Bench dismissed three writ petitions challenging Rule 15 of 1963 for discriminating against Scheduled Castes by granting physical standard relaxation only to Scheduled Tribes. Court held SCs and STs constitute distinct classes; differential policy is valid.
Writ petitions and stay applications dismissed; Rule 15 upheld.
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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7793/2017
With
D.B. Civil Misc. Stay Application No.7173/2017
Sunil Kumar Verma S/o Shri Kishan Lal Verma, Resident Of 30/64 Shyam Colony, Behind Pinky Hotel, Maheshwara Road Dausa District Dausa Rajasthan
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
Connected With
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17972/2016
With
D.B. Civil Misc. Stay Application No.16048/2016
Bhag Chand Kansotiya Son Of Shri Banshidhar Kansotiya, Raigar Mohalla, Boyatawala, Post Benar, Via Jhotwara, District Jaipur, Rajasthan
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.24208/2017
With
D.B. Civil Misc. Stay Application No.20954/2017
Bhag Chand Kansotiya Son Of Shri Banshidhar Kansotiya,
(2 of 8)
[CW-7793/2017]
Resident Of Raigar Mohalla, Boyatawala, Post Benar, Via Jhotwara, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Digvijay Mantri for petitioner in CW No.7793/2017 Mr. Tanveer Ahmed for petitioners in CW No.17972/2016 and 24208/2017 For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surya Pratap Singh for Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Additional Advocate General
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR
Order
//Reportable//
16/11/2018
Per Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq:-
All these three writ petitions seek to challenge the vires and constitutional validity of Rule 15 of the Rajasthan Municipalities (Subordinate and Ministerial Service) Rules, 1963 (for short, ‘the Rules of 1963’) on the ground of discrimination between the petitioners, who are the members of the Scheduled Castes category and those belonging to Scheduled Tribes, in the matter of relaxation of the physical standards for appointment on the post of
(3 of 8)
[CW-7793/2017]
Fireman. The petitioners were aggrieved of their non-selection in the process of recruitment initiated for the post of Fireman initiated pursuant to advertisement dated 31.12.2015. Even though they qualified the competitive examination but when called for physical measurement, they failed to qualify the requirement of physical standards as per the Rule 15 of the Rules of 1963. Prayer has therefore been made to treat the petitioners eligible for appointment as per physical measurement on the standards prescribed for members of the Scheduled Tribes category.
The proviso to Rule 15 was inserted in the Rules of 1963 vide notification dated 16.05.2011 published in the Rajasthan Gazette Extraordinary dated 06.06.2011, which reads as under:-
“Provided that in the matter of direct recruitment for the posts mentioned under sub-head (H) of head “(A) SUBORDINATE SERVICE” of the Schedule of these rules for physical fitness, the following physical standards shall be mandatory, namely:-
(i) For Male Candidates
(a) Height: 165 cms.
(b) Weight: 50 Kg.
(c) Chest: Normal – 81 cms; Expended – 86 cms.
(ii) For Male Candidates belonging to Scheduled Tribes
(a) Height: 160 cms.
(b) Weight: 50 Kg.
(c) Chest: Normal – 76 cms; Expended – 81 cms.
(iii) For Female Candidates (a) Height: 152 cms. (b) Weight: 47.50 Kg.”
Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the aforesaid Rule is discriminatory qua the petitioners as it provides relaxation in physical standards only to the members of the Scheduled Tribes candidates and not to those belonging to Scheduled Castes. In all other recruitments wherever the relaxation is granted in the
(4 of 8)
[CW-7793/2017]
matter of age and physical standards, the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are treated at par. Even though weight of the petitioners and measurement of their chest is more than the prescribed limit but their height is less than 165 cms., which, as per the said Rule, is applied to all other male candidates except those belonging to the candidates of the Scheduled Tribes category. It is argued that Article 338(9) of the Constitution provides that every State Government shall for major policy matters consult the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. But the State Government has amended the Rule 15 of the Rules of 1963 without consulting the Commission, by which relaxation to the extent of 5 cms. in the height has been extended only to the members of the Scheduled Tribes candidates and not to the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes. Rule 15 is therefore liable to be declared unconstitutional. The State Government has carried out the aforesaid discriminatory amendment without collecting the necessary datas. Action of the State Government is violative of the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. There is no rational behind the action of the State Government in not extending the relaxation in the standard of the height to the members of the Scheduled Castes category and such a decision has no rational relation with the object sought to be achieved.
Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petitions and argued that as against 610, posts total 1987 candidates including the petitioners were declared qualified for verification of the original documents and physical test. The recruitment committee so constituted made verification of the original documents and the physical measurement of the qualified
(5 of 8)
[CW-7793/2017]
candidates including the petitioners and found heights of both the petitioners below 165 cms. and therefore they were not considered eligible for appointment on the post of Fireman. It is argued that the relaxation to the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Tribes category has been granted purposely to promote them looking to their overall circumstances and need of the employment. The Scheduled Tribes category is a separate class by itself. Different parameters are applied for the Scheduled Tribes category. They are not comparable with the Scheduled Castes category. There is therefore no case of discrimination.
We have given out anxious consideration to rival submissions and perused the material on record.
Indisputably, the parameters on which the members of the Scheduled Tribes category are identified and their social background distinguishes them from the Scheduled Castes category. They form two different and distinct categories. If relaxation has been granted to the members of the Scheduled Tribes category, the same possibly cannot be struck down or declared unconstitutional only because it has not been granted to the members of the Scheduled Castes category. It is a matter of policy for the State Government to decide whether or not to extend such similar relaxation to the members of the Scheduled Caste category. Relaxation granted to the members of the Scheduled Tribe category cannot be declared unconstitutional on the ground of discrimination as the category of Scheduled Tribes form a different and distinct class than the category of Scheduled Castes. The Scheduled Tribes bear distinguishable features and separate characteristics than the category of the Scheduled Castes. They constitute two separate classes and are not
(6 of 8)
[CW-7793/2017]
comparable to each other. Mere fact that in other services under the State Government both the categories are treated at par for grant of age relaxation and in certain cases, also the physical standards, cannot form basis for declaring the impugned Rule as illegal or unconstitutional. It cannot be held that the relaxation granted to the Scheduled Tribes category does not have any rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. Indications of primitive traits, distinctive culture, geographical isolation, shyness of contacts with the community at large and backwardness are the criteria for identifying the community as the Scheduled Tribe, in contra the distinctions to those of the Scheduled Castes. The different parameters therefore would apply for the two.
The Union of India in its stand taken before the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Buta Ram Azad and Others Vs. Union of India and Another - AIR 1983 P&H 230 , has stated that following separate criteria was adopted for declaring a community either as a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe:-
(a) Scheduled Castes:- Extreme social, educational and economic backwardness arising our of traditional practice of untouchability.
(b) Scheduled Tribes:- Indications of primitive traits, distinctive culture, geographical isolation, shyness of contacts with the community at large and backwardness.
From the reading of the criteria adopting for declaring the community either as Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, it is clear that if a community has extreme social, educational and economic backwardness arising out of traditional practice of untouchability it is declared the Scheduled Caste. If, however, a community has indications of primitive traits, distinctive culture,
(7 of 8) [CW-7793/2017]
geographical isolation, shyness of contacts with the community at large and backwardness, it is included in the list of Scheduled Tribes.
In Kumari Madhuri Patil and Another Vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development : AIR 1995 SC 94 , the Supreme Court held that sociology, anthropology and ethnology are valid elements that would go into the determination as to whether a particular applicant in fact belongs to a Scheduled Tribe. One of the arguments which was pressed in aid was that social mobility and the process of modernisation obviate the need to fulfill the affinity test.
We may in this connection also refer to and rely on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India and Others Vs. M. Selvakurmar and Another – (2017) 3 SCC 504 , wherein dispute was with regard to the demand of proportionate increase in attempts for physically handicapped candidates belonging to OBC category as compared to the attempts provided for physically handicapped candidates belonging to general category. The Supreme Court held that the horizontal reservation and relaxation for Physically Handicapped Category candidates for Civil Services Examination, is a matter of Government policy and the Government after considering the relevant materials have extended relaxation and concessions to the Physically Handicapped candidates belonging to the Reserved Category as well as General Category. It is not in the domain of the courts to embark upon an inquiry as to whether a particular public policy is wise and acceptable or whether better policy could be evolved.
(8 of 8) [CW-7793/2017]
The Court can only interfere if the policy framed is absolutely capricious and non-informed by reasons, or totally arbitrary, offending the basic requirement of the Article 14 of the Constitution.
In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the writ petitions and the same are accordingly dismissed. This also disposes of the stay applications.
(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR),J
(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J
//Jaiman//
3 issues framed by the court
Whether Rule 15 of the Rajasthan Municipalities (Subordinate and Ministerial Service) Rules, 1963 is unconstitutional for discriminating between Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes by granting physi
Whether the difference in classification between Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes justifies separate physical standards for appointment on the post of Fireman without violating Article 14.
Whether the State Government's policy of granting relaxed physical standards exclusively to Scheduled Tribes candidates is arbitrary or capricious.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Buta Ram Azad and Others Vs. Union of India and AnotherReferred¶71
Buta Ram Azad and Others Vs. Union of India and Another - AIR 1983 P&H 230 · Who else cites this
Kumari Madhuri Patil and Another Vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal DevelopmentRelied on¶77
Kumari Madhuri Patil and Another Vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development : AIR 1995 SC 94 · Who else cites this
Union of India and Others Vs. M. Selvakurmar and AnotherRelied on¶78
Union of India and Others Vs. M. Selvakurmar and Another – (2017) 3 SCC 504 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sunil Kumar Verma
Bhag Chand Kansotiya
The State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Local Self Department
The Director, Local Bodies
The Secretary, Rajasthan Municipal Administrative And Technical And Subordinate And Ministerial
MOHAMMAD RAFIQ
GOVERDHAN BARDHAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
