Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 10589-10590 of 1996
PETITIONER:
K. AMEER KHAN & ANR.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
A. GANGADHARAN & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24/08/2001
BENCH:
S. Rajendra Babu & Brijesh Kumar
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
RAJENDRA BABU, J. :
These appeals arise out of an order made by the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench [hereinafter referred to as the
Administrative Tribunal] in which the selection against 30% quota for
the post of Assistant Controller of Stores in the Stores Department of the
Southern Railway through limited Departmental Competitive
Examination held in June 1994 was challenged on the ground that no
reservation for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe had been made as
required. The Railway Board had instructed by its letter sent on
16.6.1992 that while computing the reserved quota such of the
employees belonging to the said class already in the grade had to be
taken and if it was more than the prescribed percentage, no reservation
shall be provided and if such quota was less, reservation must be
provided. A clarification was subsequently issued on 29.7.1993 to the
effect that Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates who have been
promoted on their own merit and seniority should not be counted as
reserved candidates and this has been the declaration of law made by
this Court in R.K. Sabharwal & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Ors.,
1995 (2) SCC 745, and Union of India & Ors. vs. Virpal Singh
Chauhan & Ors., 1995 (6) SCC 684. However, in the selections made
by the second respondent the requisite number of posts had not been
reserved for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates. Out of 7
posts at least 2 posts should have been reserved for them which was
available against 30% quota. Therefore, the Administrative Tribunal gave
certain directions to off-set the imbalance caused by the wrong
application of the instructions issued by the Railway Board. Thus the
view stated by the Administrative Tribunal appears us to be correct and
calls for no interference.
However, in the application of the decision certain factors will have
to be taken note of in the present case. The appellants have been
selected quite sometime back and the first appellant has been promoted
to a higher grade. The appellants were not responsible for the wrong
computation of vacancies done by the second respondent. After the
empanelment and appointment of the appellants, it is brought to our
notice that there have been fresh promotions to the post of Assistant
Controller of Stores at least on two occasions in June, 1995 and May,
1997. In a new selection 5 Scheduled Caste candidates and 4 Scheduled
Tribe candidates have been selected. The appellants could not participate
in the same as they had already been promoted to the higher grade.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
Now, when the appellants have been working in the higher grade from
1994 onwards, it would not be equitable to disturb their promotions.
However, the second respondent will have to enlarge the panel in order
to accommodate two more candidates belonging to Scheduled
Caste/Scheduled Tribe in the next recruitment that may take place and
appropriate seniority be given to suitable candidates whether already
promoted or now to be promoted with effect from 17.8.1994 when the
first appellant was promoted as Assistant Controller of Stores. In such
an event equity would stand balanced.
Therefore, while upholding the order made by the Administrative
Tribunal which is consistent with the view taken by this Court in several
decisions, including R.K. Sabharwal & Ors. vs. State of Punjab &
Ors. (supra) and Union of India & Ors. vs. Virpal Singh Chauhan &
Ors. (supra), we direct as stated above.
The appeals stand disposed of accordingly. However, in the
circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
......J.
[ S. RAJENDRA BABU ]
..J.
[ BRIJESH KUMAR ]
AUGUST 24, 2001.