Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1
PETITIONER:
THE FLAG OFFICER COMMANDING - IN CHIEF & ANR.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
MRS. M.A. RAJANI & ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17/03/1997
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both
sides.
This appeal arises from the order of the C.A.T.
Trivendrum Bench, made on 8.3.1996 in O.A. No. 1399/95.
The only controversy is whether the respondent is
entitled to appointment by direct recruitment to a reserve
vacancy? Admittedly, Rule 1 () of the Ministry of Defence
Recruitment of Stenographer, (Grade III) Rules postulates
appointment by promotion; failing that, by transfer; and
failing both, by direct recruitment. In this case, the
sources of appointment, viz, by promotion and transfer, were
exhausted. Consequently, the appellants resorted to direct
recruitment and the respondent was called through the
Employment Exchange for selection. Though she was selected,
she was not given appointment on the specious ground that by
proceedings under Ex. A3 the post was dereserved and that,
therefore, she was not eligible for appointment. The
Tribunal has not agreed with the contention of the
appellants and directed them to appoint the respondent in
accordance with Rules thus this appeal, by special leave.
It is seen that Rule 1(a) postulates three sources for
recruitment - first by promotion, second by transfer and on
failing both of these methods, by direct recruitment,
Admittedly, the post was reserved for Scheduled Castes.
Accordingly, the respondent was called for selection. When
the candidate was available, resort to dereservatiion is
clearly illegal and, therefore, the Tribunal was right in
giving the direction to appoint the respondent who was duly
selected by the Committee.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed No costs.