1. Recruitment for a post reserved for Scheduled Tribes — Candidate initially not selected but subsequently appointed — Challenge to the validity of the appointment. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1995 Supreme(SC) 158
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
BEFORE K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.
ARUNABEN T. BHOJAK
Versus
SECY, AHMEDABAD EDUCATION SOCIETY, LAL BHAWAN, BADRA, AHMEDABAD AND OTHERS.
Civil Appeal No. 3010 of 1995,{From the Judgment and Order dated 22-11-1993 of the Gujarat High Court in L.P.A. No. 161 of 1987}
Decided on 27-1-1995
Advocates appeared:
Ms J.S. Wad, Advocate, for the Appellant; Raju Ramachandran, Senior Advocate (R.P. Wadhwani, Advocate, with him) for the Respondents.
Important Points
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.
Subject
Employment - Reservation and Affirmative Action
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.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
J.S.VAD, R.P.VADHVANI, RAJU RAMACHANDRAN
J.S.VAD, R.P.VADHVANI, RAJU RAMACHANDRAN
Table of Contents
2. Whether the appointment of a candidate from a reserved category is illegal if they were initially found unsuitable or lacked specific experience at the time of selection. (Para 2 )
3. The candidate acquired the necessary experience and became eligible; appointment of an available candidate for a post reserved for Scheduled Tribes is not per se illegal. (Para 3 )
4. The appointment of a candidate from a Scheduled Tribe to a post reserved for such category cannot be held per se illegal when a candidate is available. (Para 3 )
5. Appeal allowed — Appointment of the appellant as a reserved candidate for Scheduled Tribes upheld. (Para 4 )
6. Is the appointment of an available candidate to a post reserved for Scheduled Tribes per se illegal?
No, the court held that when a candidate from a Scheduled Tribe is available and eligible, their appointment to a post reserved for that category cannot be held per se illegal. (Para 3 )
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
