1997 JTR(SC) 509
1997 AIR(SC) 2101 ; 1997 AIR(SCW) 1937 ; 1997 4 JT 195 ; 1997 1 KLT(SN) 58 1 ; 1997 3 Scale 344 ; 1997 4 SCC 278 ; 1997 3 Supreme 553
1997(3) Supreme 553
SUPREME COURT OF COURT
K. Ramaswamy and G.T. Nanavati, JJ.
Union of India & Ors. -Appellants
versus
Brij Lal Thakur -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 2236 of 1997
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 23194 of 1996)
Decided on 17-3-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : B.B. Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondent :S.B. Sanyal, Sr. Advocate and Ranjan Mukherjee, Advocate.
Act
Referred
:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.16(1), Art.14
SERVICE LAW : .
(A) The constitutional provisions referred to, namely Article 14 and Article 16(1), govern the validity of reservation and appointment by promotion in public employment. Read together with the service law, these provisions permit reservation in a single post if the reservation follows a rule of rotation and roster system that applies to vacancies as they arise, ensuring that the appointment is made from amongst eligible candidates in the reserved category without constituting 100% reservation. The specific statutory scheme contemplated by these articles allows the government to adhere to a roster point and apply a rule of rotation for filling a solitary vacancy reserved for Scheduled Castes, provided the candidate is eligible and the process conforms to the rules.
(B) Key legal principles include that reservation in a single post does not offend Articles 14 and 16(1) if it is governed by a valid roster and rule of rotation; that promotion on the basis of such reservation is legal and valid; and that an unsuccessful candidate cannot challenge such appointment merely because they were not selected. The principle of carry forward of vacancies and the applicability of roster points to single posts are also central.
Facts of the case:
A post for E.C.G. Technician in the Grade of Rs. 1200-2040 became vacant in the Central Hospital, Northern Railway due to retirement. A trade test was conducted and Smt. Prakash Kaur, belonging to Scheduled Castes, was found suitable and promoted. An unsuccessful candidate challenged the promotion, contending that reservation for a solitary post would lead to 100% reservation and was unconstitutional. The Tribunal set aside the promotion, but this Court held that reservation under a rotation and roster system is valid even for a single post.
Findings of Court:
The Court held that the appointment by promotion applying a 40-point post and rule of rotation, and considering Smt. Prakash Kaur for the vacancy, is not violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. The promotion is legal and valid, and the Tribunal was incorrect in setting it aside.
Issues:
Whether reservation for a solitary post under a roster and rule of rotation violates Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution and whether such appointment by promotion is valid.
Ratio Decidendi:
Appointment by promotion to a single post, applying a roster point and rule of rotation to fill a reserved vacancy when eligible candidates are available, is constitutional and does not offend Articles 14 and 16(1), even where the post is the sole position in the cadre.
Result:
The appeal is allowed, the order of the Administrative Tribunal is set aside, and the petition is dismissed.
(A) The constitutional provisions referred to, namely Article 14 and Article 16(1), govern the validity of reservation and appointment by promotion in public employment. Read together with the service law, these provisions permit reservation in a single post if the reservation follows a rule of rotation and roster system that applies to vacancies as they arise, ensuring that the appointment is made from amongst eligible candidates in the reserved category without constituting 100% reservation. The specific statutory scheme contemplated by these articles allows the government to adhere to a roster point and apply a rule of rotation for filling a solitary vacancy reserved for Scheduled Castes, provided the candidate is eligible and the process conforms to the rules.
(B) Key legal principles include that reservation in a single post does not offend Articles 14 and 16(1) if it is governed by a valid roster and rule of rotation; that promotion on the basis of such reservation is legal and valid; and that an unsuccessful candidate cannot challenge such appointment merely because they were not selected. The principle of carry forward of vacancies and the applicability of roster points to single posts are also central.
Facts of the case:
A post for E.C.G. Technician in the Grade of Rs. 1200-2040 became vacant in the Central Hospital, Northern Railway due to retirement. A trade test was conducted and Smt. Prakash Kaur, belonging to Scheduled Castes, was found suitable and promoted. An unsuccessful candidate challenged the promotion, contending that reservation for a solitary post would lead to 100% reservation and was unconstitutional. The Tribunal set aside the promotion, but this Court held that reservation under a rotation and roster system is valid even for a single post.
Findings of Court:
The Court held that the appointment by promotion applying a 40-point post and rule of rotation, and considering Smt. Prakash Kaur for the vacancy, is not violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. The promotion is legal and valid, and the Tribunal was incorrect in setting it aside.
Issues:
Whether reservation for a solitary post under a roster and rule of rotation violates Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution and whether such appointment by promotion is valid.
Ratio Decidendi:
Appointment by promotion to a single post, applying a roster point and rule of rotation to fill a reserved vacancy when eligible candidates are available, is constitutional and does not offend Articles 14 and 16(1), even where the post is the sole position in the cadre.
Result:
The appeal is allowed, the order of the Administrative Tribunal is set aside, and the petition is dismissed.
ORDER
Delay condoned. Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
2. This appeal by special leave arises form the order passed on March, 31, 1995 by C.A.T., New Delhi in O.A. No. 1801/94.
3. The post of E.C.G. Technician in the Grade of Rs. 1200-2040 became vacant on November 30, 1993 in the Central Hospital, Northern Railway due to retirement, Mrs. William Chand, a general candidate, holding that post. For promotion of Theater Assistants to the said post, trade test was conducted in which Smt. Prakash Kaur belonging to Scheduled Castes and two others were called. The vacancy to be filled up was reserved for Scheduled Castes in a carry forward post as per the rotation of the roster. In the trade test held on December 8, 1994, Smt. Prakash Kaur was found suitable and she was accordingly promoted as E.C.G. Technician w.e.f. December 9, 1994. The respondent an unsuccessful candidate filed O.A. in the Tribunal contending that since the post of E.C.G. technician is the solitary post, reservation as per roster is unconstitutional as it would lead to 100% reservation. The contention found favour with the Tribunal. Accordingly, it set aside the appointment by promotion of Smt. Prakash Kaur and gave direction to treat it as unreserved post and to consider the case of the respondent for appointment to the post according to Rules. The controversy is no longer res integra. This Court in Union of India & Anr. v. Madhav s/o Gajanan Chaubal & Anr1., by a Bench of three judges considered the entire case law following the Constitution Bench judgments in A.R. Choudhury v. Union of India & Ors.2, Commissioner of Commercial Taxes v. D. Sethu Madhva Rao3, Venkteswarlu v. Govt. of A.P4State of Bihar v. Bageshwardi Prasad5. It was held that "even though there is a single post, if the Government have applied the rule of rotation and roster point to the vacancies that had arisen in the single point post and were sought to be filled up by the candidate belonging to the reserved categories at the point on which they were eligible to be considered, such a rule is not violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution". In that case the post of Secretary in the National Savings Scheme Service was a single point post to which 40 point roster was maintained to the vacancy in the said post. When the Scheduled Tribes candidate was selected for promotion on the basis the rule of rotation, it was held by the Tribunal that the promotion was violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. Reversing that order it was held that :
"Thus, the Government have adhered to the rule of rotation to a single post and the 40 point roster to the single post was applied and the vacancy reserved for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes as and when had arisen, was sought to be filled up, when the candidates were available. Thus, we hold that the roster point No.4 in the vacancy of the Secretary reserved for the Scheduled Tribes was valid and constitutional. When the officer available and was eligible to be considered, he was entitled to be considered in accordance with the rules and be promoted as Secretary. The Tribunal, therefore, was not right in directing that the rule of rotation to the single post could not be applied. It is brought to our notice that the original promotee died pending the proceedings and, therefore as and when vacancy arises as per rule of rotation as per roster the same would be filled up in accordance with law."
4. Accordingly, we hold that appointment by promotion to the single post of E.C.G. Technician applying 40 point post and rule of rotation, consideration of Smt. Prakash Kaur to the said vacancy is not violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. The promotion is legal and valid. The Tribunal, therefore, was incorrect in setting aside the promotion of Mrs. Prakash Kaur.
5. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The order of the Administrative Tribunal stand set aside. The petition stands dismissed. No costs.
Appeal allowed.
********
Parallel Citations of other Journals :
Union of India v. Brij Lal Thakur, 1997(3) Supreme 553 : JT 1997(4) SC 195 : AIR 1997 2101 : 1997 SCC(4) 278
00034
00035