Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by Niravkumar Dilipbhai Makwana against the Gujarat Public Service Commission and others, upholding the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court's order. The appellant, a candidate belonging to the Socially and Economically Backward Classes (SEBC), had applied for the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests and Range Forest Officer pursuant to an advertisement dated 01.03.2010. He availed age relaxation as a reserved category candidate and successfully passed the examination. In the select list published on 25.09.2014, he was placed at serial no.138. The appellant challenged the select list before the Gujarat High Court, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Jitendra Kumar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2010) 3 SCC 119, which held that reserved category candidates who are selected on merit without availing any relaxation should be adjusted against general category seats. The learned Single Judge allowed the petition, but the Division Bench reversed the decision, holding that the appellant had availed age relaxation, which under Gujarat's policy (Circulars dated 29.01.2000 and 23.07.2004) is considered a relaxation in standard, and therefore he could not be considered for general category seats. The Supreme Court agreed with the Division Bench, noting that the Gujarat circulars explicitly state that reserved category candidates who avail any relaxation (age, qualification, etc.) must be adjusted against reserved posts. The Court distinguished Jitendra Kumar Singh, as that case was based on the U.P. Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Act, 1994, which treated age relaxation as a concession, not a relaxation in standard. The Court held that age relaxation granted under Article 16(4) is an incident of reservation and a relaxation in standard, and thus the appellant could not migrate to the general category. The appeal was dismissed, and the order of the Division Bench was upheld.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Reservation - Age Relaxation - Whether age relaxation is a relaxation in standard or a concession - The court examined whether a reserved category candidate who availed age relaxation can be considered for general category seats - Held that age relaxation granted under state policy is a relaxation in standard and not a mere concession, and such candidates cannot be adjusted against unreserved posts (Paras 2, 14-18). B) Service Law - Reservation - Adjustment of Reserved Category Candidates - Circulars dated 29.01.2000 and 23.07.2004 of Gujarat Government - The court interpreted the circulars to mean that reserved category candidates who availed any relaxation (age, qualification, etc.) must be adjusted against reserved seats - Held that the appellant, having availed age relaxation, could not claim general category seat (Paras 16-18). C) Constitutional Law - Article 16(4) - Reservation - Relaxation as Incident of Reservation - The court held that age relaxation granted to reserved category candidates is an incident of reservation under Article 16(4) - Held that such relaxation is not a mere concession but a relaxation in standard, and candidates availing it cannot migrate to general category (Paras 15, 18). D) Service Law - Precedent - Applicability of Jitendra Kumar Singh - The court distinguished Jitendra Kumar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2010) 3 SCC 119, as it was based on U.P. Act, 1994, which treated age relaxation as a concession - Held that the Gujarat circulars treat age relaxation as a relaxation in standard, making Jitendra Kumar Singh inapplicable (Paras 7, 9, 12, 18).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a candidate who has availed of an age relaxation in a selection process as a result of belonging to a reserved category can thereafter seek to be accommodated in or migrated to the general category seat?
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the order of the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court. The Court held that the appellant, having availed age relaxation as a reserved category candidate, could not be considered for general category seats. The judgment in Jitendra Kumar Singh was distinguished as it was based on a different state policy. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Age relaxation is a relaxation in standard
- not a mere concession
- reserved category candidates availing age relaxation cannot be considered for general category seats
- Jitendra Kumar Singh distinguished based on state policy
- Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India permits relaxation as incident of reservation
