Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
In the case of UNION OF INDIA Vs. RAMESH RAM AND OTHERS reported in (2010) 7 SCC 234, the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court dealing with the question of migration of meritorious reserved candidates from general merit to the reserved category held as under: “72. We sum up our answers: i) MRC candidates who avail the benefit of Rule 16 (2) and adjusted in the reserved category should be counted as part of the reserved pool for the purpose of computing the aggregate reservation quotas. The seats vacated by MRC candidates in the General Pool will be offered to General category candidates. ii) By operation of Rule 16 (2), the reserved status of an MRC candidate is protected so that his/her better performance does not deny him of the chance to be allotted to a more preferred service. iii) The amended Rule 16 (2) only seeks to recognize the inter se merit between two classes of candidates i.e. a) meritorious reserved category candidates b) relatively lower ranked reserved category candidates, for the purpose of allocation to the various Civil Services with due regard for the preferences indicated by them. iv) The reserved category candidates “belonging to OBC, SC/ST categories” who are selected on merit and placed in the list of General/Unreserved category candidates can choose to migrate to the respective reserved category at the time of allocation of services. Such migration as envisaged by Rule 16 (2) is not inconsistent with Rule 16 (1) or Articles 14, 16 (4) and 335 of the Constitution." XX XX XX 4 ORDER (1) The procedure followed by the KPSC in preparing the list of candidates who are admitted to the written examination and the list of candidates who are called for the personality test in 1998, 1999 and 2004 for the post of Gazetted Probationers (Group A and B Posts) is unconstitutional, contrary to the Rules and the Government Orders. However, on that ground, the entire selection of 1998, 1999 and 2004 batch selection cannot be set aside. Segregation of tainted/ineligible candidates is possible. The KPSC shall undertake the following exercise to segregate the ineligible candidates: (a) The KPSC shall prepare a separate list of candidates belonging to the reserved category, who took the written examination, showing the marks secured in the written examination in the order of merit. (b) From out of the names in the said list prepared, prepare a list of candidates eligible to be called for the personality test in the ratio of 1:5, i.e., five times the number of candidates as there are vacancies reserved for each of the category out of reserved posts belonging to Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and other backward classes. (c) If the names of the selected candidates belonging to the reserved category finds a place in this list, whether as General Merit candidates or reserved candidates, then their appointment is valid and it shall not be disturbed. (d) If the names of the selected candidates do not find a place in this list, then their appointment is void and the same is hereby set aside. (e) The KPSC shall undertake this exercise within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order and forward the same to the Government for passing appropriate orders. (2) The revised list prepared by the KPSC in terms of the order dated 11th October 2002 in W.P.No. 12548-589/2002 which is affirmed by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 6172-6222/2005 vide Order dated 6th October, 2005, which was submitted to the Court by the KPSC in a sealed cover, which was web-hosted by virtue of the order dated 11.11.2014 of this Court, is upheld. The KPSC and the State Government shall give effect to the said list; Whereas the above Judgement of the Honourable High Court was challenged in the Honourable Supreme Court in Gopalkrishnah N and others Vs. the State of Karnataka and others in SLP No. 29245/2016 where in it has held on 11.04.2018 as follows,- "Upon hearing the counsel the Court made the following ORDER Heard learned counsel for the parties. Delay condoned. We do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. The special leave petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. Pending application (s), if any, shall also stand disposed of." Whereas the Honourable Supreme Court in Jitendra Kumar Singh & Anr Vs. State of U.P. & Ors in C.A. No. 74/2010, has held on 08.01.2010 as follows,- "52. From the above it becomes quite apparent that the relaxation in age limit is merely to enable the reserved category candidate to compete with the general category candidate, all other things being equal. The State has not treated the relaxation in age and fee as relaxation in the standard for selection, based on the merit of the candidate in the selection test i.e. Main Written Test followed by Interview. Therefore, such relaxations 5 cannot deprive a reserved category candidate of the right to be considered as a general category candidate on the basis of merit in the competitive examination." Whereas it is expedient to clarify as to how a list of eligible candidates has to be prepared for the purpose of competitive main examination, personality test and the manner of preparation of final and additional list. Hence, the Bill. [L.A. Bill No. 14 of 2018, File No. Samvyashae 30 Shasana 2018] [entry 41 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India.] 6 KARNATAKA ACT NO. 01 OF 2019 (First Published in the Karnataka Gazette Extra-ordinary on the 4th day of January, 2019) THE KARNATAKA CIVIL SERVICES (PROCEDURE FOR SELECTION OF CANDIDATES DURING RECRUITMENT) ACT, 2018 (Received the assent of Governor on the 3rd day of January, 2019) An Act to provide for selection procedure for recruitment of candidates to any service or post under the civil services of the State. Whereas the Selection Authorities or Recruiting Agencies are following selection procedure as prescribed in the Karnataka Recruitment of Gazetted Probationers (Appointment of Competitive Examination) Rules, 1997, in respect of Gazetted Probationers and in the Karnataka Civil Services (Direct Recruitment by Competitive Examinations and Selection) General Rules, 2006, in respect of service or post where no Special or General method of recruitment is prescribed by the State Government in respect of Group ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ posts. Where the State Government frames Special or General recruitment rules with procedure specified therein they are being followed by the recruiting agencies for preparation of select list; Whereas different ratios are being followed in the process of selection of candidates for preparing list of the candidates eligible for written Competitive examination, main examination and the manner of preparing eligible candidates for personality test in accordance with the rules applicable for selection; Whereas nowhere in these rules have specified the method of preparing list of candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes and others; Whereas Government Order No. DPAR 20 SBC 1994, dated: 3rd May 1994 and DPAR 08 SBC 1995, dated: 20th June 1995 has specified the mode of selection of eligible candidates as list of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes and others who are eligible for final selection list and additional list, the above method is being followed since 3rd May 1994. The provisions of the said order reads as follows:- "(a) The concerned Selection Authority shall first prepare consolidated list of all eligible applicants irrespective of their caste, tribe, class and arrange them in the order of merit (hereinafter called the First List). (b) The Selection Authority shall then prepare from out of the first List, a second list (hereinafter called the Second list) containing the names of applicants equal to the number of posts to be filled up on the basis of general merit (i.e. the number of posts other then those reserved in favour of Scheduled Castes, 7 Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes) arranging them in the order of merit commencing with the first name in the First List. (c) The Selection Authority shall then prepare from out of the First List, excluding the portion forming the Second List, a Third List (hereinafter called the Third List) containing the names of applicants belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other groups of Backward Classes equal to the number of vacancies reserved for each reserved category in the order of merit determined in the First List. (d) The Selection Authority shall then prepare a final list (which may called the Main List) of selected candidates for appointment to the category of posts for which selection is made by arranging the names of candidates included in the Second List and the Third List in the order of merit. (e) Where the 'Additional List' has to be prepared in accordance with rules of recruitment, the Selecting Authority shall prepare the additional list by adopting the method mentioned at (a), (b), (c) and (d) above, from among the name excluding the names which are included in the Main List, from the first list."; Whereas the division bench of the High Court of Karnataka in Kaleel Ahmed K.P and others vs. State of Karnataka in writ petition no. 27674/2012 C/W 41366/2012, dated 21.06.2016 and other has held that,- "135. As could be seen from the scheme of examination as provided in clause (A), the number of candidates to be admitted to the main examination shall be 20 times the vacancies notified for recruitment in the order of merit, on the basis of the performance in the preliminary examination subject to accommodating the same ratio in adequate number of candidates belonging to the categories of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, each of the Other Backward Classes and Others. The word used is “same ratio”. i.e., the number of candidates to be admitted to the main examination should be in the same ratio means the number of candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and each of the Backward Classes and Others should be equal to that of the candidates who do not belong to the said category. The word used is adequate number of candidates. In other words, the number of candidates belonging to the unreserved category who are admitted to the written examination and number of candidates belonging to the reserved category who should be admitted to the reservation, should be the same. Therefore, two lists have to be prepared, one is the list showing candidates belonging to the unreserved category and the second list showing the reserved category. While preparing these two lists there is no intense merit to be taken note of. These lists are list of candidates eligible to take the written examination and not list of candidates suitable for employment in the order of merit, which is called the First List in the Government Order dated 03.05.1994. Similarly, after the written examination also while calling the said successful candidates to the personality test, the 8 same procedure is to be followed. i.e., prepare 2 lists, one list of unreserved candidates and one list of reserved candidates in order of merit. These two lists are list of candidates eligible to be called for personality test. It is not a list of candidates suitable for employment. It is only after completion of the personality test, the marks secured by each candidate in the written examination and personality test is totaled and a consolidated list of eligible candidates irrespective of their caste, tribe, class is arranged. The said Government Order is to be followed only at the stage of preparation of list of candidates suitable for appointment under Rule 11 as is clear from the wordings of Rule 11. At the time of admitting candidates for written examination and at the time of calling the candidates for personality test, the number of candidates to be admitted to the written examination and called for personality test should be in the same ratio of persons belonging to reserved category and unreserved category. Clauses (A) and (C) specifically refers to the word ‘same ratio’. Therefore, at that stage the question of any meritorious unreserved category candidate being called either for written examination or for the personality test as an unreserved category would not arise. By wrongly applying these Government Orders at this two stages, substantial number of unreserved candidates who are meritorious are denied the opportunity to take the written examination as well as the personality test. The understanding of KPSC that Rules of 1997 do not provide as to the manner in which the ratio of 1:20 and 1:5 has to be carried out is erroneous, in the light of the express provision setting out how the list of candidates to be admitted to the written examination and list of candidates to be called for the personality test. Therefore, the error is apparent. XX XX XX