CAT Orders IRS (IT) Appointment for SC Candidate With 23% Disability, Says SC Merit Comes Before PwBD Reservation

In brief

The question

1. Whether an applicant who claimed both SC and PwBD status, but was found ineligible for PwBD reservation, had to be considered for service allocation under the SC vertical-reservation category according to his merit.

The court held

The Tribunal allowed the application and directed Respondents 1 and 3 to provide the applicant an appointment to IRS (IT), considering his candidature under the SC category for the Civil Services Examination, 2023, with appropriate seniority and consequential benefits.

It also directed

Compliance was directed within eight weeks of receipt of the certified order; no order as to costs.

01Facts

The applicant, a Scheduled Caste (SC) candidate with locomotor disability, applied for the Civil Services Examination, 2023 under both SC and Persons with Benchmark Disability (PwBD) categories.

pp. 3–9, 20–21

He secured 908 aggregate marks and appeared at rank 902 on the UPSC’s recommended-candidates list, which recorded both categories against his name.

pp. 3–9, 20–21

Medical boards assessed his disability below the 40% benchmark required for PwBD reservation.

pp. 3–9, 20–21

The Union of India therefore declined to allocate him a service, while two lower-ranked SC candidates were allocated Indian Revenue Service (Income Tax) (IRS (IT)).

pp. 3–9, 20–21

The applicant sought service allocation to IRS (IT), contending that his SC merit required consideration independently of his ineligibility for PwBD reservation.

pp. 3–9, 20–21

02Issues

i.1. Whether an applicant who claimed both SC and PwBD status, but was found ineligible for PwBD reservation, had to be considered for service allocation under the SC vertical-reservation category according to his merit.

p. 21 · ¶ 27

ii.2. Whether Rule 26(1) of the Civil Services Examination Rules, 2023 barred the applicant from consideration under the SC category.

p. 28 · ¶ 31

03Law Applied

Rule 20(1) of the Civil Services Examination Rules, 2023 provides for merit-based arrangement of candidates and addresses recommendation against reserved vacancies; Rule 20(4)(a)(1) requires the Commission, in recommending candidates, to account for vacancies across categories and the relevant candidates qualifying on general standards.

pp. 11–14 · ¶ 12, 14

Rule 25 makes eligibility for PwBD-reserved vacancies subject to the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

p. 14 · ¶ 16

Rule 26(1) restricts changes between categories after a candidate has chosen a category; it does not, as applied here, prevent consideration under two categories claimed in the application.

pp. 14–15, 17, 28 · ¶ 17, 21, 31

Under Rajesh Kumar Daria v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, (2007) 8 SCC 785, vertical social-reservation quotas are filled by merit before applying horizontal reservations; candidates selected on merit within a vertical category count towards the horizontal reservation.

pp. 25–27 · ¶ 29

The Tribunal also relied on its decision in Bhyrappa P.V. v. Union of India & Ors., OA No. 872/2017, order dated 20 December 2019, applying that principle to PwBD reservation in civil-service allocation.

pp. 22–24 · ¶ 28

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 Section 19

04Reasoning

The UPSC’s recommended list recorded the applicant as both SC and PwBD, and the UPSC’s counsel confirmed that he had been recommended under both categories.

pp. 20–21, 28 · ¶ 26, 31

Although the medical boards found his disability below the benchmark, that finding affected his entitlement to PwBD reservation, not his SC status.

pp. 21–22, 27–28 · ¶ 27–30

Applying the vertical-before-horizontal method in Rajesh Kumar Daria and Bhyrappa P.V., the Tribunal held that his SC candidature had to be assessed by merit before accounting for the horizontal PwBD reservation.

pp. 21–22, 27–28 · ¶ 27–30

Since his rank was higher than those of the two SC candidates allocated IRS (IT), excluding him on the basis that PwBD vacancies had to be fixed first was inconsistent with the Rules and the governing principles.

pp. 21–22, 27–28 · ¶ 27–30

Rule 26(1) did not apply because the applicant was not seeking a post-result change of category; he had claimed both SC and PwBD status.

p. 28 · ¶ 31