Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGERTELECOM KERALA CIRCLETRIVENDRUM & A
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
G. RENUKA & ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/12/1996
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted. We have heard counsel on both sides.
This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the
Central Admn. Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench made on March 8,
1996 in O.A.No. 157/96.
The admitted position is that for the recruitment of
Junior Telecom Officers 15% of the posts have been reserved
in the matter of recruitment by promotion. Out of 54 posts
that were available under that quota, 43 posts were reserved
for general candidates, 9 posts for Scheduled Castes and 4
posts for Scheduled Tribes. The result of the said
competitive examinations conducted for promotion, was
declared on February 3, 1995. Some of the candidates
belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes did
not reach the requisite standard in securing the marks for
promotion. Therefore, they were not qualified for
appointment by promotion. Subsequently, a Review Committee
was constituted which had gone into the merits of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates and their
selection was made by proceedings dated June 23, 1995 and
appointments were made. The respondents have challenged
their promotion on the ground that the Government is devoid
of such power. Accepting their contention the Tribunal has
held that the Government could carry forward the vacant
posts for future recruitment, but could not review the
selection and make the appointments. The question is whether
the view taken by the Tribunal is correct in law?
Shir Goswamy, learned senior counsel for the appellant,
in support of the contention that the view of the Tribunal
is not correct placed reliance upon the instructions of the
Government as to the procedure of filling up of reserved
vacancies in promotion contained in Circular No. DGP & T No.
26/27/81 (SAN-1), dated 4.5.81. Paragraph 11.1 reads as
under :
"In Examinations where the required
number of Scheduled
Castes/Scheduled Tribes candidates,
have not acquired the general
qualifying standards, the case of
failed Scheduled Castes/Scheduled
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
Tribes candidates should be
reviewed on the basis of
confidential report the overall
performance in the examination etc.
by a committee of senior officers,
so as to assess their
suitability/unsuitability."
A reading of it would indicate that in examinations
where the required number of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled
Tribes candidates have not acquired the general qualifying
standards, their cases should be reviewed on the basis of
confidential report, the overall performance in the
examination etc. by a committee of senior officers so as to
assess their suitability/unsuitability. In this case the
committee of three senior officers of the Department came to
be appointed. It had considered their suitability by
considering previous records and performance in the
examination and given them relaxation of marks and awarded
grace marks. On that basis, they became qualified. This was
done on consideration of their overall confidential reports
and their performance in the examination. Under these
circumstances, the Government was within their power to
review the selection and declare the candidates belonging to
Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes as eligible for promotion.
Consequently, they came to be appointed. The necessity to
carry forward the vacancies would arise only in cases where
the Review Committee considers and finds them not qualified
for three recruitment years. There is no doubt that the
respondents, as general candidates secured higher percentage
of marks over candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes. But that is not the correct way to
consider the cases of reserved categories. Under these
circumstances, it was not necessary for the Government to
carry forward the unfilled vacancies and fill up the vacant
posts with the general candidates.
The appeal is accordingly allowed, but in the
circumstances, without costs..