Kirta Barela vs State of M.P. and Others

N.K. Mody, J.—The prayer in the petition is to quash the guideline (Annexure P/1) issued by respondent No. 2 for appointment of Village Employment Assistant whereby post has been reserved for residents of related Gram Panchayat. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that on 2.6.2012 respondent No. 2 has issued a letter to all the Collectors and Chief Executive of Jila Panchayat for appointment of Village Employment Assistant with a guideline according to which the posts are being reserved for resident of related Gram Panchayat candidate. It is submitted that again on 20.6.2012 letter was issued to all the concerns. It is submitted that as per the policy only local resident of Gram Panchayat are eligible for appointment on the post of Village Employment Assistant. It is submitted that in the year 2010 respondents issued a memorandum for appointment of Village Employment Assistant and under that memorandum there was no condition that the post of Village Employment Assistant shall be filled in from the resident of particular village. It is submitted that the condition imposed is in violation of Article 16 of Constitution of India. Learned Counsel placed reliance on a decision in the matter of Union of India and others Vs. Sanjay Pant and others etc. etc., wherein in a case of employment in Andaman and Nicobar Administration, Hon''ble Apex Court held that recruitment of being a ''local candidate'' is opposed to Article 16(2) of Constitution of India. Moreso, when Administration had made no provision under Article 16(4) of Constitution of India imposing such requirement. Further reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Gayatri Radhesham Pancholi Vs. State of M.P. and others, wherein this Court held that circular dated 4.10.1983 in the matter of appointment of teachers from rural areas by Director of Public Instruction, Bhopal, requirement of local residence in the particular block is violative of Article 16(2). Further reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Dr. Pradeep Jain and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, wherein Hon''ble Apex Court observed that reservation on the basis of residence requirement within the State and institutional preference cannot exceed 70% of open-general seats and wholesale reservation on aforesaid grounds is violative of Article 14. Reliance is also placed on a decision in the matter of Mahender Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2008 (4) SLR 415 wherein criteria of giving 50% reservation in appointment to rural candidates as unconstitutional, Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the public residing in rural area cannot be treated as seaport a special socially and educationally backward class as a whole in the absence of any data collected in compliance with the mandate of Article 335 of the Constitution. It was further observed that ceiling limit of 50% reservation cannot be allowed to be exceeded in the absence of special compelling reasons and circumstances. It was also held that reservation of 50% seats is against the fundamental rights. Lastly reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Brahmchari Madhyamik Vidyalaya Alwar v. Raj. Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal Jaipur, 2005 (8) SLR 483 wherein in a matter of appointment on the post of Primary Teacher where condition in advertisement that applicant should be registered with an employment exchange in Delhi, High Court of Rajasthan held that mere discrepancies of schools on the basis of location does not set them apart from schools of rest of country. It was further held that plea of institutional preference has no nexus with object of recruitment powers. On the strength of aforesaid position of law, learned Counsel submits that the petition be allowed and order Annexure P/1 be quashed.

Learned Counsel for the respondents supports the order Annexure P/1 and submits that the petition filed by the petitioner has no merits as the restriction imposed is a reasonable restriction. It is submitted that the petition be dismissed.

Article 16(3) of Constitution of India reads as under:--

Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment.--(1) There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office tinder the State.

(2) No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them, be ineligible for, or discriminated against in respect of, any employment, or office under the State.

(3) Nothing in this article shall prevent Parliament from making any law prescribing, in regard to a class or classes of employment or appointment under the Government of or any local or other authority within, a State or Union territory, any requirement as to residence within that State or Union territory prior to such employment or appointment.

(4) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State.

[(4-A) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for reservation (in matters of promotion, with consequential seniority, to any class) or classes of posts in the services under the State in favour of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes which in the opinion of the State are not adequately represented in the services under the State.]

[(4-B) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from considering any unfilled vacancies of a year which are reserved for being filled up in that year in accordance with any provision for reservation made under Clause (4) or Clause (4-A) as a separate class of vacancies to be filled up in any succeeding year or years and such class of vacancies shall not be considered together with the vacancies of the year in which they are being filled up for determining the ceiling of fifty percent reservation on total number'' of vacancies of that year.]

(5) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any law which provides that the incumbent of an office in connection with the affairs of any religious or denominational institution or any member of the governing body thereof shall be a person professing a particular religion or belonging to a particular denomination.

In the matter of Upma Singh (Smt.) Vs. The Commissioner, Rewa and Others, in a matter of appointment as Anganwadi worker and the condition was of local residence, this Court held that the condition of local residence cannot be said such a condition cannot be imposed for the purpose to initiate, organize and constitute Anganwadis in a smaller areas. The object of the scheme is to provide educational and social information to the women living in the area as also provided care and look after to the children of the area. It is essential that a local resident of the area is given preference because not only she is known to the women folk but also able to look after the children by giving more time to the work assigned. Thus, if such a condition is mentioned in a particular scheme it cannot be said that any discrimination is done on the basis of residence of a candidate and as such the same is violative of the provisions of the Constitution of India or the equality Clause enshrined in the Constitution of India. This being so, it was necessary to prove that the candidate was, not only age wise, education wise eligible but also was eligible on account other residence in the local area.

In the present case the post for which applications are invited, is Village Employment Assistant. Looking to the nature of job restriction imposed to the effect that candidate should be resident of Gram Pancnayat, appears to be a reasonable restriction. If this condition is not imposed, then not only the very purpose of appointment may frustrate, but also may give rise to favoritism. Keeping in view the law laid down by this Court in the matter of Upma Singh (supra) this Court is of the view that the restriction imposed relating to resident of Gram Pancnayat by the respondent No. 2 in the guideline Annexure P/1 is a reasonable restriction and cannot be quashed. Hence, petition filed by the petitioner has no merits and the same stands dismissed.