1997 JTR(SC) 645
1997 AIR(SC) 2487 ; 1997 AIR(SCW) 2426 ; 1997 1 CLR 987 ; 1997 67 DLT 50 ; 1997 76 FLR 386 ; 1998 1 GLR 245 ; 1997 5 JT 72 ; 1997 LIC 2633 ; 1997 2 LLJ 422 ; 1997 3 LLN 63 ; 1997 3 RSJ 367 ; 1997 3 Scale 697 ; 1997 5 SCC 363 ; 1997 SCC(L&S) 1146 ; 1997 2 SCJ 167 ; 1997 3 SCR 665 ; 1997 2 SCT 593 ; 1997 4 SLR 679 ; 1997 KHC 917 ; 1997 4 Supreme 648
1997(4) Supreme 648
Supreme Court of India
K. Ramaswamy and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
Shri Suresh Chandra -Appellant
versus
Shri J.B. Agarwal & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3081 of 1997
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 19019 of 1995)
Decided on 4-4-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : M.P. Raju, Ms. Mary Searia, T.U. Raja and L.J. Vadakara, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Ms. Pinky Anand, Ms. Geeta Luthra, D. Goburdhan and R.P. Gupta, Advocates.
Important Point
Reservation in single post applying the rule of the roster is constitutionally valid.
Act
Referred
:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.16(1), Art.16(4), Art.335
SERVICE LAW : .
(A) The constitutional provisions referenced include Article 16(1) and Article 16(4) of the Constitution, read with Article 14 and Article 335, governing equality of opportunity in public employment and the implementation of reservation. Article 16(1) ensures equality of opportunity in public appointments, while Article 16(4) empowers the State to make reservations for backward classes. Article 14 guarantees equality before the law and equal protection, and Article 335 mandates that the claims of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes be considered in appointments to avoid prejudice to the administration of the State. In this appeal, these provisions are examined in the context of applying the rule of roster to a solitary, isolated post of Assistant Manager (Electrical) for promotion to Senior Manager (Electrical). The dispute centers on whether reservation under Article 16(4), effected through the rule of rotation or roster to a single post, infringes Article 16(1) or is constitutionally valid, having regard to prior decisions of this Court and the principle that educational qualifications cannot be relaxed in promotion but eligibility may be adjusted to accommodate reserved candidates where all other criteria are met.
(B) Key legal principles include: (i) Rule of roster is a permissible mechanism for filling single posts reserved for Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, provided it does not amount to 100% reservation; (ii) Reservation in promotion to a solitary post through roster rotation is not unconstitutional and does not violate Article 16(1) or Article 16(2); (iii) The principles laid down in earlier decisions, including Dr. Chakradhar Paswan, Arati Ray Choudhury, and Madhav, govern the analysis; (iv) Educational qualifications cannot be diluted for initial recruitment, but in promotion cases, relaxations may be permissible if other eligibility conditions are satisfied; (v) The application of reservation must not entirely exclude the non-reserved category if a reserved candidate is available, ensuring the rule of roster remains effective; (vi) The Departmental Promotion Committee may consider the candidates overall eligibility, balancing educational and other criteria in accordance with law.
Facts of the case:
The appellant, holding a diploma, was considered for promotion from Assistant Manager (Electrical) (pay scale Rs. 1000-1600/-) to Senior Manager (Electrical) (pay scale Rs. 3000-4500/-) under the rule of roster, which pointed to a reserved vacancy. The respondent filed a writ petition challenging the application of reservation to this single post. The Delhi High Court, following an earlier judgment of this Court, held that applying reservation to a single post cadre would constitute 100% reservation and violate Article 16(1) read with Article 14. However, this Court, in subsequent decisions, held that if the government applies the rule of rotation and the roster points to a vacancy in a single post, reservation for Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes is not unconstitutional. The Departmental Promotion Committee had held that subject to other eligibility criteria, educational qualification could be relaxed in promotion. The appellant, though a diploma-holder as against a degree-holder respondent, could be considered if other conditions were fulfilled. It was also noted that the respondent had been working as Manager/Senior Manager for three years and would retire soon.
Findings of Court:
This Court reiterated that the rule of roster, when applied to a solitary post and when the reservation is sought to be given effect to by filling the post as it arises under the roster, does not offend Article 16(1) or Article 14. The earlier distinction drawn in Paswans case, based on the Devadasan principle, was not correct. This Court reaffirmed the validity of reservation in promotion to single posts under the rule of rotation, as held in Arati Ray Choudhury and other subsequent judgments. Educational qualifications could not be relaxed at the initial recruitment stage, but in promotion, such relaxation is permissible; the appellants case would be decided on other eligibility grounds. The contention that the respondent would be deprived of promotion opportunities if the reserved post were filled was not accepted, as the rule of roster necessitates yielding the post to a reserved candidate when eligible.
Issues:
Whether reservation in promotion to a solitary post under the rule of roster violates Article 16(1) and Article 14 of the Constitution; whether educational qualifications can be relaxed in promotion under Article 16(4); whether the rule of rotation, when applied to a single post, is constitutionally valid; and whether the Departmental Promotion Committee erred in considering the appellants eligibility despite being a diploma-holder as against a degree-holder respondent.
Ratio Decidendi:
Reservation in promotion to a solitary post through the rule of roster is not unconstitutional, provided the reservation does not result in 100% reservation and the rule of rotation is genuinely applied. Article 16(1) and Article 14 are not violated when the government applies the roster point to fill a reserved vacancy, and earlier decisions holding otherwise are not applicable. Educational qualifications cannot be relaxed at recruitment, but in promotion cases, eligibility may be adjusted to accommodate reserved candidates without violating Article 16(4), subject to other prescribed conditions.
Result:
The appeal is allowed. The writ petition is dismissed without costs. The reservation in promotion to a single post under the rule of roster is upheld as constitutionally valid.
(A) The constitutional provisions referenced include Article 16(1) and Article 16(4) of the Constitution, read with Article 14 and Article 335, governing equality of opportunity in public employment and the implementation of reservation. Article 16(1) ensures equality of opportunity in public appointments, while Article 16(4) empowers the State to make reservations for backward classes. Article 14 guarantees equality before the law and equal protection, and Article 335 mandates that the claims of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes be considered in appointments to avoid prejudice to the administration of the State. In this appeal, these provisions are examined in the context of applying the rule of roster to a solitary, isolated post of Assistant Manager (Electrical) for promotion to Senior Manager (Electrical). The dispute centers on whether reservation under Article 16(4), effected through the rule of rotation or roster to a single post, infringes Article 16(1) or is constitutionally valid, having regard to prior decisions of this Court and the principle that educational qualifications cannot be relaxed in promotion but eligibility may be adjusted to accommodate reserved candidates where all other criteria are met.
(B) Key legal principles include: (i) Rule of roster is a permissible mechanism for filling single posts reserved for Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, provided it does not amount to 100% reservation; (ii) Reservation in promotion to a solitary post through roster rotation is not unconstitutional and does not violate Article 16(1) or Article 16(2); (iii) The principles laid down in earlier decisions, including Dr. Chakradhar Paswan, Arati Ray Choudhury, and Madhav, govern the analysis; (iv) Educational qualifications cannot be diluted for initial recruitment, but in promotion cases, relaxations may be permissible if other eligibility conditions are satisfied; (v) The application of reservation must not entirely exclude the non-reserved category if a reserved candidate is available, ensuring the rule of roster remains effective; (vi) The Departmental Promotion Committee may consider the candidates overall eligibility, balancing educational and other criteria in accordance with law.
Facts of the case:
The appellant, holding a diploma, was considered for promotion from Assistant Manager (Electrical) (pay scale Rs. 1000-1600/-) to Senior Manager (Electrical) (pay scale Rs. 3000-4500/-) under the rule of roster, which pointed to a reserved vacancy. The respondent filed a writ petition challenging the application of reservation to this single post. The Delhi High Court, following an earlier judgment of this Court, held that applying reservation to a single post cadre would constitute 100% reservation and violate Article 16(1) read with Article 14. However, this Court, in subsequent decisions, held that if the government applies the rule of rotation and the roster points to a vacancy in a single post, reservation for Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes is not unconstitutional. The Departmental Promotion Committee had held that subject to other eligibility criteria, educational qualification could be relaxed in promotion. The appellant, though a diploma-holder as against a degree-holder respondent, could be considered if other conditions were fulfilled. It was also noted that the respondent had been working as Manager/Senior Manager for three years and would retire soon.
Findings of Court:
This Court reiterated that the rule of roster, when applied to a solitary post and when the reservation is sought to be given effect to by filling the post as it arises under the roster, does not offend Article 16(1) or Article 14. The earlier distinction drawn in Paswans case, based on the Devadasan principle, was not correct. This Court reaffirmed the validity of reservation in promotion to single posts under the rule of rotation, as held in Arati Ray Choudhury and other subsequent judgments. Educational qualifications could not be relaxed at the initial recruitment stage, but in promotion, such relaxation is permissible; the appellants case would be decided on other eligibility grounds. The contention that the respondent would be deprived of promotion opportunities if the reserved post were filled was not accepted, as the rule of roster necessitates yielding the post to a reserved candidate when eligible.
Issues:
Whether reservation in promotion to a solitary post under the rule of roster violates Article 16(1) and Article 14 of the Constitution; whether educational qualifications can be relaxed in promotion under Article 16(4); whether the rule of rotation, when applied to a single post, is constitutionally valid; and whether the Departmental Promotion Committee erred in considering the appellants eligibility despite being a diploma-holder as against a degree-holder respondent.
Ratio Decidendi:
Reservation in promotion to a solitary post through the rule of roster is not unconstitutional, provided the reservation does not result in 100% reservation and the rule of rotation is genuinely applied. Article 16(1) and Article 14 are not violated when the government applies the roster point to fill a reserved vacancy, and earlier decisions holding otherwise are not applicable. Educational qualifications cannot be relaxed at recruitment, but in promotion cases, eligibility may be adjusted to accommodate reserved candidates without violating Article 16(4), subject to other prescribed conditions.
Result:
The appeal is allowed. The writ petition is dismissed without costs. The reservation in promotion to a single post under the rule of roster is upheld as constitutionally valid.
Order
Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
2. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, made on April 18, 1995 in CWP No. 4254/94.
3. The admitted position is that to the post of the Assistant Manager (Electrical) carrying the pay scale of Rs. 1000-1600/-, the next channel of promotion is Senior Manager (Electrical) carrying the pay scale of Rs. 3000-4500/-. When the case of the appellant was sought to be considered for the said post by applying rule of roster, the respondent filed a writ petition. The High Court following the judgment of this Court in Dr. Chakradhar Paswan v. State of Bihar & Ors.1, had held that rule of reservation could, not be applied to the single post cadre as it would amount to 100% reservation violating Article 16(1) read with Article 14 of the Constitution. In Arati Ray Choudhury v. Union of India & Ors.2, a Constitution of this Court had held that the reservation in single post applying the rule of the roster is constitutionally valid. This Court has considered the entire case law in Union of India & Anr. v. Madhav3. The Bench of three Judges, to which both of us were members, held that in case of solitary isolated post on the basis of the rule of rotation, the benefits and facilities should be extended to the reserved candidates, namely, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for appointment by promotion to the single post and, therefore, application of the rule of reservation is not unconstitutional. Accordingly, it was held thus :
"Even though there is a single post, if the Government have applied the rule of rotation and the roster point to the vacancies that had arisen in the single point post and were sought to be filled up by the candidates belonging to the reserved categories at the point on which they are eligible to be considered, such a rule is not violative of Article 16(1) of the Constitution."
4. This principle was reiterated in State of U.P. v. Dr. Dina Nath Shukla & Anr.4. Shri Goburdhan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, has contended that this Court has considered the judgment in Chetana Dilip Motghare v. Bhide Girls Education Society, Nagpur & Ors.5. The said judgment was considered in Madhav s case and it was held therein, as a question fact, that since the material was not placed before the Court, having noticed the Constitution Bench judgment in Arati Ray Choudhury case, the Court limited the decision to the facts of that case and held that it is not possible to accede to the contentions raised by the review petitioner therein. Therefore, there is no question of reconsideration of the position once over. It is then contended that as held in S. Vinod Kumar & Anr. v. Union of India6, the basic qualifications cannot be relaxed while applying the rule of reservation under Article 16(4) of the Constitution. He contends that respondent is a degree-holder while the appellant is only diploma-holder. Therefore, his case could not be considered. The question was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee and it held that subject to the other eligibility criteria, educational qualification could be relaxed. If the appellant satisfies other qualifications then his case would be considered. He then contends that the said relaxation is bad in view of the orders that relaxation of the eligibility cannot be granted. He placed reliance upon the rules of recruitment in that behalf. The rules of recruitment, as placed before us, do indicate the basic qualification for initial recruitment which cannot be relaxed. But in a case of promotion, the said rule does not apply. It is, therefore, not necessary for us to go into the question whether the appellant is eligible to be considered on other grounds. Whether or not he would be eligible, his case would be considered in accordance with law.
5. It is contended by Shri Goburdhan that respondent has been working as a Manager for the past three years in the post of Senior Manager. He is likely to retire after three years and, therefore, he will be deprived of the chance to remain in promotion post. We cannot accede to the contention. If the rule of roster is applied to a single post cadre and if the vacancy arises against a reserved post in accordance with the rule of roster, necessarily, so long as the reserved candidate is found for promotion, one is required to give place to fill up the post in accordance with the roster point. Otherwise, the roster point itself would be rendered illusory.
6. He contends that in Paswan s case, it was held that the reservation in promotion to the single post is contrary to the ratio in the Devadasan case and violative of Article 16(1) and 16(2) of the Constitution. That principle is not correct principle of law. It is contrary to the judgment of the nine Judges Bench of this Court in Ahmedabad St. Xavier College v. State of Gujarat7; a judgment of Constitution Bench in Arati Ray Choudhary s case; Dr. Pradeep Jain & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.8; Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao v. Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College & Ors.9, and Ashok Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P.10.
The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. The writ petition stands dismissed but, in the circumstances, without costs.
Appeal allowed.
********
Parallel Citations of other Journals :
Suresh Chandra v. J.B. Agarwal, 1997(4) Supreme 648 : JT 1997(5) SC 72 : AIR 1997 487
00043
00044