Case: S S. Sharma and Others Vs. Union of India and Others

Government servants belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, while a single avenue only of promotion is available to other Government servants. Ex facie, the contention must fail. The two avenues of promotion pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioners consist in, one, the preparation of a list of officers falling within the field of selection, both of the general category as well as members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and their se lection on the basis of the principles laid down and, two, the selection of candidates of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes consequent upon the limited departmental competitive examination. While considering this submission, we must remember that resort to the limited departmental competitive examination is not simultaneous with the preparation of the list embodying the field of selection. The question of holding the examination arises only, as sub-rule (2a) of rule 12 declares, when the reserved vacancies cannot be fined because eligible officers from the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are not available through the original process. Resort to the further process arises because of the constitutional mandate in favour of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, because reserved vacancies must be filled if that is possible. The petitioners could complain if such a need arose in respect of general category vacancies and was not supplied. It has not been shown that the general category vacancies have remained unfilled for want of suitable candidates. No need has arisen of being compelled to resort to a further process of selection in regard to such vacancies. In the circumstances, it is not possible to see how a legitimate complaint can be laid by the petitioners on the basis alleged before us. It has been urged that the decision of the Government not to dereserve the twenty-seven vacancies is vitiated by legal malice. Having regard to the considerations to which we have adverted, we see no substance in that submission.The next contention on behalf of the petitioners is that sub rule (2a) of rule 12 enacted in 1979 operates prospectively only and cannot effect the twenty-seven vacancies to be filled in the Select List of 1977. The argument proceeds on the assumption that the Select List of 1977 must be completed during the year 1977. The submission is formed in fallacy. There i s no requirement in law that the Select List pertaining to a particular year must be finalised within that year. It is open to the Government to complete the process of selection and finalise it after the expiry of that year. It seems that when the Government found that suitable candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes were not available for inclusion in the field of selection, it decided to consider the advisability of adopting some other mode of filling the reserved vacancies. It appears that on 10th August. 1978 the Government stated in Parliament that as no Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe officers could be included in the field of consideration proposals for filling the vacancies through some special method had been taken up with the Union Public Service Commission. The Select List for 1977, which included already ninety-one names of officers appointed to the general category vacancies, was held in abeyance for the purpose of filling the twenty-seven reserved vacancies. After discussion with the Chairman of the Union Public Service Commission and consideration of the alternatives before it the Government decided on holding a limited departmental competitive examination. As long as the Select List was not declared final, no officer could claim any right. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is not possible to say that in holding the departmental competitive examination the Government was applying sub-rule (2a ) of rule 12, and the Regulations, retrospectively.A grievance has also been made of the circumstance that the qualifying standard for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates appearing at the limited departmental competitive examination is as low as four years approved and continuous service in the Section officers Grade, while a period of ten years is insisted on in the case of officers who do not belong to either class and are considered for vacancies in the general category. The definition of "crucial date" in clause (a) of Regulation 2 of the Regulations of 1979 as a point of reference qualifying the eligibility standard, it is urged, permits an even lower eligibility standard for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates. It is now well accepted, and has been affirmed by successive decisions of this Court, that relaxed eligibility criteria would be justified in the case of candidates of backward classes. The principle finds expression also in the original rule 12 of the Central Secretariat Service Rules. The record before us indicates that the lower eligibility standard was decided on after consultation with the Chairman of the Union Public Service Commission. As regards the number of years of approved service considered sufficient for eligibility, we find that even if we consider ourselves entitled to go into that question the paucity of relevant material does not permit us to express any opinion in the matter.9. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also challenged the reservation of the twenty-seven vacancies on the ground that the vacancies pertain to selection posts. On this point, we find ourselves bound by the decision of this Court in General Manager, Southern Railway v. Rangachari(1) where it has been held that Article 16(4) of the Constitution extends to selection posts.10. Finally, learned counsel for the petitioners challenges the reservation of vacancies on the ground that they are irrational, inhibiting and do not provide for healthy growth of the services besides offending the equality provisions of Part III of the Constitution. Having regard to the percentage of vacancies reserved under the off ice memorandum dated 20th July, 1974, we consider that the case falls within the. principles laid down in M. R. Balaji v. State of Mysore.(2) The majority view in State of Kerala v. N. M. Thomas(3) supports the validity of the reservation.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]We have carefully perused the writ petitions, and it is plain that the entire scope of the petitions is limited to challenging the validity and application of the Central Secretariat Service (Amendment) Rules, 1979 and the consequent regulations for holding a limited departmental competitive examination. No relief has been sought for quashing the Office Memorandum dated 20th July, 1974. No ground has been taken in the writ petitions assailing the validity of the Office Memorandum on the basis now pressed before us. We are of opinion that the courts should ordinarily insist on the parties being confined to their specific written pleadings and should not be permitted to deviate from them by way of modification or supplementation except through the well-known process of formally applying for amendment. We do not mean that justice should be available to only those who approach the court confined in a straight jacket. But there is a procedure known to the law, and long established by codified practice and good reason, for seeking amendment of the pleadings. If undue laxity and a too easy informality is permitted to enter the proceedings of a court it will not be long before a contemptuous familiarity assails its institutional dignity and ushers i n chaos and confusion undermining its effectiveness. Like every public institution, the courts function in the security of public confidence, and public confidence resides most where institutional discipline prevails. Besides this, oral submissions raising new points for the first time tend to do grave injury to a contesting party by depriving it of the opportunity, to which the principles of natural justice hold it entitled, of adequately preparing its response.We must, therefore, decline to entertain the point now raised concerning the validity of the Officeis no right in candidates seeking to fill vacancies belonging to the general category to insist on dereservation of reserved vacancies so long as it is possible in law to fill the reserved vacancies. If at all, a claim in that behalf can arise only if no valid arrangement can be made for filling the reserved vacancies, and dereservation is called for by reason of the prohibition, in clause (v) of paragraph 2 of the Office Memorandum dated 20th July, 1974, against the carry forward of reservations from year to year in the event of an adequate number of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates not being available in any particular year. Before reaching this extremity, the Government acts wholly within its power in adopting an alternative arrangement for filling the reserved vacancies. Dereservation a s a process should be resorted to only when it is not reasonably possible, within the contemplation of law, to fill the reserved vacancies. The process of dereservation would otherwise be antagonistic to the principle embodied in Article 16(4) and Article 46 of the Constitution. Paragraph 10.4 in the Brochure on Reservation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the Services, prepared by the Government of India, provides that dereservation should be proposed only when such a course becomes inevitable due to non- availability of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates for appointment against the reserved vacancies after having fully observed the procedure prescribed in this behalf and after applying relaxed standards in the case of such candidates. Once a decision has been taken to reserve vacancies for a backward class of citizens, the programming effected to that end should not be disturbed unless the avenues for fulfilling it have been explored and have failed. If the petitioners can succeed in showing that the provisions in the Central Secretariat Service Rules, and the consequent Regulations, providing for holding the limited departmental competitive examination are ultra vires and void and there is no evidence of any other appropriate arrangement for filling the reserved vacancies they may have a case for contending that as there is no prospect of finding suitable Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates for appointment to the reserved vacancies it is only reasonable that the Government should dereserve the vacancies in view of the prohibition against carrying them forward to the next year.That takes us then to the validity of sub-rule (2a ) of rule 12 of the Central Secretariat Service Rules and the Regulations of 1979. Their validity is challenged by the petitioners on the ground that they violate Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution inasmuch as they result in two avenues of promotion for Government servants belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, while a single avenue only of promotion is available to other Government servants. Ex facie, the contention must fail. Thetwo avenues of promotion pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioners consist in, one, the preparation of a list of officers falling within the field of selection, both of the general category as well as members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and their se lection on the basis of the principles laid down and, two, the selection of candidates of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes consequent upon the limited departmental competitiveexamination. While considering this submission, we must remember that resort to the limited departmental competitive examination is not simultaneous with the preparation of the list embodying the field of selection. The question of holding the examination arises only, as sub-rule (2a) of rule 12 declares, when the reserved vacancies cannot be fined because eligible officers from the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are not available through the original process. Resort to the further process arises because of the constitutional mandate in favour of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, because reserved vacancies must be filled if that is possible. The petitioners could complain if such a need arose in respect of general category vacancies and was not supplied. It has not been shown that the general category vacancies have remained unfilled for want of suitable candidates. No need has arisen of being compelled to resort to a further process of selection in regard to such vacancies. In the circumstances, it is not possible to see how a legitimate complaint can be laid by the petitioners on the basis alleged beforei s no requirement in law that the Select List pertaining to a particular year must be finalised within that year. It is open to the Government to complete the process of selection and finalise it after the expiry of that year. It seems that when the Government found that suitable candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes were not available for inclusion in the field of selection, it decided to consider the advisability of adopting some other mode of filling the reserved vacancies. It appears that on 10th August. 1978 the Government stated in Parliament that as no Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe officers could be included in the field of consideration proposals for filling the vacancies through some special method had been taken up with the Union Public Service Commission. The Select List for 1977, which included already ninety-one names of officers appointed to the general category vacancies, was held in abeyance for the purpose of filling the twenty-seven reserved vacancies. After discussion with the Chairman of the Union Public Service Commission and consideration of the alternatives before it the Government decided on holding a limited departmental competitive examination. As long as the Select List was not declared final, no officer could claim any right. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is not possible to say that in holding the departmental competitive examination the Government was applying sub-rule (2a ) of rule 12, and the Regulations, retrospectively.Agrievance has also been made of the circumstance that the qualifying standard for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates appearing at the limited departmental competitive examination is as low as four years approved and continuous service in the Section officers Grade, while a period of ten years is insisted on in the case of officers who do not belong to either class and are considered for vacancies in the generalcategory. The definition of "crucial date" in clause (a) of Regulation 2 of the Regulations of 1979 as a point of reference qualifying the eligibility standard, it is urged, permits an even lower eligibility standard for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates. It is now well accepted, and has been affirmed by successive decisions of this Court, that relaxed eligibility criteria would be justified in the case of candidates of backward classes. The principle finds expression also in the original rule 12 of the Central Secretariat Service Rules. The record before us indicates that the lower eligibility standard was decided on after consultation with the Chairman of the Union Public Service Commission. As regards the number of years of approved service considered sufficient for eligibility, we find that even if we consider ourselves entitled to go into that question the paucity of relevant material does not permit us to express any opinion in thethis point, we find ourselves bound by the decision of this Court in General Manager, Southern Railway v. Rangachari(1) where it has been held that Article 16(4) of the Constitution extends to selectionregard to the percentage of vacancies reserved under the off ice memorandum dated 20th July, 1974, we consider that the case falls within the. principles laid down in M. R. Balaji v. State of Mysore.(2) The majority view in State of Kerala v. N. M. Thomas(3) supports the validity of theconsidering this submission, we must remember that resort to the limited departmental competitive examination is not simultaneous with the preparation of the list embodying the field of selection. The question of holding the examination arises only, as(2a) of rule 12 declares, when the reserved vacancies cannot be fined because eligible officers from the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are not available through the original process. Resort to the further process arises because of the constitutional mandate in favour of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, because reserved vacancies must be filled if that is possible. The petitioners could complain if such a need arose in respect of general category vacancies and was not supplied. It has not been shown that the general category vacancies have remained unfilled for want of suitable candidates. No need has arisen of being compelled to resort to a further process of selection in regard to such vacancies. In the circumstances, it is not possible to see how a legitimate complaint can be laid by the petitioners on the basis alleged befores been urged that the decision of the Government not to dereserve thevacancies is vitiated by legal malice. Having regard to the considerations to which we have adverted, we see no substance in thatargument proceeds on the assumption that the Select List of 1977 must be completed during the year1977. The submission is formed in fallacy. Therei s no requirement in law that the Select List pertaining to a particular year must be finalised within that year. It is open to the Government to complete the process of selection and finalise it after the expiry of that year. It seems that when the Government found that suitable candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes were not available for inclusion in the field of selection, it decided to consider the advisability of adopting some other mode of filling the reserved vacancies. It appears that on 10th August. 1978 the Government stated in Parliament that as no Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe officers could be included in the field of consideration proposals for filling the vacancies through some special method had been taken up with the Union Public Service Commission. The Select List for 1977, which included alreadynames of officers appointed to the general category vacancies, was held in abeyance for the purpose of filling thereserved vacancies. After discussion with the Chairman of the Union Public Service Commission and consideration of the alternatives before it the Government decided on holding a limited departmental competitive examination. As long as the Select List was not declared final, no officer could claim any right. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is not possible to say that in holding the departmental competitive examination the Government was applying(2a ) of rule 12, and the Regulations,s point, we find ourselves bound by the decision of this Court in General Manager, Southern Railway v. Rangachari(1) where it has been held that Article 16(4) of the Constitution extends to selectionregard to the percentage of vacancies reserved under the off ice memorandum dated 20th July, 1974, we consider that the case falls within the. principles laid down in M. R. Balaji v. State of Mysore.(2) The majority view in State of Kerala v. N. M. Thomas(3) supports the validity of the