Introduction

The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Niravkumar Dilipbhai Makwana v. Gujarat Public Service Commission And Others (2019 INSC 723), addressed a pivotal issue concerning the reservation policies in public service examinations. The appellant, Niravkumar Makwana, contested the Gujarat Public Service Commission's (GPSC) selection process, specifically challenging the legitimacy of age relaxation granted to reserved category candidates and their subsequent eligibility to be considered for general category seats.

The core question revolved around whether candidates belonging to reserved categories, who received age relaxation during the selection process, could later be accommodated or migrated to general category seats. This case holds significant implications for the interpretation and application of reservation policies under Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court granted leave to hear the appeal and ultimately dismissed the appellant's case, upholding the decision of the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court. The High Court had ruled that candidates availing age relaxation due to their reserved category status must be considered under their respective reserved categories and cannot be migrated to general category seats.

The Supreme Court reinforced this stance, affirming that the age relaxation provided to SC/ST and SEBC candidates constitutes an incident of reservation under Article 16(4) of the Constitution. Consequently, such candidates are ineligible to be adjusted against unreserved (general category) vacancies.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively discussed and differentiated it from several precedents:

• Jitendra Kumar Singh v. State Of Uttar Pradesh (2010 SCC 119): This case dealt with reservation policies under the U.P. Public Services Act, 1994. The Supreme Court interpreted Sub-section (6) of Section 3, determining that age relaxation does not bar a reserved category candidate from being considered for general seats if they outperform general category candidates. However, in the present case, the Court distinguished the statutory frameworks, concluding that Jitendra Kumar Singh was not applicable due to differing policies and interpretations.
• Deepa E.V. v. Union of India (2017 SCC 680): The Court held that age relaxation granted to reserved category candidates is an incident of reservation, thereby preventing migration to general seats.
• Gaurav Pradhan v. State of Rajasthan (2018 SCC 352): This judgment supported the notion that age relaxation is an incident of reservation, aligning with the present case's findings.
• Ajithkumar P. v. Remin K.R. (2015 SCC 778) & Vikas Sankhala v. Vikas Kumar Agarwal (2017 SCC 350): These cases were discussed but found inapplicable to the present judgment as they involved different contexts regarding age relaxation and reservation policies.

Legal Reasoning

The Court's reasoning hinged on the interpretation of Article 16(4) of the Constitution, which empowers the State to make provisions for reservation in public appointments for backward classes. The Court examined the Gujarat government's policies and circulars dated 29.01.2000 and 23.07.2004, which clearly stipulated that any relaxation (including age relaxation) granted to reserved category candidates is an incident of reservation. Therefore, such candidates are exclusively considered for their reserved posts and cannot be migrated to general category seats.

The Court emphasized that the GPSc's advertisement explicitly mentioned that candidates availing age relaxation would not be eligible for general category positions. Moreover, the distinction between preliminary and final examination stages made by the appellant was dismissed, as the relaxation applied uniformly across the selection process.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the sanctity of reservation policies and clarifies that benefits availed by reserved category candidates, such as age relaxation, are integral parts of their reservation privileges. It ensures that reserved seats remain protected against migration by beneficiaries, thus maintaining the intended purpose of affirmative action in public employment. Future examinations and selection processes will need to adhere strictly to this interpretation, preventing any ambiguity regarding category-specific reservations.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India: Grants states the authority to make reservations in public services for categories of citizens, such as Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC), to ensure adequate representation.
• Age Relaxation: A policy allowing certain candidates additional years beyond the standard age limit for eligibility, typically granted to reserved categories to enhance their participation.
• Reservation as an Incident: Treating benefits like age relaxation as inherent to the reservation policy, meaning they are part and parcel of the affirmative action measures and cannot be separated or reallocated.
• General Category Seats: Positions in public services that are open to all candidates without any reservation or preference for specific categories.
• Merit List: A ranking of candidates based on their performance in examinations and interviews, used to determine eligibility for selection into various posts.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision in Niravkumar Dilipbhai Makwana v. Gujarat Public Service Commission serves as a definitive affirmation of reservation policies, particularly regarding the non-migratory nature of benefits like age relaxation for reserved category candidates. By upholding the Gujarat High Court's judgment, the apex court has clarified that such relaxations are integral to the reservation framework and cannot be decoupled to favor general category recruitment. This landmark judgment ensures the integrity and intent of affirmative action measures remain intact, safeguarding the representation of backward classes in public services.