Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has asked the courts to be cautious and slow in dealing with recruitment process adopted by the recruitment agency as a lot of thought process goes into applying the rules and regulations. 

"Merely because a recruitment agency is not in a position to satisfy the Court, a relief cannot be extended to a candidate deprived as it will have a cascading effect not only on the said recruitment on the candidate, but also to numerous others as well," a bench of Justices A S Bopanna and M M Sundresh said.

The apex court allowed an appeal filed by the Telangana Residential Educational Institutions Recruitment Board against the High Court's division as well as single judge bench orders for changing the reservation ratio in recruitment of junior lecturers.

The bench said, "Courts are duty bound to take into consideration the relevant orders, rules and enactments before finally deciding the case."

In the case at hand, the court noted the High Court fell into an error in not only adopting a wrong ratio but also fixing 70% first. 

On a reading of the notification, it is amply clear that a candidate is not non-suited from being considered in another zone subject to the only condition that it should form part of the option that she has exercised, the bench pointed out.

According to the amendment to instructions, 30% of the posts are to be filled up first on the basis of merit by both locals and non-locals constituting the first part, and the remaining 70% is to be filled up with local reservation, subject to Rule of Reservation as per the Roster Point.

Rule 22 of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 mandated that appointments shall be made in the order of rotation on the basis of a 100 Point Roster. The category of Scheduled Castes (Women) comes under Roster Point No.2.

The appellant being the recruitment agency issued a notification in 2018 inviting applications from eligible candidates for the recruitment to the post of junior lecturers in Residential Educational Institutions Societies. 

As per the rules, the candidates were duty bound to exercise their options and the allotment would accordingly be made as per their rank in the merit list, based upon zonal preference. In other words, no candidate will be considered to any other zone not opted for and therefore such consideration is confined among the ones preferred. For the sake of clarity, if a candidate could not get allotment in their first preferred zone for want of merit in the zone that they belong to, they shall be considered in the second preferred option, the bench noted.

Respondent nos 1 and 2 belonged to Roster Point No 2 (Scheduled Caste Women). Respondent no 1, being a local, sought her first preference for Zone VI, while it was the second choice for respondent no 2, after Zone V. Respondent no 2 on merit obtained 35th rank while Respondent no 1 stood at 49th rank. 

The appellant contended there were actually seven posts out of which five were earmarked for local reservation. Out of the remaining two vacancies, one was to be filled up by Scheduled Caste Women. 

It said the Respondent no 1 being ranked below respondent no 2 was not considered. In any case, there is absolutely no bar for a candidate to be considered in a different zone, provided that such option is duly exercised.

The respondent no 1, however, submitted that no fair procedure was adopted in the process, so the High Court has rightly considered the ratio and granted the relief. 

The court, however, said the amendment to the instructions does not leave any room for doubt. 30% of the posts meant for both locals and non-locals have to be mandatorily filled up first before going for the remaining 70%. 

Similarly, the Government clarified in 2007 that all the departments are duty bound to complete recruitment process by adopting the 30:70 ratio which read, “All the Departments are hereby direct to maintain 70% of reservation in direct Recruitment to Locals in respect of posts Gazetted after 1975, after the implementation of the provision of Presidential Order, as per the list appended, so as to protect the interests of locals”, the bench noted.

In the case on hand, the bench said, "We have no iota of doubt that the appellant has correctly followed the mandate of law" while restoring the recruitment made in favour of Respondent no 2.