2019 Supreme(SC) 159

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ashok Bhushan, K.M. Joseph, JJ.
Union of India & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
C. Girija & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1577 of 2019, Civil Appeal No. 1578 of 2019, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 653 of 2015
Decided On : 13-02-2019

IMPORTANT POINTS
Filing of representation would not revive a stale claim and give any fresh cause of action.
A person participating in selection process fully aware of basis of reservations cannot challenge the same after becoming unsuccessful.
Roster points should be followed while determining vacancies.
Retiral benefits should be paid immediately after retirement. Delay attracts compensation by way of interest.

Headnote:(a) Administration of justice – Delay and laches – Cause of action – Panel declared on 09.01.2001 – Final communication after representation issued on 27.12.2007 – OA filed in 2009 – Tribunal condoning delay of 560 days after 27.12.2007 – Applicant submitted her representation against panel dated 09.01.2001 after more than 06 years and 09 months, on 25.09.2007, not adverted to – Held, applicant’s claim of inclusion in the panel had become stale by the time representation was filed – Filing of representation would not give any fresh cause of action. (Para 11, 16)

       (2008) 10 SCC 115; (2010) 2 SCC 59; (2013) 12 SCC 179; (1975) 1 SCC 152 – Relied upon

       (b) Administration of justice – Approbation and reprobation – Appellant notifying 4 unreserved and 1 reserved vacancy under 30% quota after bifurcating total vacancies in 30% and 70% – Respondent participating in selection process fully aware of reservations – Held, could not challenge the bifurcation after becoming unsuccessful – Held, Tribunal and the High Court ought not to have entertained applicant’s stale claim. (Para 17, 18)

       (2017) 4 SCC 357 – Relied upon

       (c) Service law – Reservation – Roster points should be followed while determining vacancies – Instantly there being 05 vacancies – Roster points from 9 to 13 available for selection – 9th point already consumed – Hence roster points 10 to 14 only available – Point 14 being reserved for SC – Hence allotting 1 vacancy out of total 5 to SC ought not be interfered. (Para 21)

       (d) Service law – Retiral benefits – Should be paid immediately after retirement – Delay attracts compensation by way of interest. (Para 22)

       Facts of the case:

       The Southern Railway issued a notification dated 14.10.1999 for selection of group ‘C’ employee to Group ‘B’ within 30% quota. The notification intimated total vacancies (4 unreserved and 1 SC) to be filled up by limited competitive Departmental examination under 30% quota. Smt. C.Girija working as Office Superintendent Grade I, submitted her candidature as unreserved category candidate. Smt. Meena Bhaskar also submitted her candidature as reserved (SC) candidate. On 09.01.2001 a select panel was issued which did not include name of C.Girija against 4 unreserved posts. Name of Meena Bhaskar was shown as selected candidate against one SC post. Promotions were notified.

       Panel for 70% quota was subsequently prepared and was also issued on 10.04.2001. The panel issued for 70% quota was revised on 20.06.2007, by including additional 2 SC employees and excluding two junior unreserved employees. Subsequently, on 05.09.2007 panel dated 20.06.2007 was again revised adjusting two unreserved employees. The applicant C.Girija submitted a representation dated 25.09.2007 requesting for her inclusion and promotion against the post of APO against 30% quota in the panel drawn on 09.01.2001. The applicant referred to revision of the panel of 70% quota by order dated 20.06.2007 and 05.09.2007 and stated that reserving one post for SC, against 30% quota was against the norms.

       The Tribunal disposed of the matter and directed the respondents therein to include the applicant in the panel on the basis of her qualifying marks and to promote her notionally with effect from the date the 9th respondent has been promoted to the post of Assistant Personnel Officer.

       Ultimately the High Court upheld the order of the Tribunal and dismissed the Original Petitions filed by the Union of India as well as Meena Bhaskar, the 9th Respondent.

       Finding of the Court:

       Filing of representation would not revive a stale claim and give any fresh cause of action.

       A person participating in selection process fully aware of basis of reservations cannot challenge the same after becoming unsuccessful.

       Roster points should be followed while determining vacancies.

       Retiral benefits should be paid immediately after retirement. Delay attracts compensation by way of interest.

       Result: Civil Appeal Nos. 1577-78 of 2019 allowed. Writ Petition (C) No. 653 of 2015 disposed of.