PAWAN KUMAR AGRAWAL Vs. GOVT OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenging the legality and validity of selection and appointment of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to the post of Civil Judge. Class II by respondent Nos. 1 to 3, on the ground that principles governing horizontal reservation of 30% for women have not been correctly applied in computing reservation of women in the Unreserved Category, thereby wrongly depriving the petitioners from being appointed on the said post, despite their securing marks more than respondent Nos. 4 and 5, who have been appointed on the said post in excess of 30% reservation. Facts, in brief, as projected in the petition are that pursuant to the Advertisement No. 01/2003/Exam. dated 2-4-2003 issued by respondent No. 2/ Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, whereby applications for recruitment to the post of Civil Judge. Class II, total 30 in number, were invited, the petitioners, who are practicing Advocates, submitted their applications, participated in the examination and interview. Thereafter, while preparing final select list, the petitioners, who secured total 127 and 125 marks respectively, were placed in the supplementary select list/waiting list. The legality and validity of selection and appointment of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 have been challenged on the ground that their selection under the reserved quota for women has been made in excess of the quota prescribed under Rule 6-A of the Chhattisgarh Lower Judicial (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules, 1994") and Article 15(3) of the Constitution. Respondent Nos. 2/CGPSC wrongly interpreting the meaning and effect of horizontal reservation provided for women under Rule 6-A of the Rules, 1994 for women of Unreserved category, appointed respondent Nos. 4 and 5 on the post of Civil Judge Class II in the Unreserved category in excess of 30% horizontal and compartment-wise reservation quota as prescribed by the rules. The reservation for women is not social (vertical) reservation under Article 16(4) but it is a special reservation under Article 15(3) of the Constitution and as such, when the number of women candidates, who have found their places in the Open Competition (in short "OC") category, i.e., Unreserved category, complete the quota of 30%, then in that case, no further reservation can be made in favour of women. However, in the instant case, respondent No. 2 has implemented the horizontal reservation for women in such a way, which has the effect of making reservation in excess of 30% in favour of women candidates in Unreserved category (OC category) and for this reason, the same is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution as well as Rule 6-A of the Rules. 1994 and Article 15(3) of the Constitution.

(2.) Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have filed their Returns, through which they have submitted that horizontal reservation, as provided by Article 15(3) of the Constitution and Rule 6-A of the Rules. 1994, have been correctly applied in computing 30% women reservation in Unreserved category. They have also averred that as per Rule 6-A of the Rules. 1994, reservation for women shall be horizontal and compartment-wise, meaning thereby that as per Explanation. 30% reservation shall be for women of each category, i.e., SC. ST. OBC and General. According to respondent Nos. 1 to 3, as 30% quota for women of General Category was not achieved in the Unreserved category, therefore, respondent Nos. 4 and 5, who are women of General Category, was selected under the reserved quota for women and placed in the select list, which is in consonance with the provisions of the Constitution and the Rules, 1994. They have also averred that two women candidates belonging to SC category, who has secured place in the select list of Unreserved category on the basis of their merit, cannot be counted against 30% quota reserved for women of General Category.

(3.) Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 have filed their joint Return and supported the averments made by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in their Returns.