Each service has a cut off is a myth

The claim that each service has a cut off is a myth. If the first choice of service of majority candidate is IRS then we would find that IAS cut off will be lower to IRS cut off.

In a multi service examination opting for a service is akin to opting to a preferred college as in Ritesh R Shah case. OBCs were given the option of choosing higher services available in reserved quota to avoid emergence of an anomalous situation . Thus, anomalous situation is avoided at a considerable cost. The cost being that had the OBC list consisted only those who came in relaxed standards , a candidate there would have got IAS. Now he foregoes his IAS in favour of a OBC candidate who came from general to avoid anomalous situation. It is expected that former candidate will be compensated for the sacrifice he is making by foregoing IAS. But the present case on hand did not provide for such eventuality. The situation would have been solved had the ratio of Anurag Patel case has been applied.

. Moreover, if all 734 services were IAS then there would be 76 OBCs in general in adition to 27% OBCs in quota. The very convenience of combining 21 services can not be a basis to undermine the constitutional provisions and the law of the land on reservation. The claim that status whether he claimed relaxation will be known only at the time of service allocation is incorrect to say so. Because relaxed standards apply to examination as per following letter of DoPT, DoP&T OM No. 36011/1/98-Estt. (Res.) dated 01.07.1998, a reference is made to what is relaxed standards. To quote

“….. In other words, when a relaxed standard is applied in selecting an SC/ST/OBC candidates, for example in the age limit, experience qualification, permitted number of chances in written examination……” .

Thus extending the definition of relaxed standards to cover service allocation which is just a methodology will amount to violating their own letter. Service allocation is just a methodology as happened in choosing higher preferred colleges in Ritesh R Shah case, and is only done to obviate the anomalous situation of higher OBCs getting lower services. More over the question of service allocation stands resolved by Anurag Patel case which is just a delineation of Ritesh R Shah case. Here a set of 96 candidates are availing services not in a free environment but these services are tied under OBC quota and thus it is expected that lesser services which are under general would go to OBC quota candidates but not to some other General candidates . The entire issue revolves around settlement of services within OBCs and in this process it should not unduly benefit general candidates. If, hypothetically Merit listed OBCs would get lower services than quota OBCs then it would never arise that 96 general candidates would get selection. A situation which seeks to avoid anomalous situation can not be used discreetly