1997 JTR(SC) 501
1997 AIR(SC) 2101 ; 1997 AIR(SCW) 1937 ; 1997 2 AllCJ 924 ; 1997 1 CLR 844 ; 1997 4 JT 195 ; 1997 4 LLN 52 ; 1997 3 RSJ 175 ; 1997 3 Scale 344 ; 1997 4 SCC 278 ; 1997 SCC(L&S) 939 ; 1997 2 SCJ 7 ; 1997 2 SCR 1152 ; 1997 2 SCT 319 ; 1997 3 SCT 356 ; 1998 1 SLJ 222 ; 1997 2 SLR 509 ; 1997 KHC 833 ; 1997 3 Supreme 553
Supreme Court Of India
Decided On : (March 17, 1997)
UNION OF INDIA
Versus
BRIJLAL THAKUR
Act Referred :CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.16(1), Art.14
(A) The referenced constitutional provisions, Article 14 and Article 16(1), form the legal foundation for analyzing equality before law and non-discrimination in public employment. This appeal specifically examines how these articles apply to the reservation in a promotion scenario involving a single vacancy in a specialized service, where the roster system dictates the filling of posts reserved for Scheduled Castes. The court applies the precedent from prior constitutional bench judgments to determine that adherence to a predetermined rotation and roster system for a solitary post does not, per se, violate constitutional guarantees against discrimination or amount to impermissible 100 percent reservation.
(B) Key legal principles include the constitutionality of reservation in single-post scenarios when governed by a valid roster and rotation rule, the principle of equality of opportunity coupled with the concept of reasonable classification, and the hierarchy of rules ensuring that administrative mechanisms like carry-forward and roster points are valid expressions of state policy in public service recruitment and promotion.
Facts of the case:
A promotion to the post of E. C. G. Technician in the Grade of Rs. 1200-2040 arose in the Central Hospital, Northern Railway, on 30/11/1993. The post was reserved for Scheduled Castes under a carry-forward roster. A trade test was conducted, and Smt. Prakash Kaur, belonging to Scheduled Castes, was found suitable and promoted on 9/12/1994. An unsuccessful candidate challenged this promotion, arguing that a single post could not be reserved without leading to 100 percent reservation, and the Tribunal agreed, setting aside the promotion. This Court reviewed the matter against significant precedents concerning reservation in single-post scenarios.
Findings of Court:
The Court held that the application of a roster and rule of rotation to a single post for the purpose of reservation is not violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. It determined that the promotion of Smt. Prakash Kaur was legal and valid as it followed the established administrative rules, and the Tribunal erred in directing the treatment of the post as unreserved and reconsidering the case of the respondent.
Issues:
The central issue was whether the promotion of a candidate from a reserved category to a solitary post, under a system of rotation and a roster point, contravened the constitutional principles of equality and non-discrimination.
Ratio Decidendi:
The Court reasoned that the constitutional mandate for equality does not prohibit the use of a valid roster and rotation system to fill a single reserved post, as long as the rules are applied consistently and the candidate belongs to the reserved category and is eligible; thus, the promotion is valid and the tribunals interference was incorrect.
Result:
The appeal is allowed, the order of the Administrative Tribunal is set aside, and the petition is dismissed with no costs awarded.
(A) The referenced constitutional provisions, Article 14 and Article 16(1), form the legal foundation for analyzing equality before law and non-discrimination in public employment. This appeal specifically examines how these articles apply to the reservation in a promotion scenario involving a single vacancy in a specialized service, where the roster system dictates the filling of posts reserved for Scheduled Castes. The court applies the precedent from prior constitutional bench judgments to determine that adherence to a predetermined rotation and roster system for a solitary post does not, per se, violate constitutional guarantees against discrimination or amount to impermissible 100 percent reservation.
(B) Key legal principles include the constitutionality of reservation in single-post scenarios when governed by a valid roster and rotation rule, the principle of equality of opportunity coupled with the concept of reasonable classification, and the hierarchy of rules ensuring that administrative mechanisms like carry-forward and roster points are valid expressions of state policy in public service recruitment and promotion.
Facts of the case:
A promotion to the post of E. C. G. Technician in the Grade of Rs. 1200-2040 arose in the Central Hospital, Northern Railway, on 30/11/1993. The post was reserved for Scheduled Castes under a carry-forward roster. A trade test was conducted, and Smt. Prakash Kaur, belonging to Scheduled Castes, was found suitable and promoted on 9/12/1994. An unsuccessful candidate challenged this promotion, arguing that a single post could not be reserved without leading to 100 percent reservation, and the Tribunal agreed, setting aside the promotion. This Court reviewed the matter against significant precedents concerning reservation in single-post scenarios.
Findings of Court:
The Court held that the application of a roster and rule of rotation to a single post for the purpose of reservation is not violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. It determined that the promotion of Smt. Prakash Kaur was legal and valid as it followed the established administrative rules, and the Tribunal erred in directing the treatment of the post as unreserved and reconsidering the case of the respondent.
Issues:
The central issue was whether the promotion of a candidate from a reserved category to a solitary post, under a system of rotation and a roster point, contravened the constitutional principles of equality and non-discrimination.
Ratio Decidendi:
The Court reasoned that the constitutional mandate for equality does not prohibit the use of a valid roster and rotation system to fill a single reserved post, as long as the rules are applied consistently and the candidate belongs to the reserved category and is eligible; thus, the promotion is valid and the tribunals interference was incorrect.
Result:
The appeal is allowed, the order of the Administrative Tribunal is set aside, and the petition is dismissed with no costs awarded.
followed : Union of India v. Madhav, 1997 2 SCC 332
referred to : Arati Ray Choudhury v. Union of India, 1974 1 SCC 87
Commr. of Commercial Tuxes v. G. Seihunludhuvu Rao, 1996 7 SCC 512
M. Venkateswarlu v. Govt. of A.P., 1996 5 SCC 167
State of Bihar v. Bageshwari Pmsad, 1995 Supp1 SCC 432
Judgment
( 1 ) JUDGMENT :- Delay condoned. Leave granted.
( 2 ) WE have heard learned counsel on both sides.
( 3 ) THIS appeal by special leave arises from the order passed on 31/03/1995 by C. A. T. , New Delhi in O. A. No. 1801/94.
( 4 ) THE post of E. C. G. Technician in the Grade of Rs. 1200-2040 became vacant on 30/11/1993 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 8/12/1994, Smt. Prakash Kaur was found suitable and she was accordingly promoted as E. C. G. Technician w. e. f. 9/12/1994. 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 Per Cent 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 v. Madhav s/o Gajanan Chaubal, 1996 (9) JT (SC) 320, by a Bench of three-Judges considered the entire case law following the Constitution Bench judgment in A. R. Choudhury v. Union of India, (1974) 1 SCC 87 : (AIR 1974 SC 532), Commr. of Commercial Taxes v. D. Sethu Madhva Rao, (1996) 7 SCC 512 : (1996 AIR SCW 2248), Venkateswarlu v. Govt. of A. P. , (1996) 5 SCC 167 and State of Bihar v. Bageshwarki Prasad, (1995) Supp (1) SCC 432. 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 of 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. "
( 5 ) 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.
( 6 ) THE appeal is accordingly allowed. The order of the Administrative Tribunal stand set aside. The petition stands dismissed. No costs. Appeal allowed.