SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.N. WANCHOO, C.J.I., R.S. BACHAWAT, V. RAMASWAMI, G.K. MITTER AND K.S. HEGDE, JJ.
C. A. Rajendran, Petitioner
Versus
v. Union of India and others, Respondents.
1. C. L. Mina,
2 H. L. Verma and
3. The Central Government Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Employees Welfare Association, New Delhi, Interveners.
Writ Petition No 11 of 1967,
D /- 29- 9-1967.
Advocates Appeared
Mr. N. C. Chatterjee, Senior Advocate, (M/s. K. B. Rohtagi and S. Balakrishnan, Advocates, with him), for Petitioner; Mr. C. K. Daphtary, Attorney-General for India, (M/s. A. S. Nambiar, R. H. Dhebar and S. P. Nayar, Advocates, with him), for Respondents; Mr. K. B. Rohtagi, Advocate, for Interveners.
-held, clause (4) of Art. 16 is a clause for exception and not an independent provision and it has to be strictly construed, interpreted in the context and background of Art. 335, as the languate of Art.16(4) would suggest. In making reservation of appointment/posts Govt. have to consider not only the claims of the members of the backward classes but also about maintenance of efficiency of administration which is paramount importance.
-see decision in C.A. Rajendran v. Union of India, AIR 1968 SC 507=(1968) I SCA 202 =(1968)2 SCJ 19=1968 S.C.O 714 =1968(1) SCWR 574.
Judgement
RAMASWAMI, J. :- In this case the petitioner, C. A. Rajendran has obtained rule from this Court calling upon the respondents to show cause why a writ in the nature of mandamus under Art. 32 of the Constitution should not be issued for quashing the Office Memorandum dated November 8,1963 which is annexure C to the Writ Petition, and for directing respondent No. 1 to restore the orders passed by it in Office Memorandum No. 2/11/55-RPS dated May 7, 1955 and No. 5/4/55-SCT (1) dated January 4, 1957. Cause has been shown-by the Attorney-General on behalf of the respondents to whom notice of the rule was ordered to be given.
2.The petitioner is a permanent Assistant in Grade IV (Class III, non-gazetted-ministerial) of the Railway Board Secretariat Service. He was initially appointed as Accounts Clerk on February 6, 1953 in Southern Railway. He was appointed as an Assistant on October 22, 1956 in the Railway Board and confirmed as Assistant on April 1, 1960. The pay-scale of the Assistant s grade is Rs. 210-530. The next post to which the petitioner claims promotion is that of the Section Officer in the same service. The post of Section Officer is classified as Class II, Grade III, Gazetted and it carries a pay-scale of Rs. 350-900. The Railway Board Secretariat Service (Reorganisation and Re-enforcement) Scheme was drawn up in consultation with the Ministry of Home Affairs and introduced with effect from December 1, 1954 with the approval of the Union Public Service Commission. According to the new Scheme the Railway Board Secretariat Service consists of the following grades :
"Grade IV-Assistants in the scale of Rs. 210-530/- (Class III non-gazetted) (to which Petitioner belongs).
Grade III- Section Officers in the scald of Rs. 350-900 (Class II gazetted)-with effect from 1st July, 1959 (Section Officers grade).
Grade II-Amalgamated with effect from 1st July, 1959 as Section Officers grade.
Grade I- Assistant Directors/Under Secretaries in the scale of Rs. 900-1,250.
(Grade III was called, before 1st July, 1959, Assistant Superintendent in the scale of Rs. 275-500 and the scale of Grade II Superintendents was Rs. 530-800)."
Recruitment to permanent vacancies of Grade III of the Railway Board Secretariat Service is made by the following three methods as per pare 18 of the Railway Board Secretariat Service Scheme :
"(a) 33-1/3 per cent by direct recruit ment on the results of the combined Examinations held by the UPSC for the IAS, IPS and other Central Services Class I and Class II.
(b) 33-1/3 per cent by promotion on the basis of seniority subject to the rejection of the unfit.
(c) 33-1/3 per cent by limited competitive examination on the basis of a test to be prescribed and conducted by the UPSC for Assistants/Stenographers Grade II between 5 years and 10 years of service in the grade in the Board s office.
Note: For the years 1961-65 only 1/4 of the substantive vacancies were to be filled by direct recruitment on the results of the competitive examination under item (a) above."
3. In 1955 the Government issued Office Memorandum dated May 7, 1955 (Annexure E to the Writ Petition) whereby it reaffirmed its decision that there will be no reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in posts filled by promotion, but that certain concessions were to be given to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the matter of promotion. The concessions were as follows :
"(i) While there would be no reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in regard to vacancies filled by promotion, where the passing of tests or examinations had been laid down as a condition for promotion, the authority prescribing the rules for the tests or examinations might issue suitable instructions to ensure that the standard of qualification in respect of members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes was not unduly high.
(ii) Where promotions were made on the basis of seniority subject to fitness, cases of persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and
M. R. Balaji v. State of Mysore
Referred : Devadasan v. Union of India
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.