Union of India v. Ramesh Ram: Notes on oral arguments before the SC Constitution Bench

[Readers are requested to first read the previous posts on the subject, to familiarise themselves with the issues]

Solicitor-General: Both the Tribunal and the Madras High Court have erroneously assumed that the relaxed category is the reserved category. The Civil Service Rule 16[2] is compliant with Article 335. The Rule enables use of transparent criteria in reservations which will not impair efficiency in services. There are two sets of people in reserved category: those with higher marks and those who need relaxation of marks to get into services. If under Article 335, (read Proviso to Art.335) relaxation is implicit, UOI assumes that if you are under relaxed category, then you are not inconsistent with efficiency. People under relaxed category can also perform without affecting efficiency.

In Nagaraj, the Supreme Court has held that efficiency in Art.335 is a guided expression. In Indra Sawhney, the Court held that the nature of relaxation does not determine the purpose of Art.16(4). Madras High Court and Tribunal have held that the moment you are in general list, you are out of the reserved list. According to Nagaraj,(Paragraphs 104 and 106 cited) efficiency is a variable factor and it is for the State to determine it. The High Court did not analyse it with reference to Nagaraj or Article 335. Article 16(4) has many dimensions including Article 335. Rule 16(2) is not violative of Article 16(4) at all.

The matter remained part-heard, and the names of the counsel who have so far argued are available here.

Additional Materials: The Hindu story on August 20.

Union of India v. Ramesh Ram: Brief notes on oral arguments in Supreme Court (August 18)

The case is about the constitutionality of permitting reserved category candidates selected under general (merit) list by virtue of their good performance to migrate to reserved category for the purpose of allocation of services. Those who are aggrieved by this rule include the reserved category candidates selected under the quota, who stand to lose the best service allocation because of the migration, and the general category candidates who lose out because the reserved category candidates were not adjusted in the reserved category at the time of ranking, because of their good performance in the examination.

The following are some extracts from oral arguments advanced by the Solicitor General, Gopal Subramanian:

This is a fight between reserved candidates with higher marks and the reserved candidates with lower marks. The UPSC Rule 16 (2) which favours migration of reserved category candidates from the merit list to the quota for the purpose of service allocation, also favours the meritorious within the general category. Migration is a right available to a reserved category candidate, who may choose to avail it.

Justice Raveendran: If migration is not allowed, reserved category candidates may choose to perform poorly in the competitive examination, so that they do not get selected under the general merit list.

GS: Migration aims to bestow the benefits of reservation, based on higher marks; therefore, it is commendable. It seeks to achieve a nexus between the candidates' performance and what is being offered to them. It is an incentive to the reserved category candidates to work hard and achieve quality. It assures the reserved category candidates that if they perform well, they won't lose the benefits of reservation at the time of service allocation.

Justice Kapadia: Why can't you give more marks within the general category to those reserved category candidates so that they need not migrate.

GS: We are dealing with substantive equality. We seek to achieve the object of reservation by rewarding those who succeeded in making it to the general list through sheer merit.