Union of India vs Shantiranjan Sarkar

Q: Key Points

No The provided judgment does not support the legal query. It addresses a Scheduled Caste employee's entitlement to relaxed qualifying marks (30% instead of 45%) for initial recruitment/consideration to a Group D post (Postman/Mail Guard from Extra-Departmental quota), based on departmental errors in recognizing his SC status under Article 341 and failure to process representations. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's direction for his appointment/consideration but made no ruling on promotion (the context was entry-level recruitment, not promotion), nor did it hold that delayed promotion due to departmental inaction entitles an employee to retrospective promotion from the date a junior was promoted. Relief was granted prospectively against the department's "mistake" and suppression of facts, with costs imposed, but without any mention of back-dating or juniors' promotion dates. References Used: [1000471500009][1000471500010][1000471500011][1000471500012][1000471500013][1000471500014]

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2009 Supreme(SC) 52

S.B.SINHA, J.M.PANCHAL
Union of India – Appellant
Versus
Shantiranjan Sarkar – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants:Mr. B. Datta, ASG, Ms. Rajni Ohri, Mr. B.K. Prasad, and Mr. V.K. Verma Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mrs. Sarada Devi, Advocate.

Judgement Key Points

The provided judgment does not support the legal query. It addresses a Scheduled Caste employee's entitlement to relaxed qualifying marks (30% instead of 45%) for initial recruitment/consideration to a Group D post (Postman/Mail Guard from Extra-Departmental quota), based on departmental errors in recognizing his SC status under Article 341 and failure to process representations. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's direction for his appointment/consideration but made no ruling on promotion (the context was entry-level recruitment, not promotion), nor did it hold that delayed promotion due to departmental inaction entitles an employee to retrospective promotion from the date a junior was promoted. Relief was granted prospectively against the department's "mistake" and suppression of facts, with costs imposed, but without any mention of back-dating or juniors' promotion dates.

References Used:
[1000471500009][1000471500010][1000471500011][1000471500012][1000471500013][1000471500014]

Judgment:-

S.B. Sinha, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Appellants are before us aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 11.04.2005 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta, Circuit Bench at Port Blair whereby and where under the writ petition filed by the respondent herein was allowed.

3. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. An advertisement was issued for filling up the post of Postman/ Mail Guard under the quota of Extra-departmental candidate at Andaman and Nicobar Island, Port Blair. Respondent herein pursuant thereto or in furtherance thereof applied for the said post. He appeared at an examination held for the said purpose. On or about 18.11.1997, the purported results of the said examination were published with the remarks "none qualified".

4. Subsequently, some other examinations were also held in which the respondent participated. Indisputably, he was a member of the Scheduled Caste. He filed several representations before the concerned various authorities contending that his candidature had not been considered despite the fact that he had obtained more than 30% of marks which was the cut-off mark for the members of the Scheduled C

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2009 Supreme(SC) 52

S.B.SINHA, J.M.PANCHALUnion of India – AppellantVersusShantiranjan Sarkar – Respondent

S.B.SINHA, J.M.PANCHAL
Union of India – Appellant
Versus
Shantiranjan Sarkar – Respondent