Supreme Court Upholds Reserved Category Candidates’ Right to General Category Seats in BSNL Recruitment
The case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) & Anr. vs. Sandeep Choudhary & Ors. revolved around the reservation policy in public sector recruitment and the rights of reserved category candidates to be considered in the general category if they secured higher marks than the general category cut-off. The Supreme Court’s judgment clarifies the principle that reserved category candidates securing more marks than the general category cut-off must be accommodated in the general category pool, ensuring a fair and merit-based selection process.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose when BSNL issued a notification on October 6, 2008, for the recruitment of Telecom Technical Assistants (TTAs) in the Rajasthan Telecom Circle. The advertisement mentioned that recruitment would be conducted through an open competitive examination, and selection would be based on merit. The vacancies for the Ajmer SSA (Secondary Switching Area) were distributed as follows:
| Category | Vacancies |
|---|---|
| General (UR) | 5 |
| OBC | 4 |
| SC | 2 |
| ST | 1 |
| PH | 0 |
| Ex-Servicemen | 1 |
The minimum qualifying marks were set as:
- 40% for general category candidates
- 33% for reserved category candidates
During the examination process, it was found that no general category candidate secured more than 40%, but four OBC candidates scored more than 33%. Their scores were:
| Name | Marks (out of 200) | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Alok Kumar Yadav | 79.75 | 39.87% |
| Dinesh Kumar | 77 | 38.5% |
| Alka Saini | 72.5 | 36.25% |
| Ved Prakash | 68.5 | 34.25% |
The respondent, Sandeep Choudhary, who scored 68.25%, was placed on the waiting list for the OBC category.
Key Developments in the Case
On June 1, 2009, BSNL issued a circular lowering the qualifying marks by 10% due to a shortage of qualified candidates. The new qualifying marks were:
- 30% for general category candidates
- 23% for reserved category candidates
As a result, five general category candidates became eligible. However, two OBC candidates—Alok Kumar Yadav and Dinesh Kumar—who had already scored more than the general category cut-off, should have been considered in the general category. Instead, BSNL continued treating them as reserved category candidates, thereby reducing the available OBC vacancies.
This led the respondent, Sandeep Choudhary, to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Jodhpur, arguing that he should have been selected under the OBC category after these two candidates were moved to the general category.
Arguments by the Petitioners (BSNL)
BSNL defended its recruitment process, arguing:
“The selection process was conducted as per the recruitment rules, and the OBC candidates who secured higher marks were still considered within their category to ensure compliance with reservation policies.”
They further contended that:
- Reassigning OBC candidates to the general category would require reshuffling the merit list and expelling two already selected general category candidates.
- The government’s policy allowed reserved category candidates to opt for reserved seats even if they scored higher than the general category cut-off.
- Changing the merit list after appointments had already been made would disrupt the selection process.
Arguments by the Respondents
The respondents, led by Sandeep Choudhary, contended:
“The principle of merit must be followed. Reserved category candidates who score higher than the general cut-off must be adjusted in the general category, freeing up reserved seats for other eligible candidates.”
They argued that:
- The recruitment violated the Supreme Court’s ruling in Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India, which mandates that reserved category candidates who qualify on merit should be placed in the general category.
- The selection process was discriminatory as it prevented rightful OBC candidates from being selected.
- Adjusting OBC candidates in the general category was the proper way to ensure fair representation.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, ruled in favor of the respondents and emphasized the following:
“Reserved category candidates who score higher than the general category cut-off must be placed in the general category. The failure to do so violated the principles of merit and equal opportunity.”
The Court cited precedents such as:
- Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India (1992): Clarified the distinction between vertical and horizontal reservations.
- R.K. Sabharwal vs. State of Punjab (1995): Established that reservation must not exceed the prescribed percentage.
- Rajesh Kumar Daria vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission (2007): Stated that merit-based selection must take precedence.
Final Ruling
The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision and ruled:
- The two OBC candidates, Alok Kumar Yadav and Dinesh Kumar, must be counted under the general category.
- The reserved category seats must be reallocated accordingly.
- Sandeep Choudhary must be appointed in the OBC category.
- However, already appointed general category candidates shall not be removed to avoid disruption.
Conclusion
This ruling reaffirms the fundamental principles of merit-based selection while ensuring proper implementation of reservation policies. It prevents reserved category candidates from occupying reserved seats if they qualify on merit for general category positions, thereby ensuring fairness for all applicants.
Petitioner Name: Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Anr..Respondent Name: Sandeep Choudhary & Ors..Judgment By: Justice M.R. Shah, Justice B.V. Nagarathna.Place Of Incident: Rajasthan.Judgment Date: 28-04-2022.
Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!
Download Judgment: bharat-sanchar-nigam-vs-sandeep-choudhary-&-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-28-04-2022.pdf
Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment
See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Recruitment Policies
See all petitions in Judgment by Mukeshkumar Rasikbhai Shah
See all petitions in Judgment by B.V. Nagarathna
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments April 2022
See all petitions in 2022 judgments
See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
