Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the reservation policy implemented by the State of Bihar for the post of Deputy Director (Homeopathic) in the Directorate of Indigenous Medicines. The State Government had created a separate Directorate and sanctioned posts, including that of Deputy Director (Homeopathic), which was reserved for a scheduled caste candidate based on a 50 point roster system. The appellant, Dr. Chakradhar Paswan, was selected for the post, but his appointment was challenged by respondent No. 4 in the High Court, which quashed the advertisement and the appointment order, ruling that the posts of Director and Deputy Directors could not be grouped for reservation purposes. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, stating that the posts of Director and Deputy Directors constituted different cadres and that the reservation of the Deputy Director (Homeopathic) post was impermissible as it amounted to 100% reservation, violating Article 16(1) and 16(4) of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that if there is only one post in a cadre, it cannot be reserved, and the principles of the 50 point roster must be adhered to, ensuring that the first vacancy is treated as unreserved. The Court also noted that grouping isolated posts for reservation purposes is not permissible, reinforcing the need for equal opportunity in public employment. The decision highlighted the importance of maintaining a balance between the interests of backward classes and the principle of equality in public service. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the High Court's ruling. (Paras 137-144).
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Reservation in Public Employment - Excessive Reservation - Reservation of 100% for a single post is impermissible under Article 16(4) - The Court held that the reservation of the only post of Deputy Director (Homeopathic) for a scheduled caste candidate amounted to 100% reservation, which is excessive and violates the guarantee of equal opportunity under Article 16(1) of the Constitution. (Paras 137-138).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the reservation of the post of Deputy Director (Homeopathic) for a scheduled caste candidate amounted to excessive reservation and violated the principles of equal opportunity under Article 16.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's ruling that the reservation of the post of Deputy Director (Homeopathic) for a scheduled caste candidate was impermissible as it amounted to 100% reservation, violating Articles 16(1) and 16(4) of the Constitution.
Law Points
- Reservation in public employment
- Article 16(1)
- Article 16(4)
- Equal opportunity
- Excessive reservation
- Isolated posts
- 50 point roster
