1. Dispute over applicability of reservation policy to a recruitment process initiated before the relevant statutory amendment. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2000 Supreme(SC) 1221
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.B.Pattanaik : U.C.Banerjee
Mohan Kumar Lal
Versus
Vinoba Bhave Uni
Case No. : 4293 of 2000
Date of Decision : 7/31/00
Important Points
A reservation policy introduced via a legislative amendment does not apply retrospectively to recruitment processes initiated before the amendment's introduction, regardless of whether the actual appointments were made after the amendment came into effect.
Subject
Service Law - Reservation Policy
Act Referred
Headnote
Constitution of India, Article 136 - Reservation Policy under the Act - Question was whether the Service Commission could ignore the decision to make reservation policy applicable in respect of an appointment to the post- High Court erred in observing that since appointments had not factually been made, the reservation policy would apply- Held the provisions of Section 57, which governs the field, did not contain any clause for reservation - Therefore regarding the post in question, the reservation policy would not apply- Order of the High Court set aside [Para 2]
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
administrative law
-
service law
-
recruitment
- reservation policy (Para 2)
-
recruitment
-
service law
Table of Contents
2. Whether reservation policy applies to posts advertised before the amendment if actual appointments had not yet been made. (Para 2 )
3. The reservation provision in Section 57(5) was introduced after the recruitment process for the post had already been initiated. (Para 2 )
4. A reservation policy introduced by statutory amendment does not apply to recruitment processes initiated prior to the amendment. (Para 2 )
5. Appeal allowed and High Court judgment set aside; reservation policy held inapplicable to the case. (Para 2 , 3 )
6. Does a reservation policy introduced by a statutory amendment apply to recruitment processes initiated before the amendment?
No. If the recruitment process was initiated before the introduction of the reservation clause in the governing section, the reservation policy cannot be made applicable, even if actual appointments had not yet been made. (Para 2 )
(1) LEAVE granted.
(2) THE short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the Service Commission could ignore the decision to make reservation policy applicable in respect of an appointment to the post, which was advertised on 10.1.1990, and the last date for submission of the application was 30th January, 1990. High Court in the impugned judgment is of the view that since appointments had not factually been made, the reservation policy would apply. As it transpires, the provisions of Section 57, which governs the field, did not contain any clause for reservation and Sub-section (5) of said Section 57 providing for reservation was introduced only on 22nd August, 1993. In this view of the matter, in respect of post advertised for which the process of recruitment had been initiated, the reservation policy could not have been made applicable. The impugned judgment of the High Court was, therefore, erroneous, and cannot be sustained. We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and hold that the reservation policy, pursuance to the amended provision of Subsection (5) of Section 57 of the Act, will not apply to the present case.
(3) THE appeal is allowed.
