORS. ETC

- **Citation:** [2010] 6 S.C.R. 698
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2010-05-07
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal Nos. 4310-4311 of 2010
- **Bench:** K.G. Balakrishnan, S.H. Kapadia, R.V. Raveendran, B. Sudershan Reddy, P. Sathasivam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/union-of-india-v-ramesh-ram-ors-etc-26942
- **Pages:** 49

## Headnote

Constitution of India, 1950:
Articles 14, 16(4) and 335 - Reservation in Central Civil
Services - Meritorious Reserved Category candidates placed
in the list of unreserved category candidates - Exercising
0
choice to migrate to reserve category for the purpose of
allocation of service in the order of their preferences - HELD:
The reserved category candidates "belonging to OBC, SCI ST
categories" who are selected on merit and placed in the list
of General/Unreserved category candidates can choose to
E migrate to the respective reserved category at the time of
allocation of services and they would be counted as part of
the reserved pool for the purpose of computing the aggregate
reservation quotas - The seat vacated by MRC candidate in
the general pool will be offered to General Category
candidates, otherwise the aggregate reservation could
F possibly exceed 50% of all available posts and it would not
be in accordance with the decision in Indira Sawhney that
aggregate reservation should not exceed 50% of all the
available posts - Such migration as envisaged by Rule 16
(2) of Civil Services Examination Rules is not inconsistent with
G Rule 16 (1) of the Rules or Articles 14, 16 (4) and 335 of the
Constitution - By operation of Rule 16 (2), the reserved status
of an MRC candidate is protected so that his! her better
performance does not deny him of the chance to be allotted
H
698
UNION OF INDIA v. RAMESH RAM & ORS. ETC.
699
to a more preferred service - Validity of r.16(2) upheld - Civil A
Services Examination Rules - Rule 16(1) and 16(2).
Articles 14, 16(4) and 335 - Reservation in service visa-vis reservation for admission to P-G Medical courses -
HELD: There is an obvious distinction between qualifying
8
through an entrance test for securing admission in a medical
college and qualifying in the UPSC examinations for filling
up vacancies in the various civil services -
In UPSC
examinations, candidates also compete amongst themselves
to secure the service of their choice in the order of their
preferences - The judgment in Ritesh R. Sah1 dealing with
C
admission to post-graduate medical courses, cannot be
readily applied to the examinations conducted by the UPSC.
In the Civil Services Examination 2005, certain
Meritorious Reserved Category candidates (MRCs), who
D
were selected on merit and recommended against
unreserved vacancies, opted for reserved vacancies for
the purpose of service allocation and got the service of
higher choice in the order of their preferenc~s.
Consequently, equal number of general category
E
candidates from the consolidated reserve list (wait list)
were recommended by the UPSC. Some of the OBC
candidates in the reserve list filed application before the
Central Administrative Tribunal challenging Rule 16(2) of
the Civil Services Examination Rules, contending that
F
adjustment of OBC merit candidates against the
vacancies reserved for OBCs was illegal. The Tribunal
held that meritorious OBC candidates who were selected
on merit should be adjusted against 'General Category'.
However, the Tribunal ordered that Rule 16(2) would be
applied in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court in
G
Anurag Patel's case2, to ensure that allocation of service
1.
Ritesh R. Sah v. Dr. Y.L. Yamul 1996 (2) SCR 695.
2.
Anurag Patel vs. U.P .. Public Service Commission & Ors., 2004 (4) Suppl.
SCR888.
H
700
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2010] 6 S.C.R.
A was in accordance with rank-cum-preference with
priority given to meritorious candidates for service
allocation. But, the High Court held Rule 16(2) as
unconstitutional, set aside the select list and directed the
Central Government and the UPSC to do the service
B allocation afresh de hors Rule 16(2). Aggrieved, the Union
of India and other aggrieved persons filed the appeals
and the writ petitions.
The questions for consideration before the Court
were: (i) "Whether the Reserved Category candidates
C who were selected on merit (i.e. MRCs) and placed in the
list of General Category candida

## Text

_Characters 0–39,690 of 92,592. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39690 for what follows._

A
B
c
[2010] 6 S.C.R. 698
UNION OF INDIA
V.
RAMESH RAM & ORS. ETC.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 4310-4311 of 2010)
MAY 7, 2010
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI, S.H. KAPADIA, R.V.
RAVEENDRAN, B. SUDERSHAN REDDY AND P.
SATHASIVAM, JJ.)
Constitution of India, 1950:
Articles 14, 16(4) and 335 - Reservation in Central Civil
Services - Meritorious Reserved Category candidates placed
in the list of unreserved category candidates - Exercising
0
choice to migrate to reserve category for the purpose of
allocation of service in the order of their preferences - HELD:
The reserved category candidates "belonging to OBC, SCI ST
categories" who are selected on merit and placed in the list
of General/Unreserved category candidates can choose to
E migrate to the respective reserved category at the time of
allocation of services and they would be counted as part of
the reserved pool for the purpose of computing the aggregate
reservation quotas - The seat vacated by MRC candidate in
the general pool will be offered to General Category
candidates, otherwise the aggregate reservation could
F possibly exceed 50% of all available posts and it would not
be in accordance with the decision in Indira Sawhney that
aggregate reservation should not exceed 50% of all the
available posts - Such migration as envisaged by Rule 16
(2) of Civil Services Examination Rules is not inconsistent with
G Rule 16 (1) of the Rules or Articles 14, 16 (4) and 335 of the
Constitution - By operation of Rule 16 (2), the reserved status
of an MRC candidate is protected so that his! her better
performance does not deny him of the chance to be allotted
H
698
UNION OF INDIA v. RAMESH RAM & ORS. ETC.
699
to a more preferred service - Validity of r.16(2) upheld - Civil A
Services Examination Rules - Rule 16(1) and 16(2).
Articles 14, 16(4) and 335 - Reservation in service visa-vis reservation for admission to P-G Medical courses -
HELD: There is an obvious distinction between qualifying
8
through an entrance test for securing admission in a medical
college and qualifying in the UPSC examinations for filling
up vacancies in the various civil services -
In UPSC
examinations, candidates also compete amongst themselves
to secure the service of their choice in the order of their
preferences - The judgment in Ritesh R. Sah1 dealing with
C
admission to post-graduate medical courses, cannot be
readily applied to the examinations conducted by the UPSC.
In the Civil Services Examination 2005, certain
Meritorious Reserved Category candidates (MRCs), who
D
were selected on merit and recommended against
unreserved vacancies, opted for reserved vacancies for
the purpose of service allocation and got the service of
higher choice in the order of their preferenc~s.
Consequently, equal number of general category
E
candidates from the consolidated reserve list (wait list)
were recommended by the UPSC. Some of the OBC
candidates in the reserve list filed application before the
Central Administrative Tribunal challenging Rule 16(2) of
the Civil Services Examination Rules, contending that
F
adjustment of OBC merit candidates against the
vacancies reserved for OBCs was illegal. The Tribunal
held that meritorious OBC candidates who were selected
on merit should be adjusted against 'General Category'.
However, the Tribunal ordered that Rule 16(2) would be
applied in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court in
G
Anurag Patel's case2, to ensure that allocation of service
1.
Ritesh R. Sah v. Dr. Y.L. Yamul 1996 (2) SCR 695.
2.
Anurag Patel vs. U.P .. Public Service Commission & Ors., 2004 (4) Suppl.
SCR888.
H
700
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2010] 6 S.C.R.
A was in accordance with rank-cum-preference with
priority given to meritorious candidates for service
allocation. But, the High Court held Rule 16(2) as
unconstitutional, set aside the select list and directed the
Central Government and the UPSC to do the service
B allocation afresh de hors Rule 16(2). Aggrieved, the Union
of India and other aggrieved persons filed the appeals
and the writ petitions.
The questions for consideration before the Court
were: (i) "Whether the Reserved Category candidates
C 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"?; (ii) Whether Rules 16 (2), (3), (4) and (5) of
the CSE Rules are inconsistent with Rule 16 (1) and
D violative of Articles 14, 16 (4) and 335 of the Constitution
of India?" and (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 7423 (which in turn
E had referred to the judgment in Ritesh R. Sah v. Dr.
Y.L. Yamul and Others (1996) 3 SCC 2534, which dealt with
reservations for the purpose of admission to postgraduate medical courses); and whether the principles
followed for reservations in admissions to educational
F institutions
can
be
applied
to
examine
the
constitutionality of a policy that deals with reservation in
civil services."
Disposing of the matters, the Court
G
HELD: 1.1. MRC candidates who avail the benefit of
Rule 16 (2) of the Civil Services Examination Rules and
are adjusted in the reserved category should be counted
3.
(2004) 4 Supp. SCR 888.
H 4.
1996 (2) SCR 695.
UNION OF INDIA v. RAMESH RAM & ORS. ETC.
701
as part of the reserved pool for the purpose of computing
A
the aggregate reservation quotas. The seats vacated by
MRC candidates in the General Pool will 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
B
Reserved Category candidates would result in aggregate
reservations exceeding 50% of the total number of
available seats. Therefore, there is no hurdle to the
migration of MRC candidates to the Reserved Category.
[para 32 and 50(i)] [729-E-F; 745-E]
c
Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and
Research v. Faculty Association (1998) 2 SCR 845 = (1998)
4 SCC 1; and State of Kera/a v. N. M. Thomas (1976) 1
SCR 906 = (1976) 2 SCC 310 - referred to.
Union of India v. Satya Prakash (2006) 3 SCR 789 =
(2006) 4 sec 550, held inapplicable.
D
1.2. Rule 16 (2) should not be interpreted in an
isolated manner since it was designed to protect the
E
interests of MRC candidates. MRC candidates having
indicated their status as SC/ST/OBC at the time of
application, begin their participation 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 Category 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
F
the same. In that respect, the adjustment referred to in
Rule 16 (2) does not, in fact, denote any change in the
G
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. [para 26] [726-A-C]
H
702
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2010] 6 S.C.R.
A
1.3. It has also to be noted 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
vacancies are of course filled up by general candidates.
B 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 Reserved Category which must in turn
be filled up by Wait Listed Reserved Candidates. Rule
c 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.
Operation of Rule 16 does not result in ouster of any of
0 the candidates recommended in the first list. Many of the
wait-listed candidates are accommodated in the second
stage, and the. relatively lower ranked wait-listed
candidates are excluded. Such exclusion is on the basis
of merit and the aggrieved parties were never promised
a post. It is pertinent to note that these excluded
E 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. [para 27and 34] [726-D-G]
F
State of Bihar v. M .Neeti Chandra 1996 (5) Suppl.
SCR 696 = (1996) 6 SCC 36, referred to.
1.4. It is significant to note that the aggregate
reservation should not exceed 50% of all the available
G vacancies, in accordance with the decision of this Court
in Indra Sawhney. 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 Category candidates, the .aggregate reservation
H
UNION OF INDIA v. RAMESH RAM & ORS. ETC.
703
could possibly exceed 50 % of all of the available posts.
A
[para 29] [727-E]
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India 1992 (2) Suppl.
SC_R 454 = (1992) Supp. 3 SCC 217, referred to.
2.1. With regard to the specific characteristics of the
8
UPSC examinations, this Court holds that the reserved
category ca~didates "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 C
the time of allocation of services. Such migration as
envisaged by Rule 16 (2) of Civil Services Examination
Rules is not inconsistent with Rule 16 (1) of the Rules or
Articles 14, 16 (4) and 335 of the Constitution. The validity
of Rule 16 of Civil Service Examination Rules 2005
D
(notification dated 4.12.2004) is upheld. [para 49, 50(iv)
and 51] [745-B-C; 746-A-C]
2.2. The current process entails that a Reserved
Candidate1- although having done well enough in the
E
examination to have qualified in the open category, does
F
not automatically rescind his/her right to a post in the
Reserved Category. By operation of Rule 16 (2), the
reserved status of an MRC candidate is protected so that
his/ her better performanc~ dqes not deny him of the
chance to, be allotted to a more preferred service. If such
rule is declared redundant and unconstitutional vis-a-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 G
his/her category who is below him/her in the merit list,
may, by av~iling 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
H
704
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2010] 6 S.C.R.
A of status and opportunity. [para 34, 40 and 50(ii)] [730-GH; 745-F; 737-0-E]
2.3. It is significant to note that affirmative action
measures should be scrutinized as per the standard of
8 proportionality. This means that the criteria for any form
of differential treatment should bear a rational correlation
with a legitimate governmental objective. In the instant
case, a distinction has been made between Meritorious
Reserved Category candidates and relatively lower
ranked Reserved Category candidates. The amended
C Rule 16 (2) only seeks to recognize the inter se merit
between two classes of candidates i.e. (a) meritorious
reserved category candidates and (b) relatively lower
ranked reserved category candidates, for the purpose of
allocation to the various Civil Services with due regard
D for the preferences indicated by them. [para 48 and 50(iii)]
[744-G-H; 745-A-G]
2.4. The proviso to Rule 16 (1) and Rule 16 (2) operate
in different dimensions and it cannot be said that these
E provisions are contradictory or inconsistent with each
other. 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 qualifying
F marks for recommending the candidates for the
unreserved vacancies. Proviso to sub-rule (1) lays down
that a candidate who belongs to SC, ST or OBC category
and who has qualified on his own in the merit list shall
not be recommended against the vacancies reserved for
G such classes if such candidate has not availed of any of
the concessions or relaxations in the eligibility or the
selectipn criteria. [para 33 and 47] [744-C; 730-A-C]
2.5. When MRC candidates do not choose to accept
the General Category slot available to them on account
H of their merit, but opt to occupy a slot reserved for
UNION OF INDIA v. RAMESH RAM & ORS. ETC.
705
reservation category candidates, because that post is
A
more attractive, then counting him/ her against
reservation quota will not violate the law laid down in
Indra Sawhney. [para 37] [735-H; 736-A-C]
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India 1992 (2) Suppl.
SCR 454 = (1992) Supp. 3 SCC 217; M. Nagaraj v. Union
B
of India 2006 (7) Suppl. SCR 336 = (2006) 8 SCC 212,
referred to.
2.6. Article 16(4) of the Constitution empowers the
State to initiate measures in order to protect and promote C
the interests of backward classes (OBC, SC and ST). The
impugned measures in no way offend the equality clau.se
since this particular clause was inserted to safeguard the
concerns of certain classes and shield their legitimate
claims in the domain of public employment. Rule 16 (2)
0
and the subsequent sub-rules merely recognize and
advance inter se merit among the Reserved Category
candidates. [para 39] [736-F-H; 737-A-B]
3.1. The decision in Anurag Patel 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
G
service allocation. [para 43] [742-A-C]
E
F
Anurag Patel vs. UP. Public Service Commission &
Ors., 2004 (4) Suppl. SCR 888 = 2005 (9) SCC 742, referred
to.
3.2. The judgment in Ritesh R. Sah wa&
~n in
H
706
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2010] 6 S.C.R.
A relation to reservation for admission to post-graduate
medical courses and the same cannot be readily applied
to the examinations conducted by the UPSC. The
ultimate aim of Civil Services aspirants is to qualify for the
most coveted services and each of the services have
8 quotas for reserved classes, the benefits of which are
availed by MRC candidates for preferred service. The
benefit accrued by different candidates who secure
admission in a particular educational institution is of a
homogeneous nature. However, the benefits accruing
C from successfully qualifying in the UPSC examination are
of a varying nature since some services are coveted
more than others. [para 44] [7 42-D-F]
3.3. There is an obvious distinction between
qualifying through an entrance test for securing
o admission in a medical 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 successful candidates
receive the same benefit of securing admission in an
E educational institution. However, in the latter case there
are variations in the benefits that accrue to successful
candidates because they are also competing amongst
themselves to secure the service of their choice. [para 24]
[724-F-G]
F
3.4. 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. Even
though that decision had in turn relied on the verdict of
this Court in Ritesh R. Sah v. Or. Y.L. Yamu/ and Others, the
G latter case is distinguishable from the present case with
respect to the facts in issue. However, the conclusions
arrived at by the Central Administrative Tribunal in its
order cannot be approved as it failed to take note of the
unique characteristics of the UPSC examinations. [para
H 45] [742-G-H; 743-A]
UNION OF INDIA v. RAMESH RAM & ORS. ETC.
707
Ritesh R. Sah v. Dr. Y.L. Yamul 1996 (2) SCR 695 = A
(1996) 3 sec 253, distinguished.
'
R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab 1995 ( 2) SCR 35 =
(1995) 2 sec 745, held inapplicable.
Anurag Patel vs. U.P. Public Service Commission & 8
Ors., 2004 (4) Suppl. SCR 888 - (2005) 9 sec 742,
referred to.
Case Law Reference:
2004 (4) Suppl. SCR 888
referred to
para 8
c
1996 (2) SCR 695
distinguished
para 13(111)
(2006) 3 SCR 789
held inapplicable para 17
1992 (2) Suppl. SCR 454
referred to
para 29
D
(1998) 2 SCR 845
referred to
para 30
(1976) 1 SCR 906
referred to
para 31
1996 (5) Suppl. SCR696
referred to
para 36
E
2006 (7) Suppl. SCR 336
referred to
para 38
1995 ( 2) SCR 35
held inapplicable para 46
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDJCTION : Civil Appeal Nos.
4310-4311 of 2010.
F
From the Judgment & Order dated 20.03.2008 of the High
Court of Judicature at Madras in W.P. No. 1814 and 1815 bf
2008.
C.A. Nos. 4315-4316 of 2010
C.A. Nos. 4319 of 2010
WITH
G
H
708
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2010] 6 S.C.R.
A C.A. Nos. 4324-4328 of 2010
W.P. (C) No. 297, 312, 336, 414, 416 and 539 of 2008.
GopahSubramanium, Sol. Genl. of India, Indira Jaisingh,
ASG, A. M~iarputham, Raju Ramchandra, Prof. Ravi Verma
B Kumar, Nidesh Gupta, P.S. Patwalia, P.P. Rao, Raju
Ramchandran, Tufail A. Khan, Chinmoy P. Shama, Aman
Ahluwalia, Madhuima Tatia, Anil Katiyar, Shree Prakash Sinha,
Vijay Kumar, Shankar N. Mrigank Prabhakar, Shekhar Kumar,
E.C. Vidyasagar, Shiva Pujan Singh, Prabhash Kumar Yadav,
C P. Soma Sundaram, Anadaselvam, Anirudh Sharma, Shaffi
Mather (for Subramonium Prasad), Ajay Bansal, Devendra
Singh, Ajay Choudhary, Vibha Datta Makhija, Ajay Pratap
Singh, Tushar Bakshi, Ajit Singh, Rudreshwar Singh, Philemon
Nongbri, Kumar Ranjan, Y.C. Simhadri, Shishir Pinaki, Kaushik
D Poddar, Gopal Jha, Sukant Vikram, Tapesh Kumar Singh,
Ramesh, Divya Singh, Sharad Pandey, Praveen Aggrawal ,
Vijay Kumar, Santosh Paul, Arvind Gupta, S.N. Bundela, K.K.
Bhat, M.J. Paul, Dharsam Bir Raj Vohra, Binu Tamta, V.
Mohana, Sanjay Jain, Vinay Kumar Garg, Dharmendra Kr.
E Sinha, M.M. Singh, S.K. Singh of the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI. 1. Leave granted.
F
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 subjectmatter of these appeals by special leave. A three Judge Bench
G 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
H
UNION OF INDIA v. RAMESH RAM & ORS. ETC.
709
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI.]
relaxation/concession), can opt for a higher choice of service
A
earmarked for Reserved Category and thereby migrate to
rese1vation category.
3. Selection to three All India Services (Indian
Administrative Service, Indian Foreign Service and Indian
8
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
C
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.
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
D
Rules.
E
(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
F
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.
G
H
710
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2010] 6 S.C.R.
A
Note.-The candidate is advised to be very careful while
indicating preferences for various seNices/posts. In this
connection, attention is also invited to rule 19 of the Rules.
The candidate is also advised to indicate all the seNices/
posts in the order of preference in his/her application form.
B
In case he/~he does not give any preference for any
seNices/posts, it will be assumed that he/she has no
specific preference for those seNices. If he/she is not
allotted to any one of the seNices/posts for which he/she
has indicated preference, he/she shall be allotted to any
c
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 tr number of vacancies and provision
D for reseNation and it reads as follows:
E
F
G
H
"3. The number of vacancies to be filled on the result of
the examination will be specified in the Notice issued by
the Commission.
ReseNation 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 inteNiew
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
(written) as may be fixed by the Commission at their
UNION OF INDIA v. RAMESH RAM & ORS. ETC.
711
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI.]
discretion shall be summoneel by them for an interview for
A
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. B
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
C
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:
D
"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
E
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
F
recommending Reserved Category candidates belonging
to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other
Backward Classes against reserved vacancies, the
Commission may relax the general qualifying standard with
reference to number of reserved vacancies to be filled up
in each of these categories on the basis of the Main
G
Examination:
Provided that the candidates belonging to the Scheduled
C~stes, Scheduled Tribes and the Other Backward
Classes who have not availed themselves of any of the
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
712
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2010] 6 S.C.R.
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 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
UNION OF INDIA v. RAMESH RAM & ORS. ETC.
713
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI.]
candidate under each category. The number of candidates
A
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
B
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.
1(5) The candidates recommended in terms of the c
provisions of sub-rule (4), shall be allocatea 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
D
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
E
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.
F
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
G
made up of the following: General -
210, OBC -
117
(including 31 merit candidates); Scheduled Castes -
66
(in_cluding 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
H
714
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2010) 6 S.C.R.
A 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 reserved vacancies as by that
B 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
c 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
D Meritorious Category OBC candidates through their merit-cumservice 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
E
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 that adjustment
of OBC merit candidates against OBC reservation vacancies
F 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
G candidates should be satisfied with lower choice of service as
they became general (unreserved) candidates by reason of
their better performance.
H
8. The Tribunal, after interpreting amended Rule 16(2) in
the light of the various judgments of this Court, concluded that
UNION OF INDIA v. RAMESH RAM & ORS. ETC.
715
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI.]
meritorious OBC candidates who were selected on merit must
A
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
B
with priority given to meritorious candidates for service
allocation.
9. The Union of India and other aggrieved candidates
preferred Writ Petitions before the Madras High Court
C
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
D
allocation de hors Rule 16(2).
10. The first batch of civil appeals @ SLP [CJ Nos. 1357113572 of 2008 is filed by the Union of India against the said
order dated 20.3.2008 in W.P. [CJ Nos.1814 & 1815 of 2008.
E
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
F
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 16(2),(3),(4) and (5) of the
Civil Services Examination Rules, 2005 as ultra vires being
G
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
H
716
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2010] 6 S.C.R.
A Gene;al 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
B 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
C 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 candidates to
get assigned to services of higher preference (e.g. IAS, IPS
or IRS). They also urged that this system will reduce the
D 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.
E 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
F 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
G
allocation"?
H
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?
UNION OF INDIA v. RAMESH RAM & ORS. ETC.
717
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI.]
Ill. Whether the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal
A
was valid to the extent that it relied on Anurag Patel v. Uttar
Pradesh Public Service Commission and Others, (2005)
9 sec 742 (which in turn had referred to the judgment in
Ritesh R. Sah v. Dr. Y.L. Yamul and Others, (1996) 3
sec 253, which dealt with reservations for the purpose
B
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.
c
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 D
Personnel, Public Grievances, and Pensions (DOP& T), New
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
E
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)
F
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:
G
(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
H
718
A
B
c
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2010] 6 S.C.R.
secure a better (or more preferred) post in the 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.
o 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
E 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 slol"vacated
F by the MRC candidate. If the MRC candidate migrating to
reservation 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
G Public Service Commission (UPSC) has three stages:
H
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)
UNION OF INDIA v. RAMESH RAM & ORS. ETC.
719
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI.]
or Scheduled Tribes (ST). Moreover, at a later stage the
A
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
B
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):
"18. By way of illustration, a Reserved Category candidate,
recommended by the Commission without resorting to
C
relaxed standard (i.e. on merit) did not get his[ own
preference 'say IAS' in the merit/open categorV:- For that, -
he may opt a preference from the Reserved Category. But
simply because he opted a preference from the Reserved
Category does not exhaust quota of OBC category
D
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 reserved for the Scheduled Castes,
E
Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes. This is the
mandate of proviso to Sub-rule 2 of Rule 16.
19.