SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1999 Supreme(SC) 886

J.JAGANNADHA RAO, K.VENKATASWAMI, SUJATA V.MANOHAR
S. R. Murthy – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent


Order

This appeal deals with the promotion given by the first respondent to the respondent No. 3 to the post of Head of Section, Ceramics in a Government Polytechnic. There is no dispute that this is a single post. The first respondent, however, applied the roster relating to reservations to this post. Hence although the appellant was the senior-most person eligible for promotion to that post, he was not appointed. Instead, respondent No. 3, who was junior to him, but who belonged to the Scheduled Caste category was appointed since on the roster point, the vacancy was reserved for a Scheduled Caste candi­date.

2. The Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in the impugned judgment proceeded on the basis that since this was a promotional post, all promotional vacancies would have to be rotated in accordance with the roster. Hence the promotion of respondent No. 3 to the post of Head of Section, Ceramics, was a valid appointment.

3. The Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh v. Faculty Association and Ors.1 , has held, after discussing all decisions on this question, that :

“In a single post cadre, reservation at an




Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top