Back
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.
(ii) Service Law-Promotion post of Senior Manager-Case of appellant sought to be considered by applying rule of roster-Departmental Promotion Committee held that subject to other eligibility criteria, educational qualifications could be relaxed-Said relaxation challenged as bad in law-Rules of recruitment indicating basic qualification for initial recruitment which could not be relaxed-Said rule did not apply in a case of promotion-Eligibility of appellant to be considered in accordance with law. (Para 4)
The legal document discusses the constitutionality of applying reservation rules in cases involving a single post, specifically in the context of promotion. The core facts are that the appellant sought consideration for a promotion to a higher post under the reservation policy, which involves applying a rotation or roster system to ensure reserved candidates are given opportunities in accordance with constitutional provisions. The respondent argued that reservation in a single post is not permissible, citing legal restrictions on applying reservation rules to solitary positions.
The court's reasoning indicates that reservation in a single post, when implemented through a rotation or roster system, is constitutionally valid, provided that the reserved candidates are considered at the appropriate roster points and the process adheres to eligibility criteria. It emphasizes that the reservation rules are applicable to promotion posts, and the application of such rules does not violate constitutional principles, as long as the process ensures fair consideration of reserved candidates at their designated roster points.
Furthermore, the court clarifies that while basic qualifications for initial recruitment are strict and cannot be relaxed, the same does not necessarily apply to promotion cases. In promotion scenarios, eligibility can be considered flexibly, including relaxing certain educational qualifications if other criteria are satisfied, provided such relaxations are within the legal framework and rules of recruitment.
The decision underscores that applying the roster system to a single post for reservation purposes is permissible, and the process must be transparent and consistent with constitutional mandates. The court dismisses the contention that reservation in a single promotion post violates constitutional principles, affirming that such reservation, when implemented correctly, is valid and does not contravene the rights guaranteed under the relevant articles of the Constitution.
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 po
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
