1997 JTR(SC) 506
1997 AIR(SC) 2099 ; 1997 AIR(SCW) 1931 ; 1997 1 CLR 854 ; 1997 2 FLR 508 ; 1997 4 JT 212 ; 1997 LIC 2085 ; 1997 4 LLN 84 ; 1997 3 RSJ 171 ; 1997 3 Scale 339 ; 1997 4 SCC 276 ; 1997 SCC(L&S) 938 ; 1997 2 SCR 1155 ; 1997 2 SCT 612 ; 1997 2 SLR 508 ; 1997 KHC 1637 ; 1997 3 Supreme 516
1997(3) Supreme 516
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and G.T. Nanavati, JJ.
The Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief & Anr. -Appellants
versus
Mrs. M.A. Rajani & Anr. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2235 of 1997
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 1118 of 1997)
Decided on 17-3-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : V.C. Mahajan, Sr. Advocate, Mrs. Sushma Manchanda and Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Advocates.
For the Respondents : K.M.K. Nair, Advocate.
Act Referred :SERVICE LAW : .
(A) The relevant statutory framework under the Service Law, specifically the Ministry of Defence Recruitment of Stenographer (Grade III) Rules, mandates a three-tier sequential process for appointment: first by promotion, second by transfer, and only upon the exhaustion of both methods, by direct recruitment. This case falls squarely within this framework, as the stipulated avenues of promotion and transfer were exhausted, thereby legally triggering the provision for direct recruitment to fill the reserved post. The rules also establish that a reserved post for Scheduled Castes cannot be dereserved once the selection process is underway, rendering any such dereservation illegal.
(B) The core legal principles established are the mandatory adherence to the sequential recruitment hierarchy and the inviolability of reservation quotas during the selection process. The tribunal underscored that direct recruitment is a valid and legally mandated fallback mechanism when other sources are exhausted, and that selection through a recognized employment exchange confers legitimate eligibility that must be honored.
Facts of the case:
The respondent was selected for appointment to a Stenographer (Grade III) position reserved for Scheduled Castes through direct recruitment conducted via the Employment Exchange, as promotion and transfer avenues were exhausted. Despite being selected, the appointment was withheld on the pretext that the post had been dereserved, a contention rejected by the Tribunal.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal found that the resort to direct recruitment was lawful and that the dereservation of the post at the selection stage was illegal. The direction to appoint the respondent was held to be in accordance with the rules.
Issues:
Whether a candidate selected through direct recruitment, following the exhaustion of promotion and transfer, is entitled to appointment even if the authorities raise a subsequent dereservation of the post.
Ratio Decidendi:
The sequential recruitment rules operate as a closed loop; direct recruitment is valid only upon the exhaustion of other methods. A candidate duly selected through this valid process cannot be denied appointment on the grounds of dereservation, as the quota is binding at the time of selection.
Result:
The appeal is dismissed with no costs awarded, and the respondent is entitled to the appointment.
(A) The relevant statutory framework under the Service Law, specifically the Ministry of Defence Recruitment of Stenographer (Grade III) Rules, mandates a three-tier sequential process for appointment: first by promotion, second by transfer, and only upon the exhaustion of both methods, by direct recruitment. This case falls squarely within this framework, as the stipulated avenues of promotion and transfer were exhausted, thereby legally triggering the provision for direct recruitment to fill the reserved post. The rules also establish that a reserved post for Scheduled Castes cannot be dereserved once the selection process is underway, rendering any such dereservation illegal.
(B) The core legal principles established are the mandatory adherence to the sequential recruitment hierarchy and the inviolability of reservation quotas during the selection process. The tribunal underscored that direct recruitment is a valid and legally mandated fallback mechanism when other sources are exhausted, and that selection through a recognized employment exchange confers legitimate eligibility that must be honored.
Facts of the case:
The respondent was selected for appointment to a Stenographer (Grade III) position reserved for Scheduled Castes through direct recruitment conducted via the Employment Exchange, as promotion and transfer avenues were exhausted. Despite being selected, the appointment was withheld on the pretext that the post had been dereserved, a contention rejected by the Tribunal.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal found that the resort to direct recruitment was lawful and that the dereservation of the post at the selection stage was illegal. The direction to appoint the respondent was held to be in accordance with the rules.
Issues:
Whether a candidate selected through direct recruitment, following the exhaustion of promotion and transfer, is entitled to appointment even if the authorities raise a subsequent dereservation of the post.
Ratio Decidendi:
The sequential recruitment rules operate as a closed loop; direct recruitment is valid only upon the exhaustion of other methods. A candidate duly selected through this valid process cannot be denied appointment on the grounds of dereservation, as the quota is binding at the time of selection.
Result:
The appeal is dismissed with no costs awarded, and the respondent is entitled to the appointment.
ORDER
Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
2. This appeal arises from the order of the C.A.T. Trivendum Bench, made on 8.3.1996 in O.A. No. 1399/95.
3. The only controversy is whether the respondent is entitled to appointment by direct recruitment to a reserved vacancy? Admittedly, Rule 1(a) 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.
4. 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 dereservation is clearly illegal and, therefore, the Tribunal was right in giving the direction to appoint the respondent who was duly selected by the Committee.
5. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Appeal dismissed.
********