On Friday, the Supreme Court ruled against the idea of ”a communal reserve,” saying the quota policy is not intended to deny job opportunities to worthy candidates even if they belong to reserved categories.
The SC’s bench, headed by Judge Uday Lalit, ruled that, subject to allowable quota benefits, any method of filling seats must be focused on merit and must help deserving candidates, regardless of rank and caste. He said that the contest in the open category must be purely on merit.
“Reserves, both vertical and horizontal, are a method to ensure representation in public services. These should not be seen as rigid ‘spaces’, where the merit of a candidate, which otherwise entitles him to be shown in the open general category, is excluded, ”the bank said in a separate but concurrent judgment drawn up by the Judge S Ravindra Bhat.
Judge Bhat added: “Doing so would result in a communal reserve, where each social category is confined within the scope of its reserve, thus denying merit. The open category is open to all, and the only condition for a candidate to show up in it is merit, regardless of whether reservation benefit of any kind is available to him or her. ”
The bone of contention in this matter was the way that vacancies in special classes, such as freedom fighters or ex-military, were to be filled for policewoman positions in Uttar Pradesh.
While the state had a policy that all male candidates scoring above the cutoff scores for the overall category would be selected, the same rule did not apply to female candidates.
In addition, several superior court rulings held that a meritorious candidate belonging to a socially reserved class, such as a scheduled class (SC) or a scheduled tribe (ST) or other backward classes (OBC), can migrate to the general / open category. , leaving that seat for another candidate in the reserved category. But for seats intended for special classes, such as families of freedom fighters or ex-military, SC / ST / OBC candidates can migrate even when some seats become vacant.
This principle and interpretation of the rule was overturned by the superior court on Friday.
Writing for himself and for Judge Hrishikesh Roy, Judge Lalit emphasized that a less deserving candidate cannot be allowed to fill a vacancy in the special classes rather than allowing a more deserving candidate just for the reason that the latter belongs to SC , ST or OBC.
“Subject to any allowable reservations, ie, whether social (vertical) or special (horizontal), public employment opportunities and candidate selection must be based purely on merit. Any selection that results in candidates being selected in the open / general category with less merit than the other available candidates will certainly run counter to the principles of equality, ”the court said.
Based on constitutional reserve provisions and the principle of affirmative action, the court said that a more deserving candidate from a general category may not be selected for a seat destined for a reserved category.
“But the reverse can never be true and it will run counter to the very basic principles that have long been accepted by this Court. Any point of view or interpretation process that leads to inconsistency, as highlighted above, must be rejected, ”he said.
In the present case, the court ruled in favor of 21 female candidates who had obtained more marks than the last nominated candidate in ‘General Category: Women’ and ordered the government of Uttar Pradesh to appoint them as police officers.
.
