1. Review petition against judgment in service matter concerning dilution of standards for SC/ST promotions. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
2000 Supreme(SC) 1363
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.P.Misra : S.B.Majmudar : U.C.Banerjee
Nand Kishore Ahirwar
Versus
Haridas Parsedia
Case No. : 811 , 829 of 2000
Date of Decision : 8/17/00
Referral of a judgment to a Constitution Bench in a separate matter is not ground for review. Additionally, dilution of standards for SC/ST candidates in restricted promotion examinations is legally permissible under Article 16(4-A) of the Constitution of India.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 16(4-A) - Constitution (Seventy-seventh Amendment) Act, 1995 - Order 47 Rule 1 - Review of judgment - The fact that a judgment sought to be reviewed is referred for reconsideration to a Constitution Bench in a subsequent matter is irrelevant for deciding whether the impugned judgment is required to be reviewed - As per the Explanation to Order 47 Rule 1, the fact that a decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior court in any other case shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment. (Para 2)
(B) Reservation and Promotion - Dilution of standards - Legality of granting 10 per cent reduction of marks for candidates of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes in examinations confined to such candidates for the purpose of promotion - Such dilution is legally permissible, and following the insertion of Article 16(4-A) of the Constitution of India by the Constitution (Seventy-seventh Amendment) Act, 1995, any objection to such dilution would not survive on merits. (Para 3)
Facts of the case:
Review petitions were filed challenging a judgment, primarily on the ground that the decision sought to be reviewed had been referred for reconsideration to a Constitution Bench in a subsequent matter. The original issue concerned the validity of a 10 per cent reduction in marks for candidates from scheduled castes and scheduled tribes in departmental examinations that were restricted only to those specific categories.
Findings of Court:
The court found that a mere reference to a Constitution Bench stands on weak footing and does not constitute a ground for review. On the merits of the promotion standards, the court observed that the issue was distinct from general dilution of standards and was rendered valid by the introduction of Article 16(4-A).
Issues: Whether the reference of a judgment to a Constitution Bench in a subsequent case provides grounds for a review petition and whether the dilution of standards for specified categories in restricted examinations is legally permissible.
Ratio Decidendi: Under the legal framework for review, a subsequent contrary view or referral to a higher bench in another case is not a valid ground for review. Furthermore, targeted dilution of standards in examinations limited to specific categories for promotion is permissible under the 77th Amendment to the Constitution.
Result: Review petitions are dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Review sought on ground of subsequent reference to Constitution Bench. Court holds reference irrelevant per Order 47 Rule 1 explanation. (Para 2 )
3. Subsequent reversal or modification by superior court is not a ground for review. Mere reference to Constitution Bench is weaker. (Para 2 , 3 )
4. Review not maintainable merely because issue referred to Constitution Bench in another case. Explanation to Order 47 Rule 1 applies. (Para 2 , 3 )
5. Review petitions dismissed. (Para 3 )
6. Can a subsequent reference to a Constitution Bench be a ground for review?
No. Explanation to Order 47 Rule 1 states that even reversal or modification by a superior court is not a ground for review; a mere reference is even weaker. (Para 2 , 3 )
(1) DELAY condoned.
(2) WE have carefully considered the review petitions and the grounds in support thereof. The fact that in a subsequent matter the judgment sought to be reviewed is referred for reconsideration to a Constitution Bench, is irrelevant for deciding the question whether the impugned judgment is required to be reviewed. See Explanation to Order 47 Rule 1 which reads as follows:
"THE fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment."
(3) THUS even if subsequent Constitution Bench takes a contrary view, it will be no ground for reviewing the judgment in question. Mere reference to Constitution Bench stands on a still weaker footing. Even otherwise, on merits, it has to be kept in view that the decision sought to be reviewed has nothing to do with the question whether there can be dilution of standards in the matter of promotion of employees as referred to in Indra Sawhney case. The issue was entirely different. In the present cases, there was already dilution of standards in making promotions by granting 10 per cent reduction of marks for SC/ST candidates in examinations for the purpose. The question was when the examination was confined to SC/ST candidates only, such dilution could be resorted to. It was not in dispute between the parties that if at such departmental examinations general category of candidates competed with SC/ST candidates, such dilution was legally permissible. Thus question of dilution for SC/ST candidates only was not on the anvil of scrutiny before this Court in the judgment sought to be reviewed while in Indra Sawhney case such general dilution was not approved. Even otherwise, after insertion of Article 16(4-A) of the Constitution of India by the Constitution (Seventy- seventh Amendment) Act, 1995 this objection would not survive even on merits. For all these reasons, these review petitions are dismissed.
