Reserved-category candidates appointed using reservation concessions cannot be adjusted against unreserved vacancies.

The applicant, a Postal Assistant, challenged the selection and promotion process for the post of Inspector of Posts pursuant to the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination for 2015–16.

Punjab Circle notified five vacancies—three unreserved, one Scheduled Caste (“SC”) and one Scheduled Tribe (“ST”).

In the combined merit list, two unreserved candidates ranked first and second, Hemant Kumar, an SC candidate, ranked third with 776 marks, the applicant ranked fourth with 756 marks, and Gurtej Singh, another SC candidate, ranked fifth with 730 marks.

Hemant Kumar was selected against an unreserved vacancy on the basis of merit, while Gurtej Singh was selected against the SC vacancy; the ST vacancy remained unfilled.

The applicant contended that Hemant Kumar, having originally been appointed against an SC vacancy and having availed SC concessions, could not be treated as an unreserved candidate.

His representation was rejected by order dated 11 September 2017, which merely stated that the vacancies had been filled in accordance with the extant rules and instructions.

The applicant therefore sought quashing of the rejection order and the result, and revision of the selection by treating Hemant Kumar against the SC vacancy and considering the applicant against an unreserved vacancy.

During the proceedings, the Tribunal directed that one post be kept vacant.

Whether an SC candidate appointed against an SC vacancy and allegedly appointed by availing reservation-related concessions could subsequently be adjusted against an unreserved vacancy on the basis of merit, thereby excluding the applicant from selection against the unreserved quota?

Whether the respondents’ allocation of vacancies and selection of candidates in the LDCE for Inspector of Posts, 2015–16, was consistent with the applicable reservation instructions, recruitment rules and judicial decisions?

Whether the impugned rejection order dated 11 September 2017 and the result dated 21 June 2017 were liable to be quashed for improperly applying the principle that reserved-category candidates selected on merit may be adjusted against unreserved vacancies?

The Tribunal considered Article 16(4-A) of the Constitution and the principles governing reservation in promotion, including the requirement of relevant data concerning backwardness, inadequacy of representation and administrative efficiency discussed in M. Nagaraj v. Union of India and B.K. Pavitra v. Union of India.

It considered the DoPT Office Memorandum dated 11 July 2002, under which SC/ST candidates promoted on their own merit and without reservation or relaxation are adjusted against unreserved roster points, and the DoPT OM dated 10 August 2010, which extended the principle to selection and non-selection promotions.

The Tribunal noted that the 2010 OM and the Railway Board circular dated 14 September 2010 had been stayed by the Supreme Court.

It also applied the principle from Niravkumar Dilipbhai Makwana v. Gujarat Public Service Commission, that a reserved-category candidate who avails a reservation-related concession such as age relaxation cannot migrate to the general category, and the similar principle in Deepa E.V. v. Union of India, concerning an OBC candidate who had applied and participated under the reserved category after availing age relaxation.

The 2013 Recruitment Rules for Inspector of Posts further provided that SC/ST candidates receiving fifth- or sixth-chance benefits could be appointed only against reserved posts, if available.

The Tribunal held that the respondents had treated Hemant Kumar as an unreserved candidate merely because he had obtained higher marks than the applicant, while simultaneously filling the SC vacancy with Gurtej Singh.

Although reserved-category candidates selected independently on merit may ordinarily be adjusted against unreserved vacancies under the 2002 OM, the Tribunal found that this principle could not be applied where the candidate had entered service against an SC vacancy after availing reservation-related benefits.

Hemant Kumar had been appointed in vacancy year 2005 against an SC post, and the respondents failed to explain why, despite the stay of the 2010 OM and the related Railway Board circular, he was treated as eligible for adjustment against the unreserved vacancy.

Consequently, Hemant Kumar was required to be considered against the SC vacancy, while the applicant was required to be considered against the unreserved vacancy on the basis of the merit list.

The Tribunal also found the respondents’ rejection order unsatisfactory because it did not identify the rules, instructions or guidelines relied upon.

It held that Hemant Kumar could not be adjusted against the unreserved vacancy in the circumstances of the case and that the applicant was entitled to consideration against the unreserved category, while Hemant Kumar was to be considered against the SC vacancy.

The order dated 11 September 2017 rejecting the applicant’s representation and the result dated 21 June 2017 were quashed.

The respondents were directed to take consequential action within eight weeks from the date of the order.

No order as to costs was made.