The main legal principle established is that the appointment of a Scheduled Tribe candidate to a reserved post cannot be held per se illegal when the candidate is available and eligible.

Headnote:
Appointment - Scheduled Tribes - Reservation - The court held that the appointment made to the appellant shall continue as one reserved for Scheduled Tribes.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant, belonging to a Scheduled Tribe, was initially not selected for the post of Lecturer (Psychology) at Gujarat University. However, pending appeal, she was selected and appointed.
Finding of the Court:

The Division Bench of the High Court held that the appellant was not found suitable for the post initially, but later acquired the necessary experience and was appointed. The High Court's reasoning was not appreciated by the Supreme Court.
Issues: The issue revolved around the suitability of the appellant for the reserved post and the eligibility of the appointed candidate.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that when a Scheduled Tribe candidate is available for a reserved post, their appointment cannot be held per se illegal, and the High Court was not right in negating the appellant's right in this regard.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the appointment made to the appellant was to continue as one reserved for Scheduled Tribes.

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal by special leave arises against the order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat in LPA No. 161 of 1987 dated 22-11-1993. The appellant admittedly belongs to Bakshi Panch which is one of the Nomadic Tribes, notified as a Scheduled Tribe in the State of Gujarat. The Gujarat University had published a notification calling for recruitment to the post of Lecturer (Psychology). Initially though the appellant was available, she was not selected. Consequently, the contesting respondent came to be selected and sought to be appointed. The appellant ultimately went to the court. Pending appeal, she was selected and appointed and has now been working as Lecturer (Psychology) in the Gujarat University. The Division Bench of the High Court held that when the selection was made, she was not found to be suitable. The requisite qualifications were not sufficient for appellants claim to the post.

3. We are unable to appreciate the reasoning of the Division Bench. It is true that initially the respondent did not have the laboratory experience but later on she had acquired that experience. She was also eligible and was accordingly appointed. Admittedly, the post was reserved for the Scheduled Tribes and when a Scheduled Tribe candidate is available, his/her appointment cannot be held per se illegal. Therefore, the High Court was not right in negativing the right of the appellant in this behalf.

4. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The appointment made to the appellant shall continue as one reserved for Scheduled Tribes. No costs.

For Citation: (1995) 3 SCC 120

Click Here to Read the rest of this document