SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
MARKANDEY KATJU, A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.
VELAYUDHAN V.R. & ORS. Appellant (s)
VERSUS
T.M. POULOSE & ORS. Respondent(s)
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 1353,1354 & 1355 of 2005
Decided On : 11-03-2010
Reservation - Executive Engineers (Electrical) - The court held that Rule 17A of the Service Rules allows for special recruitment from among Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, notwithstanding any provision in the rules or special rules, and that it can be done in addition to the normal appointments to the reserved quota. The Division Bench's view that Rule 17A was only supplemental to Rule 14 and that recruitment under Rule 17A could not exceed the maximum percentage of reservation made under Rule 14 was deemed incorrect.
Fact of the Case:
The appointments of Executive Engineers (Electrical) from among members of Scheduled Castes/Tribes were challenged by writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court allowed the Writ Appeals, holding that the provision of Rule 17-A of the Service Rules was supplemental to Rule 14 of the Service Rules.
Finding of the Court:
The court set aside the impugned judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court and allowed the appeals, while making it clear that benefits given to the respondents and any other employee of the Kerala State Electricity Board pursuant to the impugned judgment and order will not be withdrawn from them.
Issues: The main issue was the interpretation of Rule 17A of the Service Rules and its relationship with Rule 14 of the Service Rules in the context of special recruitment from among Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for the post of Executive Engineers (Electrical).
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that Rule 17A allows for special recruitment from among Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, notwithstanding any provision in the rules or special rules, and that it can be done in addition to the normal appointments to the reserved quota.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, and it was made clear that benefits given to the respondents and any other employee of the Kerala State Electricity Board pursuant to the impugned judgment and order will not be withdrawn from them.
ORDER
These are appeals against the common judgment and order dated 26.03.2003 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala in W.A. Nos. 677, 838, 1509, 1844, 1905 of 1998 and O.P. No. 5777 of 1999.
2. The facts briefly are that 7 posts of Executive Engineers (Electrical) in the Kerala State Electricity Board were filled up from amongst members of the Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes in accordance with Rule 17-A of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958 (hereinafter for short the ’Service Rules’). These appointments to the post of Executive Engineers (Electrical) from amongst members of Scheduled Castes/Tribes were challenged by writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court and when no relief was granted by the learned Single Judge of the High Court, Writ Appeals were filed before the Division Bench of the High Court and by the impugned judgment and order the Division Bench allowed the Writ Appeals holding that the provision of Rule 17-A of the Service Rules was supplemental to Rule 14 of the Service Rules which provided a reservation of 10% in any service, class or category of posts in favour of Scheduled Castes/Tribes and, therefore, while making special recruitment under Rule 17-A, the 10% reservation as provided in Rule 14 could not be exceeded.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and we are of the considered opinion that the view taken by the Division Bench of the High Court was not correct. Rule 14 of the Service Rules is titled ’Reservation of Appointments’ and states that where the special rules lay down that the principle of reservation of appointments shall apply to any service, class or category or where in the case of any service, class or category for which no special rules have been issued, the Government may by notification in the Gazette declare that the principle of reservation of appointments shall apply to such service, class or category, appointments by direct recruitment to such service, class or category. In the clause (a) of Rule 14 it is provided that the unit of appointment for the purpose of this rule shall be 20, of which 2 shall be reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and 8 shall be reserved for Other Backward Classes and the remaining 10 shall be filled on the basis of merit. Hence, Rule 14 makes a provision for reservation of 2 posts, one each for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes out of a total of 20 posts.
4. Rule 17-A of the Service Rules is quoted herein below :
"17A - Special recruitment from among the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes- Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules or in the special rules, the State Government may reserve a specified number of posts in any service, class, category or grade to be filled by direct recruitment exclusively from among the members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes."
The non-obstante clause in Rule 17A makes it clear that Rule 17A will operate notwithstanding any provision in the rules or the special rules. Hence, notwithstanding the provision of Rule 14 of the Service Rules making a reservation of 10% in favour of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, additional provision can be made under Rule 17A of the Service Rules for recruitment to any service, class, category or grade exclusively from amongst members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The title of Rule 17A indicates that under this Rule special recruitment can be done from among Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes when they are not adequately represented in any service, class, category or grade, in addition to the normal appointments to the reserved quota. The Division Bench of the High Court, therefore, was not correct in taking a view in the impugned judgment and order that Rule 17A was only supplemental to Rule 14 and that recruitment under Rule 17A could not exceed the maximum percentage of reservation made under Rule 14 of the Service Rules.
5. For the aforesaid reasons, we set asid
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.