In the present case, reserved category candidates had applied for post of Telecom Technical Assistants (TTAs). The appointment was to be made by way of direct recruitment, by open competitive examination in the Rajasthan Telecom Circle.
In the exam that was conducted, no person from general category candidate got more than 40 per cent marks. However, four candidates from the OBC category got more than 33 per cent marks.
Since the results were poor, BSNL decided to relax the qualifying marks by 10 per cent for all candidates. The same was refixed at 30 per cent for the general category and 23 per cent for reserved categories.
Two candidates, Alok Kumar Yadav and Alka Saini, who were found to be more meritorious than the general category candidates were found eligible to be appointed against the reserved category of the Other Backward Classes (OBC).
Another applicant (respondent before the Supreme Court) aggrieved by the appointment as he was in first place in the waiting list in the OBC category, approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).
The CAT had directed BSNL to consider the candidature of the original applicant if sufficient vacancies exist for placement of OBC candidates.
BSNL moved the High Court in appeal, which ruled that the telecommunication company should have given appointment to the other two OBC students against the vacancies in general category. The Division Bench reasoned that the two secured higher score than the general category candidates who were appointed.
BSNL then moved the Supreme Court.
The question before the Court was whether reserved category candidates who secured more marks than the general category candidates will have to be first adjusted in the general category pool and considered for appointment in the general category pool or whether they should be considered against the vacancies meant for reserved category candidates?
The Court noted that in Saurav Yadav’s case, it was held that candidates belonging to any of the vertical reservation categories are entitled to be selected in “open or general” category and it was also further observed 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 that they belong.
Similarly, in Sadhana Singh Dangi v. Pinki Asati, it was observed and held that even while applying horizontal reservation, merit must be given precedence and if the candidates, who belong to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or OBC have secured higher marks or are more meritorious, they must be considered against the seats meant for unreserved candidates.
Thus, in the present case, the Court held the appointments of the two OBC candidates could not have been considered against the seats meant for the reserved category but they should be appointed to the general category.
The Court, therefore, upheld the High Court ruling and dismissed the appeals.
However, it order to ensure that its judgment does not unsettle the appointment process, the Court in the instant case directed that the two candidates already appointed and belonging to general category shall not be removed.
Source: Barandbench
