- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Union Of India & Ors. v. Kamal Kishore & Ors., Etc. S
Factual and Procedural Background
An advertisement dated 24 July 2010 invited applications from residents of Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand for 78 posts of Constable (G.D.) in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), of which nine were reserved for the Other Backward Classes (OBC) category and thirteen were backlog OBC vacancies. The Respondents—belonging to Saini, Momin (Ansar), Gujjar and Kahar communities—qualified the written examination and medical test but were shifted from the OBC to the general category on the ground that their castes did not appear in “Swamy's Compilation on Reservations and Concessions” for Uttarakhand. They were consequently denied appointment because their marks were insufficient for selection in the general category.
The Respondents filed writ petitions before the High Court of Uttarakhand seeking Mandamus for appointment against the OBC quota. A learned Single Judge allowed the petitions on 11 October 2011, relying on Deepak Kumar v. Gurukul Kangri University, and the Union of India’s intra-court appeals were dismissed by a Division Bench. The Union of India then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether candidates whose castes appear in the Central OBC List for Uttar Pradesh are entitled to be treated as OBCs for recruitment to Union services in Uttarakhand pending finalisation of a separate Central OBC List for Uttarakhand.
- Whether reliance on a private publication (“Swamy's Compilation on Reservations and Concessions”) could validly override official notifications and deprive eligible candidates of reservation benefits.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants (Union of India)
- Relied on a proceeding dated 12 March 2007 to argue that, as of the 2010 recruitment, only one caste was included in the Central OBC List for Uttarakhand; therefore the Respondents’ castes were not eligible for OBC reservation.
- Contended that the Central OBC List for Uttarakhand was expanded only in 2011, after the recruitment process, rendering the Respondents ineligible for the reserved posts advertised in 2010.
Respondents
- Asserted that their castes were included in the Central OBC List for Uttar Pradesh and, pursuant to communications from the National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC), this list applied to Union recruitment in Uttarakhand until a separate list was finalised.
- Challenged the use of a private publication to negate their statutory reservation rights.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (2000) 1 SCC 168 | Upheld 27% reservation for OBCs and mandated preparation of Central Lists of OBCs on a State-wise basis. | Provided the constitutional backdrop for Central OBC reservation and justified the creation and application of State-wise Central OBC Lists. |
| Deepak Kumar v. Gurukul Kangri University, Haridwar, CWP No. 1768 of 2011 (Uttarakhand HC) | Recognised NCBC’s clarification that, until a separate list is finalised, the Central OBC List for Uttar Pradesh applies to Union recruitment in Uttarakhand. | Relied on by the High Court and implicitly endorsed by the Supreme Court to conclude that the Respondents were entitled to OBC status. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court traced the genesis of Central OBC Lists to the decision in Indra Sawhney and noted that an expert committee had prepared separate lists for each State. Because Uttarakhand was carved out of Uttar Pradesh in 2000, its independent Central OBC List was still “under process” when the 2010 recruitment occurred.
The National Commission for Backward Classes had, by letter dated 28 July 2011, clarified that the Central OBC List for Uttar Pradesh would govern Union recruitment in Uttarakhand until a dedicated list was notified. In a counter-affidavit before the Supreme Court, the NCBC reaffirmed this position and stated that a comprehensive Central List for Uttarakhand (84 castes) was eventually notified on 8 December 2011.
The Court rejected the Union’s reliance on the 12 March 2007 proceeding as misconceived, observing that it merely recorded proposed inclusion of a single caste and did not demonstrate that only one OBC existed in Uttarakhand. The Court further criticised the administrative practice of consulting “Swamy's Compilation” instead of authoritative Government notifications, terming it a groundless basis for denying citizens their reservation rights.
Given that the Respondents’ castes were undeniably part of the Central OBC List for Uttar Pradesh—and that this list extended to Union recruitment in Uttarakhand in 2010—the Court concluded that the Respondents were wrongfully excluded from consideration under the OBC quota.
Holding and Implications
Appeals Dismissed; High Court judgment affirmed. The Supreme Court directed the Union of India and CRPF to consider the Respondents for appointment as Constable (G.D.) against the OBC vacancies advertised on 24 July 2010, waiving any age bar and subject only to medical fitness.
Implications: The ruling reinforces that official Central OBC Lists—and NCBC communications—prevail over private compilations when determining reservation eligibility. It underscores administrative responsibility to consult authoritative sources, and while it does not lay down a new legal principle, it provides clear guidance on inter-state applicability of Central OBC Lists during transitional periods.
L. Nageswara Rao, J.:— Leave granted.
2. The writ petitions filed by the Respondents seeking appointment to the post of Constable G.D in Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) in the category of Other Backward Classes (OBCs) were allowed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital. The Appeals filed by the Union of India were dismissed by a Division Bench. The Appellants have approached this Court challenging the correctness of the said judgment of the High Court.
3. An advertisement was issued on 24 July, 2010 duly published in daily newspaper Uttar Ujala inviting applications for appointment to the post of Constable G.D in the CRPF from Indian citizens residing in the States of Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand. 78 vacancies were notified out of which nine were reserved for OBCs. 13 backlog vacancies of OBCs were also included in the notification. The Respondents who belong to Saini, Momin (Ansar), Gujjar and Kahar communities applied for being considered for appointment to the posts reserved for OBCs. They qualified in the written examination and appeared before a medical board for medical examination. Their names were not included in the final list that was prepared for appointment. On enquiry, they found that their names were shifted to the general category from the OBC category on the ground that the castes to which they belong did not find place in the OBCs List for the Central Government services for Uttarakhand State as per “Swamy's Compilation on Reservations and Concessions” book. They could not be appointed on the basis of the marks they obtained in the general category.
4. The Respondents filed Writ Petitions in the High Court of Uttarakhand seeking issuance of Mandamus for commanding the Appellants to appoint them to the post of Constable G.D in CRPF against the post reserved for OBC candidates of Uttarakhand. The Appellants filed a counter affidavit in the High Court in which it was stated that the Respondents were not entitled to be considered for appointment in the posts reserved for OBCs as the castes to which they belong were not included in the List of OBCs for Central Government services, Uttarakhand State as per “Swamy's Compilation on Reservations and Concessions” book. The learned Single Judge of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital allowed the Writ Petitions vide judgment dated 11 October, 2011 by relying upon a judgment of the High Court in Deepak Kumar v. Gurukul Kangri University, Haridwar CWP No. 1768 of 2011. It was also held that there is no dispute about the fact that the castes to which the Respondents belong are OBCs in the State of Uttarakhand. The Appellants could not succeed in convincing the Division Bench of the High Court that the judgment of the learned Single Judge warranted interference.
5. Pursuant to the judgment of this Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (2000) 1 SCC 168, the Government of India decided to implement reservation of 27% in civil posts and services in favour of OBCs. On the recommendations made by an Expert Committee, a Central List of OBCs was prepared for each State. The Central List of OBCs prepared for the State of Uttar Pradesh included the castes of the Respondents. The State of Uttarakhand was created in the year 2000. In the judgment of Deepak Kumar (supra) relied upon by the learned Single Judge in this case, a reference was made to a letter dated 28 July, 2011 issued by the National Commission for Backward Classes. It was stated in the said letter that the Central List for OBCs for the State of Uttarakhand was under process and that till it was finalized, the List for Uttar Pradesh will be applicable for appointment to Central posts in the State of Uttarakhand. The National Commission for Backward Classes has filed a counter affidavit in these Appeals supporting the Respondents. The Commission stated in the affidavit that the List of OBCs for the State of Uttar Pradesh will enure to the benefit of those residing in Uttarakhand for appointment to services under the Union of India till the Central List of OBCs for Uttarakhand is finalized. It was further stated that by a Resolution dated 8 December, 2011, the Central Government notified the Central List of OBCs for the State of Uttarakhand which consisted of 84 castes.
6. Ms. Indu Malhotra, learned senior counsel appearing for the Union of India relied upon a proceeding dated 12 March, 2007 which was filed along with the rejoinder to contend that there was only one caste included in the Central List for the State of Uttarakhand. She submitted that all the other OBCs were included in the Central List only in 2011 and as the selections in the present case were conducted in 2010, the Respondents whose castes were not in the list of OBCs cannot be considered in the posts reserved for OBCs. We are not in agreement with the said submission as a perusal of the proceeding dated 12 March, 2007 would show that it pertains to inclusion/amendments in the Central List of OBCs in respect of various States. There is no doubt that one caste Rai-Sikh (Mahatam) was shown in the proposed Entry at serial No. 1. It means that the caste was included by the proceeding as an OBC. It does not mean that there was only one caste falling within the category of OBCs in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The position as it existed pertaining to reservation to OBC posts in Uttarakhand is explained by the National Commission for Backward Classes. It is clear from the affidavit filed by the National Commission for Backward Classes that a decision was taken in 2010 to apply the Central List prepared for the State of Uttar Pradesh to the State of Uttarakhand till the List of OBCs for Uttarakhand was finalized. The List was finalized in 2011. There cannot be any doubt that the Respondents belong to the castes which were included in the Central List of OBCs for the State of Uttar Pradesh and were entitled to be considered for the posts reserved for OBCs in the advertisement that was issued on 24 July, 2010. There was some confusion about the applicability of the Lists of the OBCs prepared by the States of Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand for implementing reservation in the State's civil posts. Those Lists have no relevance for appointment to services under the Union of India.
7. Before concluding, it is necessary to mention that the Respondents were deprived of their consideration to the posts reserved for OBCs only on the ground that the castes to which they belong did not find a place in “Swamy's Compilation on Reservations and Concessions” book. This practice of relying upon private books for the purpose of defeating the rights of citizens is deprecated. The Union of India ought to have referred to the Resolutions of the National Commission for Backward Classes and the Central List that were prepared by the Government of India from the official publications. For no fault of theirs, the Respondents were not considered for appointment as Constables G.D in CRPF in the year 2010.
8. We uphold the judgment of the High Court and direct the Appellants to consider the Respondents for appointment as Constables G.D, CRPF in the posts reserved for OBCs in the advertisement dated 24 July, 2010. The Appellants are directed not to deny the appointment to the Respondents on the ground that they are now over-aged provided they fulfil the condition of fitness.
9. For the aforementioned reasons, the Appeals are dismissed.
Alert