KUMAR GAURAV SINGH Vs. BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tricky question of reservation and the mandate to confine it to 50%; so as to not compromise merit is the subject matter agitated herein. The application of the principle, on the facts of the case resulted in meritorious reserved candidates (for brevity, 'the MRC') being given their choice districts; enabled only by reason of their higher merit, leading to ouster of reserved candidates to accommodate the meritorious general candidates in the resultant vacancies.

(2.) Two line of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, one in the matter of recruitment in public employment and the other in the matter of admissions to academic institutions were relied on by the appellant and the respondents respectively, to support their rival contentions. The appellant, the Bihar Staff Selection Commission (for brevity, 'the BSSC') asserts the distinction insofar as admission to academic institutions and appointment to service; while the respondents- the candidates from the reserved category, who were ousted from the select list by reason of 'the MRC' candidates having occupied reservation posts, assert that the principle applied in admission to academic institutions squarely applies here though it is an appointment to public service.

(3.) The two separate line of decisions relied on by both parties are Ritesh R. Sah v. Y.L. Yamul (Dr), (1996) 3 SCC 253, Tripurari Sharan v. Ranjit Kumar Yadav, (2018) 2 SCC 656, Dega Venkata Harsha Vardhan v. Akula Ventaka Harshavardhan, (2019) 12 SCC 735 which relate to admission to academic institutions and Union of India v. Ramesh Ram, (2010) 7 SCC 234, a Constitution Bench decision followed by Alok Kumar Pandit v. State of Assam, (2012) 13 SCC 516, with respect to appointment to civil services.