Back
High Court Of Delhi
P.K.BHASIN - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
Decided On : 04/19/1991
The Delhi High Court (DHC) issued an advertisement inviting applications for filling up vacancies in the Delhi Higher Judicial Service (Service), including four reserved for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs). Petitioners, practicing advocates, applied and were called for an interview. Only one SC candidate was appointed, and no ST candidate was found suitable. The DHC issued a second advertisement for filling up the remaining vacancies, exclusively for SCs and STs. Petitioners challenged the validity of Rule 22 of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970 (Rules), which provided for reservation of posts for SCs and STs in accordance with orders issued by the Central Government, and the subsequent office memoranda issued by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) on the subject of reservation. They also sought their appointment to the Service.
Fact of the Case:
The Delhi High Court (DHC) issued an advertisement inviting applications for filling up vacancies in the Delhi Higher Judicial Service (Service), including four reserved for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs). Petitioners, practicing advocates, applied and were called for an interview. Only one SC candidate was appointed, and no ST candidate was found suitable. The DHC issued a second advertisement for filling up the remaining vacancies, exclusively for SCs and STs. Petitioners challenged the validity of Rule 22 of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970 (Rules), which provided for reservation of posts for SCs and STs in accordance with orders issued by the Central Government, and the subsequent office memoranda issued by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) on the subject of reservation. They also sought their appointment to the Service.
Finding of the Court:
The Court upheld the validity of Rule 22 and the office memoranda issued by the DoPT. It held that reservation for SCs and STs was a constitutional mandate under Articles 15(4), 16(4), and 335 of the Constitution, and that Rule 22 was a valid provision for implementing this mandate. The Court also held that the ban on de-reservation imposed by the DoPT's office memorandum dated 25th April 1989 was a valid exercise of power and did not violate the principle of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court further held that the selection of respondents No. 6 and 7, who were SC candidates appointed pursuant to the second advertisement, was valid, even though they were over the age limit prescribed by Rule 9 of the Rules, as the DHC had consistently interpreted the Rules to allow for relaxation of the age limit for SC and ST candidates.
Issues: 1. Whether Rule 22 of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970 (Rules), which provided for reservation of posts for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) in accordance with orders issued by the Central Government, was valid. 2. Whether the office memoranda issued by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) on the subject of reservation were valid. 3. Whether the ban on de-reservation imposed by the DoPT's office memorandum dated 25th April 1989 was valid. 4. Whether the selection of respondents No. 6 and 7, who were SC candidates appointed pursuant to the second advertisement, was valid, even though they were over the age limit prescribed by Rule 9 of the Rules.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Rule 22 of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970 (Rules), which provided for reservation of posts for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) in accordance with orders issued by the Central Government, was valid as it was a valid provision for implementing the constitutional mandate of reservation under Articles 15(4), 16(4), and 335 of the Constitution. 2. The office memoranda issued by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) on the subject of reservation were valid as they were issued in exercise of the DoPT's constitutional authority under Allocation of Business Rules, framed under Article 77 of the Constitution, and were aimed at ensuring that the reservation provided for SCs and STs operated effectively. 3. The ban on de-reservation imposed by the DoPT's office memorandum dated 25th April 1989 was a valid exercise of power and did not violate the principle of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution, as it was aimed at ensuring that the reservation provided for SCs and STs was not rendered illusory by allowing de-reservation. 4. The selection of respondents No. 6 and 7, who were SC candidates appointed pursuant to the second advertisement, was valid, even though they were over the age limit prescribed by Rule 9 of the Rules, as the DHC had consistently interpreted the Rules to allow for relaxation of the age limit for SC and ST candidates.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petition of Mr. S. N. Aggarwal, being Civil Writ No. 2590 of 1990, in the terms set out above, and dismissed the writ petition of Mr. P. K. Bhasin, being Civil Writ No. 613 of 1990.
( 1 ) THE petitioners in the two writ petitions are practising advocates at Delhi. the High Court of Delhi (respondent No. 3) issued an advertisement (Annexureb-l) in December, 1987 inviting applications from practising advocates for filling upvacancies in the Delhi Higher Judicial Service (for short the Service ), falling in the quota of direct recruits. The vacancies advertised were four in number, two of which were stated to be reserved for Scheduled Castes and two for Scheduled Tribes; one of the vacancy of Scheduled Tribes being exchangeable to a candidate belonging to Scheduled Castes. Alternatively, it was notified that these vacancies would also be open to general category candidates, who would be considered for appointment in the event of suitable candidates not being available in the reserved category. Both the petitioners state to have applied in response to the aforesaid advertisemeril and were called for interiew on 7th October, 1988 before the Selection Committee constituted by the High Court.
( 2 ) THE pica in both the writ petitions is that only one candidate belonging to Scheduled Castes category, namely, Shri L. D. Maul has been appointed to the Service, against one of the four advertised vacancies in September, 1989. It is alleged that no other candidate belonging to the reserved category, whether Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes, was found suitable for appointment to the Service. They contend that their performance was very satisfactory, and they have every reason to believe that they had been selected along with one other general category candidate, for appointment against the remaining three reserved vacancies.
( 3 ) BEFORE proceedipg further with the contentions raised in these writ petitions, which we propose to dispose of by one common judgment as these raise common questions of facts and law, we find it expedient to set out a few facts, so as to facilitate proper appreciation of the contentions being raised in these petitions.
( 4 ) DELHI Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as, the rules ) which govern the recruitment, promotion, confirmation, seniority and other conditions of service tor officers appointed to the said Service, were framed vide Notification issued on 27th August, 1970, The preamble indicates. that these were issued by the Lt. Governor of Delhi in exercise of the powers conferred by proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, in consultation with the High Court of Delhi. After initial recruitment, the regular recruitment is governed by rules 7 to 11 of the Rules. Rule 7 lays down two sources for recruitment-- (a) by promotion from amongst the officers of the Delhi Judicial Service and (b) by direct recruitment from the Bar with the rider that the quota for direct recruitment shall not at any time exceed more than one third the total cadre strength of the Service. The petitioners are concerned with the category known as direct recruits . Besides the provisions of rules 7 to II, another rule which has a bearing on the question of recruitment is rule 22, which falls under the heading "other Provisions", and reads as under:
"the reservation of posts for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes shall be in accordance with the orders issued by the Central Government from time to time. "
( 5 ) THE Delhi High Court from the very inception of the Service, has been, in consonance with rule 22, following the model roster provided in the Brochure for reservation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates in services (hereinafter referred to as the brochure ). It is Seventh Edition one, which has been referred to by both sides, during hearing. The first year of direct recruitment was 1971. Thereafter, appointments were being made to the Service by way of direct recruitment, as and when vacancies arose in. the quota meant for direct recruits, with due regard to the vacancies, falling in the reserved categories of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled T
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
