June 7, 2004
By: Razik Yadav
Dear Sir,
I would like to draw your
attention to a problem which the authorities have successfully hidden from the
public since 1998.
Circumstances
leading to the adoption of a Supplementary list for general category
candidates for the first time since independence in the civil services
examination conducted by the UPSC
In the service allocation of the civil services exam-2001 a total of 18
candidates belonging to SC,ST &OBC were not given appointment on the
pretext of ‘WANT OF VACANCY’. On enquiry it was found that there were sufficient
‘VACANT OPEN MERIT VACANCIES’ but no ‘RESERVED VACANCIES’. The existence of
‘VACANT OPEN MERIT VACANCIES’ when as much as 18 candidates belonging to SC,ST
&OBC were not given appointment on the plea of Non-Availibility of
vacancies raised several questions .
Sensing that this will attract public attention the ministry of
personnel and training quickly plunged in to action. They amended Civil
Services Examination Rules –2001 and the most unusual practice of maintaining a
supplementary list for general category candidates came in to practice for the
first time since independence. This was a logical sequel to the
O.M.NO.36001/1/98(SCT) dated1/7/1998 which states that SC,ST,OBC Candidates who
availed ‘RELAXED STANDARDS’ with regard to age , No. of chances ,etc., cannot
be considered for appointment in the ‘VACANT OPEN MERIT VACANCIES’. And hence
this new supplementary list for general category candidates was to fill
the ‘VACANT OPEN MERIT VACANCIES’.
All these efforts by
the authorities were on the ‘WRONG ASSUMPTION’ that RELAXED STANDARDS and
RESERVATION are one and the same.
O.M.NO.36001/1/98(SCT) dated1/7/1998
which prevents SC,ST,OBC Candidates who availed ‘RELAXED STANDARDS from getting
appointment in the ‘VACANT OPEN MERIT VACANCIES’ is against the Supreme Court
judgement of R.K.Sabharwal(AIR 1995 SC.(1371), the Supreme Court judgement with
regard to the famous MANDAL CASE. It is also self contradictory and
inconsistent and is also against human logic and reasoning. The following will
elaborate on this-
1.The
Supreme Court judgement of R.K.Sabharwal(AIR 1995 SC.(1371) states that
Candidates belonging to SC,ST &OBCs can be appointed in ‘OPEN MERIT
VACANCIES’.It should be noted that the Hon’ble court has not made any
distinction between OBC candidates who have ‘AVAILED RELAXED STANDARDS’ and
those who have ‘NOT AVAILED RELAXED STANDARDS’. This artificial division of
OBCs in to two classes by the ministry through its O.M is arbitrary and
unscientific and is not supported by the decisions of the Hon’ble supreme court
of India.
2.
The Supreme Court judgement with regard to the famous ‘MANDAL CASE’ has clearly
stated that ‘RELAXED STANDARDS & ‘RESERVATION PROPER’ are two different
concepts. This is evident from the fact that ‘EX-SERVICEMEN’, WOMEN
CANDIDATES ,etc., though ‘AVAIL RELAXED STANDARDS’ , are appointed in ‘OPEN
MERIT VACANCIES’. It is discriminatory to disqualify SC,ST &OBCs from
getting appointment in the ‘OPEN MERIT VACANCIES’ on the basis that they have
availed ‘RELAXED STANDARDS’ when there are no such obstacles in appointing
‘EX-SERVICEMEN’,WOMEN CANDIDATES ,etc., in the ‘OPEN MERIT VACANCIES’.
This discriminatory treatment is against
the ‘RIGHT TO EQUALITY’ enshrined in our constitution.
3.The
O.M is also also self contradictory and inconsistent. This can be proved with
an example. If suppose an OBC candidate who has ‘AVAILED RELAXED STANDARD’ with
regard to age or number of chances happens to become the ‘FIRST RANK HOLDER’ in
the civil services examination then he will quiet naturally be appointed in the
‘OPEN MERIT VACANCY’ and in that case O.M of the ministry stands automatically
nullified. Whereas this rule is at present being successfully used against
candidates who qualify civil services examination with a lower rank. What is
the use of such a rule which changes according to circumstances and which
serves no other purpose other than harassing poor reservation community
candidates who gets lower ranks?
4.
The argument of the ministry that if OBC,SC,ST candidates who have
‘AVAILED RELAXED STANDARD’ is appointed in ‘OPEN MERIT VACANCIES’ then it will
lead to ‘OVER RESERVATION’ is a baseless argument . The Supreme Court
judgement of R.K.Sabharwal(AIR 1995 SC.(1371) itself has cleared this doubt.
The judgement says that “Reserve category candidates can compete for the
non-reserve posts and in the event of their appointment to the said post their
number cannot be added and taken into consideration for working out the
percentage of reservation”. This means that if the OBC,SC,ST candidates gets appointment
in the‘OPEN MERIT VACANCIES’ then they are considered as ‘GENERAL CATEGORY’
candidates and are not counted among OBC,SC,ST .But the ministry seems to
misread this by introducing the ‘RELAXED STANDARD’ argument and thus trying to
establish that once an OBC,SC or an ST avails ‘RELAXED STANDARD’ he is always
an OBC,SC or an ST.
***************