Jitendra Kumar Singh and Anr. v. State of U.P. (2010)

Introduction  

The Supreme Court in Jitendra Kumar Singh and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors. dealt with challenges arising from the recruitment of Sub-Inspectors in Civil Police and Platoon Commanders in PAC in Uttar Pradesh. The case raised important questions about the interplay of reservation policies, concessions to backward classes, and the rights of general category candidates. It examined the legality of reserved category candidates being selected in the general category after availing concessions, as well as issues concerning women and sports quota vacancies. 

Fact of Case 

• On 4 May 1999, an advertisement was issued for direct recruitment to 1379 posts of Sub-Inspectors and 255 posts of Platoon Commanders. Out of these, 2% were reserved for sportspersons (to be filled by a separate advertisement) and 10% for women candidates. 
• The selection process had multiple stages: (i) preliminary written test (qualifying at 50%), (ii) physical test (qualifying at 50%), (iii) main written test of 600 marks with two papers, and (iv) interview carrying 75 marks. 
• Over 50,000 candidates applied. After successive eliminations, only 1006 candidates were finally selected and sent for training. 
• The petitioners, who had unsuccessfully participated, challenged the selection before the Allahabad High Court. They alleged arbitrariness, “pick and choose” methods, absence of interview guidelines, selection of less meritorious candidates, and leaving over 600 posts vacant despite availability of successful candidates. 
• Single Judges dismissed most petitions but directed re-calculation of vacancies regarding the 2% sports quota. 
• On appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court (2006) framed seven key issues, dealing with reserved category adjustments, women’s reservation, carry forward of vacancies, and sports quota. 
• Dissatisfied parties, including unsuccessful candidates and the State of U.P., appealed before the Supreme Court. 

Issue Raised 

• Whether reserved category candidates who availed fee/age relaxation could still be adjusted against unreserved (general) seats if their marks exceeded the last general candidate. ? 
• Whether such inclusion violated the 50% ceiling on reservation ? 
• Whether reservation of seats for women under government orders was violative of Article 16(2) of Constitution ? 
• Whether unfilled women’s quota vacancies could be carried forward or had to revert to male candidates of the same category? 
• Whether keeping a separate 2% sports quota selection was valid or illegal ? 
• Whether the recruitment suffered from irregularities, favoritism, or bungling in preparation of the merit list ? 
• Whether large numbers of posts were deliberately left vacant for extraneous purpose ? 

Court Observation  

• The Court held that concessions in fee and age are eligibility conditions, not relaxations of selection standards. Once candidates entered the competitive process, all underwent the same tests and interviews without dilution. Thus, reserved category candidates who scored above the last general candidate could validly be adjusted against open seats. This did not amount to breaching the 50% limit since they were selected on merit, not reservation. 
• Reservation for women was held to be constitutionally valid under Articles 15(3) and 16. However, as it is a horizontal reservation, unfilled seats could not be carried forward; instead, they had to be filled by suitable male candidates of the same category. 
• The 2% reservation for sportspersons was also upheld as valid. It was clarified that it must function horizontally, and unfilled vacancies could not be carried forward. They had to be filled from the same selection process on merit. 
• Reaffirming Indra Sawhney, the Court stressed that the 50% ceiling on reservations cannot be breached. Reservations, though an instrument of social justice, must not render the guarantee of equality of opportunity under Article 16(1) meaningless. 
•  The Court found no credible evidence of favoritism or manipulation in the selection. More than 50,000 candidates had participated, and only those clearing successive qualifying stages were considered. Vacancies left unfilled were explained by separate quotas and selection processes. 
• The Court reiterated that Article 16(4) (reservation) is not an exception to Article 16(1) (equality of opportunity) but a means to achieve equality. Thus, both must be harmonized. Group rights of backward classes must be balanced against individual rights of open competition.