Life Insurance Corporation of India vs P.G. Wilson George

Balakrishnan, J.—These three appeals have been filed by L.I.C. of India against the common judgment in O.P. Nos. 1958, 2038 and 2214 of 1996. The Respondents in these Writ Appeals fild Original Petitions praying that they may be given higher rank and seniority in the cadre of Assistants in the L.I.C. of India. These Respondents had participated for seletion of Assistants in the L.I.C. of India pursuant to the notification issued by the Zonal Office, Madras. Written test and interview were conducted and a rank list of 86 candidates was published. Among 86 candidates, 14 posts were reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates, 5 posts for Scheduled Tribe candidates, 33 posts for Other Backward Classes, 9 for Ex-servicemen, 1 for physically handicapped and 24 posts were filled up under the general quota. Out of 86 candidates, 33 persons were appointed from Other Backward Classes in view of the fact that in the previous year L.I.C. of India could not fill up the quota allotted to Other Backward Classes. These vacancies were carried forward to next year and thus 33 persons belonging to Other Backward Classes were appointed against the quota of Backward Classes.

Respondent Asha, M. in W.A. 1980 of 1996, Respondent Lissy, K.P. in W.A. 127 of 1997 and P.G. Wilson George, Respondent in W.A. 1958 of 1996, had secured rank Nos. 18, 20 and 21 respectively. As they had secured higher ranks in the merit list, they were included in the general quota. These candidates belong to the community included in Other Backward Classes.

Ext. R-1(a) is the instruction issued by the Ministry of personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training). In Ext. R-1, (a) under Clause 2(b) the following instructions were issued:

Candidates belonging to O.B.Cs recruited on the basis of merit in an open competition on the same standards prescribed for the general candidates shall not be adjusted against the reservation quota of 27 per cent.

Ext. R-1(b) is the guidelines issued by the Central Office of the L.I.C. of India in the matter of reservation of posts for Other Backward Classes. In Ext. R-1.(b) it is clarified that:

those O.B.C. candidates who have secured equal to or higher marks than the last general category candidate whose name is to be finally included in the panel are to be treated as candidates who have come on merit and they will not be counted against the resereved vacancies.

As per Ext. P-1 notification, the number of candidates to be empannelled among the categories of Assistants was 86. The reservation for Other Backward Glasses came into force from 8th September 1993. For those appointments made after 8th September 1993, where no reservation was provided for Other Backward Classes, such vacancies were treated as Backlog vacancies and carried forward to next year. In the Divisional Office, Ernakulam 33 appointments were made after 8th September 1993 without providing reservation for Other Backward Classes, as taking into account the backlog vacancies for those appointments, 20 candidates belonging to the Other Backward Classes were appointed as per the roster. As these back log vacancies were filled up first, candidates in the general category on merit could be given appointment only later. At first only 8 candidates were appointed in the general category on merit. In the L.I.C. appointment is made in such a way that a roster of 100 vacancies is prepared and for various categories, such as S.C., S.T., O.B. Cs. physically handicapped and Ors. are given respective places in the roster and if no candidate is available from a particular category the seat will be kept vacant and will be filled up later applying the principles of carry forward.

In the instant case, the backlog vacancies for Other Backward Classes were filled up first and the Respondents who were included in the general merit, could get their appointment only later as they were rank Nos. 18, 20 and 21 in the general merit list. The learned Single Judge held that if a person belonging to Other Backward Glasses is recruited on the basis of merit in the open competition, that will not affect the reservation quota of 27 per cent and said purpose is only to see that 27 per cent quota for Other Backward Classes is maintained that does not lead to an interpretation that the candidates should not be given their right to be included in the reservation quota. Learned Single Judge further given a direction to the present Appellants to appoint the Respodents herein as Assistants under the quota reserved for Other Backward Classes in preference to any other candidates belonging to Other Backward Classes ranked below them. It was held by the learned Single Judge that the instructions issued in Ext. R-1(6) are illegal and contrary to the instructions issued in Ext.R-1(a). The above finding of the learned Single Judge is challenged in these Writ Appeals.

Learned Sr. Counsel for the Appellants contended that the Respondents, who had secured rank viz. No. 18, 20 and 21, cannot be included in the reservation quota of 27 per cent earmarked for Other Backward Classes. Counsel for the Respondents, on the other hand, contended that these Respondents proved themselves to be more meritorious than the candidates who secured selection under the O.B.C. quota and, therefore, they shall be given oppoinments early than the candidates included in the reservation quota. Situations like this may arise while applying the principles of reservation. Appointments are made on the basis of a roster. It is instructed in Ext. R-1(b) that the candidates belonging to O.B.C s. recruited on the basis of merit in an open competition on the same standards prescribed for the general category candidates shall not be adjusted against the reserved quota. In other words, O.B.C. candidates who are ranked above and included in the general category candidates will be considered as candidates selected on merits and will not, therefore, be counted against the reserved vacancies. Candidates who got selection under the general quota will certainly be the persons who secured more marks in the selection or more meritorious than the candidates included in the reserved quota. But, when the various points in the roster are filled up some of the candidates who secured lower position in the merit list will get appointment only at a later stage and candidates belonging to reserved category may get appointment earlier.

Counsel for the Respondents contended that these Respodents are also entitled to get reservation and, therefore, even though their names are included in the general merit list they shall be treated as persons entitled to get reservation benefit of Other Backward Classes and they shall be given appointment against the vacancies earmarked for Other Backward Classes. We are unable to accept this contention. It is true that these Respondents have secured more marks than the candidates included in the list of Other Backward Classes. But they got selection only in the general merit quota. Once their names are included in the general merit quota they cannot be treated as reserved candidates. The contention of the Respondents'' Counsel that the instructions issued in Ext. R-1(a) is only to the effect that candidates belonging to O.B.Cs. recruited on the basis of merit in open competition in general quota shall not be adjusted against the reservation quota of 27 per cent and, therefore, these Respondents can be appointed against reserved quota for O.B.Cs. and the seats left by the Respondents in the general quota shall be filled by candidates belonging to Other Backward Classes. If this contention is accepted it will lead to a situation where Other Backward Classes will loose three seats whereby jeopardising the employment opportunities of the Other Backward Classes. If these Respodents are treated as persons entitled to reservation intended for Other Backward Classes, three persons belonging to Other Backward Classes cannot be given appointments under the merit quota as they have not secured the marks required to be included in the general quota and the candidates who have secured higher marks than them can rightfully claim those posts as they are more meritorious than the O.B.C. candidate. If the Respondents'' contention is accepted that would lead to a situation where three Backward Classes candidates are to be excluded from the list.

We do not find any inconsistency between Ext. R-1(a) and R-1(b) instructions. In Ext. R-1(a) it is only stated that candidates belonging to O.B.Cs. recruited on the basis of merit in an open competition on the same standards for the general candidates shall not be adjusted against the reservation quota of 27 per cent and in Ext. R-1(b) it is only stated that a separate list shall be prepared in discending order of total marks secured from which the required number of candidates are selected and the O.B.C. candidates will also be treated as a separate group and those O.B.C. candidates who have secured equal to or higher marks than the last general category candidate whose name is to be finally included in the panel are to be treated as candidates who have come on merit and they will not be counted againstjthe reserved vacancies.

In Union of India and others etc. Vs. Virpal Singh Chauhan etc., a similar question arose and the Supreme Court in para. 32 of the judgment held that such a situation may have to be appropriately rectified as and when the occasion arises. Para 32 reads as follows:

Sri Dhawan points out yet Anr. anomaly. Where a candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste gets selected on his own merit, i.e. in the general category, he will be treated as a general candidate and on that account he suffers prejudice vis-a-vis Anr. reserved category candidate who could not be selected on his own merit (i.e., in the general category) and was selected only because of and under the rule of reservation. For illustrating his submission, learned Counsel says, take an instance where out of forty candidates selected, a Scheduled Cast candidate selected on merit stands at Sl. No. 18 in the select lists whereas Anr. Scheduled Caste candidate selected under and only because of the reserved quota stands at Sl. No. 33. But when the occasion for appointment arises, the Scheduled Caste candidate at Sl. No. 33 will be appointed against the first roster-point, whereas the Scheduled Caste candidate at Sl. No. 18, being a general candidate Has to wait for his turn. This, the learned Counsel says, amounts, in effect, to punishing the Scheduled Caste candidate at Sl. No. 18 for his merit. Because he was meritorious, he was selected in general category and is treated as a general candidate. He suffers all the disadvantages any other general candidate suffers while Anr. Scheduled Caste candidate, far less meritorious than him and who was selected only by virtue of lule of reservation, steals a march over him in the matter of initial appointment and in promotion after promotion there after. This is undoubtedly a piquant situation and may have to be appropriately rectified as and when the occasion arises.

In the parent case, if the Respondents are treated as persons entitled to get the benefit of reservation of Other Backward Classes and appointed against the roster-point belonging to O.B.Cs. three other candidates who got appoi- ntmenton the basis of reservation of OBC will not be entitled to get selection. Those candidates, who are replaced by these Respondents, are persons who are included in the O.B.C. list. They are persons who secured lesser marks than the last person, who is included in the general merit. So, they cannot be given appointment against the vacancies left by Respondents. The Respondents got rank No. 18, 20 and 21 and they are entitled to be appointed on merit quota whereas the last three candidates in the O.B.C. list could not have secured marks necessary to get appointment under the merit quota to replace candidates who secured rank No. 18, 20 and 21. So, this is a situation which cannot be rectified in the way as held by the learned Single Judge.

Therefore, we hold that the Respondents herein have been given their appropriate place in the roster in the matter of appointment. The Respondents herein are treated as general candidates and not O.B.C. candidates. But, while considering the question of seniority, the Appellants may take appropriate decision. We also hold that there is no inconsistency between Ext. R-1(a) and R-1(b) circulars and we find no illegality in implementing the same.

Writ Appeals are allowed.