- In Jatin Kumar Kishore Kumar Bhatt v. State of Gujarat, the Gujarat High Court held that a meritorious candidate belonging to reserved category should be permitted to merge in the unreserved category because of his own merits.
- Depriving such a candidate from securing a birth in the unreserved category would result in communally dividing a homogeneous class of meritorious candidates.
- In this case, the Recruitment Board issued an advertisement for the post of Sub-Inspector, Class III, inviting applications for 1,382 posts in total. The petitioners took the preliminary exam and aspired to take the main examination.
- According to the Rule 8(f) of the Posts of Sub Inspector, Class III (Combined, Competitive Examination for Direct Recruitment) Rules, 2021, the total number of candidates that were to be called to appear in the main examination were three times the candidates of each category i.e. reserved category and general category to the number of vacancies advertised.
- The contention of the petitioners is that the inclusion of reserved category candidates in the list of general category candidates in the merit list of the preliminary exams is unfair and in violation of Article 14, 15, 16 and 21 of the Indian Constitution.
- The petitioners further contended that a fresh merit list should be prepared for candidates appearing in the main examination by calling upon three times the candidates of each category without including candidates of the reserved category in general category for the purpose of appointment.
- The respondents contended that the term 'general categories' implies a category open to all meritorious candidates, irrespective of the fact that they belong to the reserved categories.
- The respondents threw light on the fact that according to Rule 8(f), when it comes to choosing the number of candidates to be called for the preliminary examinations, and especially when a large number of candidates have appeared, the number which is lower in the present case i.e. only a figure three times the number of vacancies have to be called.
- The respondents further stated that the term 'general category' cannot have two different meanings at two different stages of the examination i.e. one meaning at the time of the preliminary examination and a different meaning at the time of the main examination.
- The Court took note of the contentions raised from both sides and observed that the object of the screening test is to eliminate an unduly large number of candidates and only the selected ones can appear for the main examinations. However, if more candidates are called by declaring the results as conceived by the petitioners, the object of Rule 8(f) would be frustrated.
- Accordingly, the Court held that the respondent State had evolved the concept of merit correctly while considering the policy of reservation in the context of law laid down by the Supreme Court, i.e, the open category is open to all candidates based on their merit regardless of the fact that the candidate belongs to a reserved category.
- Therefore, the Ld. Court dismissed the present petition.
"Loved reading this piece by Megha Nautiyal?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
