The High Court dismissed two writ petitions challenging Odisha Administrative Tribunal orders concerning the selection of Home Guards for Fireman posts under horizontal reservation guidelines, holding the Tribunal decision correct.
The Writ Petitions were dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.(C) No. 572 of 2017 And W.P.(C) No.550 of 2014
16 23.3.2021. Present:
Shri S.K.Mishra, J Miss Savitri Ratho,J
In W.P.(C) No.572/2017
State of Odisha & others …… Petitioners - VrsSri Triolochan Sahoo ….... Opp.Parties
For the Petitioners : Mr. A.K.Nanda, Addl. Govt. Advocate
For Opp.Party : Mr.M.K. Khuntia and Associates.
In W.P.(C) No.550/2014
State of Odisha & others …… Petitioners - VrsSri Sarat Kumar Jena ….... Opp.Party
For the Petitioners : Mr. A.K.Nanda, Addl. Govt. Advocate
For Opp.Party : Mr.P.K.Rath and Associates.
AKB
In W.P.(C) No.572 of 2017 the Petitioners-State of Odisha assails the findings of the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No.1771(C) of 2013 delivered on
2
17.3.2016. The applicants in that case were Home Guards. They have applied for selection the post of Fireman Driver pursuant to the advertisement issued in Odia Daily “The Samaja” to fill up 319 posts. Out of the total 319 posts advertised, 52 posts were reserved for S.C. candidates, 62 posts were reserved for S.T. candidates, 86 posts were reserved for S.E.B.C. candidates and 109 posts were reserved for Unreserved candidates. In the said advertisement, it was also stipulated that 10% of the posts were reserved for Home Guards candidates in accordance with the Home Department Letter No.516 dated 16.3.1995. The applicants in both the cases being the Home Guards applied for the posts under Home Guard category.
3
have challenged the order dated 18.5.2012 passed in O.A. No.2512(c) of 2010. The applicant in that case, a Home Guard, has challenged the selection conducted by the Petitioners for the post of Fireman stating that it had been conducted in violation of the Government guidelines and without giving the benefit of reservation i.e. 10% of total vacancies in favour of eligible Home Guards pursuant to advertisement issued for appointment for the post of 406 Firemen, 10% of which were to be filled up eligible Home Guards. Relying on the case of Rajesh Kumar Daria v. Rajastan Public Service Commission ; reported in (2009) 1 SCC (L & S), 1057 and in O.A. No.2424/2008 ( Tanmay Kumar Pradhan v. State of Orissa ), the Tribunal held that directions which provide basic guidelines for horizontal reservation have not been observed and directed the Government-respondent to recast the selection list as per the said guidelines and once again publish the select list and in case the applicant is eligible, he shall be appointed and his seniority will be counted below the last person and he would not be eligible for any financial benefit for the period he had not worked.
Mr. A.K.Nanda, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the Petitioners-State, heavily relied upon Clause 3.1
4
of the Odisha Fire Services Act, 1993. It provides that “ 10% vacancies of the rank of Fireman shall be reserved for the eligible Home Guards as per Home Department Letter No.516 dated 16.3.1995. They will be eligible against reserved vacancies under the respective categories to which they belong i.e. UR SEBC, SC and ST.” It was, therefore, very emphatically argued by the learned Addl. Government Advocate that the judgment relied upon by the learned Member, Odisha Administrative Tribunal is not applicable to this case.
5
22 of the judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:
“The principle that candidates belonging to any of the vertical reservation categories are entitled to be selected in “Open or General Category” is well settled. It is also well accepted that if such candidates belonging to reserved categories are entitled to be selected on the basis of their own merit, their selection cannot be counted against the quota reserved for the categories for vertical reservation that they belong. Apart from the extracts from the decisions of this Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India ; reported in (2000) 1 SCC 168 and in the case of R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab ; reported in (1995) 2 SCC 745, the observation by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Shri V.V. Giri v. Dippala Suri Dora and others , reported in 1959 AIR 1318 though in the context of election, are quite noteworthy. Thereafter, the Hon’ble Supreme Court quoted Paragraphs- 21 and 22 of the aforesaid judgment. It is very pertinent to take note of the exact words of the Constitution Bench in that case.
“21. In our opinion, the true position is that a member of a Scheduled Caste or Tribe does not forego his right to seek election to the general seat merely because he avails himself of the additional concession of the reserved seat by making the prescribed declaration for that purpose. The claim of eligibility for the reserved seat does not exclude the claim for the general seat; it is an additional claim; and both the claims have to be decided on the basis that; there is one election from the double-member constituency.
6
universities whereby in addition to the prizes and scholarships awarded on general competition amongst all the candidates, some prizes and scholarships are reserved for candidates belonging to backward communities. In such cases, though the backward candidates may try for the reserved prizes and scholarships, they are not precluded from claiming the general prizes and scholarships by competition with the rest of the candidates.”
Thereafter the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph-23 observed that the High Courts of Rajasthan, Bombay, Uttarakhand and Gujarat have adopted the same principle while dealing with horizontal reservation whereas the High Court of Allahabad and Madhya Pradesh have taken a contrary view. The second view that weighed with the High Courts of Allahabad and Madhya Pradesh is essentially based on the premise that after the first two steps as detailed in paragraph-18 of the judgment of Anil Kumar Gupta and others Vs. State of U.P. and others ; reported in (1995) 5 SCC 173 and after vertical reservations are provided for, at the stage of accommodating candidates for effecting horizontal reservation, the candidates from reserved categories can be adjusted only against their own categories under the concerned vertical reservation and not against the “Open or General Category.”
7
that the first view which weighed with the High Courts of Rajasthan, Bombay, Uttarkhand and Gujarat is correct and rational.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.
….………………… S.K.Mishra,J.
….…….…….……… Savitri Ratho,J.
8
9
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Courts view allowing candidates from vertical reservation categories to compete for general category posts greater overrides the Odisha Administrative Tribunal view adjusting them aga
Whether there is reasonable ground to interfere with the Odisha Administrative Tribunal orders regarding reservation for Home Guards in Fireman posts.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mahesh Gupta and others Vs. Yashwant Kumar Ahirwar and othersReferred¶17
Mahesh Gupta and others Vs. Yashwant Kumar Ahirwar and others ; reported in 2007 SCC (8) 621 · Who else cites this
Rajesh Kumar Daria v. Rajastan Public Service CommissionReferred¶20
Rajesh Kumar Daria v. Rajastan Public Service Commission ; reported in (2009) 1 SCC (L & S), 1057 · Who else cites this
Indra Sawhney v. Union of IndiaReferred¶29
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India ; reported in (2000) 1 SCC 168 · Who else cites this
R.K. Sabharwal v. State of PunjabReferred¶29
R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab ; reported in (1995) 2 SCC 745 · Who else cites this
Shri V.V. Giri v. Dippala Suri Dora and othersReferred¶29
Shri V.V. Giri v. Dippala Suri Dora and others , reported in 1959 AIR 1318 · Who else cites this
Saurav Yadav and others V. State of Uttar Pradesh and othersRelied on¶26
Saurav Yadav and others V. State of Uttar Pradesh and others ; reported in AIR 2021 SUPREME COURT 233 · Who else cites this
Anil Kumar Gupta and others Vs. State of U.P. and othersReferred¶34
Anil Kumar Gupta and others Vs. State of U.P. and others ; reported in (1995) 5 SCC 173 · Who else cites this
State of Odisha & others
Sri Triolochan Sahoo
Sri Sarat Kumar Jena
S.K. Mishra
Savitri Ratho
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
