The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed writ petitions challenging the appointment of women from reserved categories to posts reserved for general category women. The court held that Amendment Rules, 2011 allowed filling by other women candidates before considering male candidates.
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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ No. 5626/2015
Sawai Singh s/o Shri Manohar Singh, aged about 22 years, r/o V&P Sankra, Tehsil Pokran, District Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1.State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ No. 7010/2015
Jaivardhan Singh Bhati s/o Shri Abhya Singh Bhati, aged about 22 years, r/o V&P Sonu, Tehsil & District Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1.State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. Director General of Police, Police Department, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 3. Inspector General of Police, Jodhpur Range, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.S.Sandhu. Mr. Keshav Bhati. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Shweta Bora.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Order
03/01/2019
These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners aggrieved against the final select list (Annex.4) for the post of constable pursuant to the advertisement dated 14/7/2013.
(2 of 5) [CW-5626/2015]
It is inter alia indicated in the writ petitions that various posts of constable district-wise were advertised vide advertisement dated 14/7/2013. The advertisement also provided for 30% horizontal reservation for women category-wise. After completing the selection process, a final select list for appointment (Annex.4) was issued, however, the petitioners did not find their names in the select list.
The challenge laid in the present writ petition is that 30% seats which were reserved for women category wise, as the women candidates of general category were not available, the respondents were not justified in filling up the said posts by women candidates belonging to other categories i.e. O.B.C. etc. and that in terms of the Rules the said posts meant for women in general category could only be filled up by males of general category and, therefore, the respondents were not justified in according appointments to women of other category.
Reliance has been placed on amendment introduced by Rajasthan Various Service (Amendment) Rules, 2011 (‘Rules, 2011’).
Learned counsel for the petitioners, with reference to the provisions of the amendment Rules, 2011 and the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deepa E.V. vs. Union of India & Ors. : Civil Appeal 3609/2017 decided on 6/4/2017, submitted that a plain reading of the provisions reveals that once the posts reserved for women cannot be filled by women of the said category the same can only be filled by male candidates of the said category and, therefore, the action of the respondents in this regard cannot be sustained.
(3 of 5)
[CW-5626/2015]
Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the issue raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in Smt. Megha Shetty vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : 2013 (4) RLW 3227 , which has been followed in the case of Neelam Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan : D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.472/2013 decided on 16/7/2015 at Jaipur Bench and that Special Leave Petition arising from the said judgment has already been rejected by Hon’ble Supreme Court.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.
The relevant provision as introduced by the Amendment
Rules, 2011 reads as under:
“Reservation of vacancies for women – Reservation of vacancies for women candidates shall be 30% category wise in direct recruitment out of which 8% shall be for widows and 2% for divorced women candidates. In the event of non-availability of eligible and suitable widows and divorced women candidates in a particular year, the vacancies so reserved for widow and divorced women candidates shall be filled by other women candidates and in the event of nonavailability of eligible and suitable women candidates, the vacancies so reserved for them shall be filled up by male candidates and such vacancies shall not be carried forward to the subsequent year and the reservation shall be treated as horizontal reservation i.e. the reservation of women candidates shall be adjusted proportionately in the respective category to which the women candidates belong.
Explanation:- In the case of widow, she will have to furnish a certificate of death of her husband from the competent Authority and in case of divorcee she will have to furnish the proof of divorce.”
The issue of migration from O.B.C women to general women has been thoroughly dealth with by this Court in the case of Megha Shetty (supra), wherein, it has been inter alia laid down as under:
(4 of 5)
[CW-5626/2015]
“Admittedly, as noticed above, none of the candidates, who have been provided appointment have secured less marks than the appellant. The submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant in the context of prohibition for migration of reserved category candidates to general category in the case of special horizontal reservation for woman cannot be read into either the principles or the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Once the horizontal reservation in favour of woman in general/open category is to be applied, the candidates belonging to all categories, including SC, ST and OBC, are also entitled to be considered against the said posts reserved for General Category (Woman).”
The said view has been followed in the case of Neelam Sharma (supra).
In the case of Megha Shetty (supra) and Neelam Sharma the dispute was inter se the woman candidates of each category, however, in the present writ petition the male candidates are seeking to occupy the posts reserved for women candidates.
A plain reading of the provisions of Amendment Rules, 2011 would reveal that the same provides for reservation of vacancies for woman at 30% category wise, out of which 8% shall be for widow and 2% shall be for divorced women. The provision further provides that in the case of non-availability of eligible and suitable women candidates, the same can be filled by other women candidates. The crucial provision, which has relevance for the present case is in the event of non-availability of eligible and suitable women candidates, the vacancies so reserved for them can be filled by male candidates and the vacancies shall not be carried forward to the subsequent year. It is further clarified that reservation shall be treated as horizontal reservation i.e. reservation of women candidates shall be adjusted proportionately in the respective category to which the women candidates belong.
(5 of 5)
[CW-5626/2015]
The submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners
based on the above provision has no substance inasmuch as the provision, as already held in the case of Megha Shetty (supra), does not prohibit migration of reserved category candidates to general category/consideration of candidates belonging to reserved category against the vacant posts of general category. Once the said position is clear and based on that the vacant posts meant for general category woman is filled up by women belonging to reserved category, there is no occasion for the respondents to fill up such posts by male candidates only.
If the submission as made by learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted, the same would result in reducing the reservation meant for women as such in the case of nonavailability of women candidates in general category, which is not the intention and/or purport of the Rules, which prescribes 30% horizontal reservation for women.
So far as the judgment in the case of Deepa E.V. (supra) is concerned, the same has no application to the facts of the present case inasmuch as in the said case the candidates, who were seeking migration to general category had availed age relaxation which is not the allegation of the petitioners in the present case.
In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the writ petitions and the same are, therefore, dismissed.
(ARUN BHANSALI),J
92/93-baweja/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether vacancies reserved for women of the general category that remain unfilled can be filled by male candidates of the general category.
Whether rules permitting filling of women's reserved posts by candidates from other categories (women) preclude their subsequent filling by male candidates.
Whether the judgment in Deepa E.V. applies where candidates are not seeking age relaxation under the general category.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Deepa E.V. vs. Union of India & Ors.Distinguished¶27
Deepa E.V. vs. Union of India & Ors. : Civil Appeal 3609/2017
Smt. Megha Shetty vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.Relied on¶30
Smt. Megha Shetty vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : 2013 (4) RLW 3227
Neelam Sharma vs. State of RajasthanRelied on¶30
Neelam Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan : D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.472/2013
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SAWAI SINGH
JAIVARDHAN SINGH BHATI
STATE OF RAJASTHAN
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
ARUN BHANSALI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
