Mohan Kumar Lal Vs. Vinoba Bhave Uni. & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 4293/2000
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 19413/1999)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 19413/1999)
Petitioner: Mohan Kumar Lal
Respondent: Vinoba Bhave Uni. & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 4293/2000
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 19413/1999)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 19413/1999)
Judges: G.B. PATTANAIK & U.C. BANERJEE, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jul 31, 2000
Head Note:
SERVICE AND LABOUR LAW
Constitution
Articles 226, 15, 16 – Reservation policy – Applicability – Post advertised on 10.1.90 – Last date for application on 30.1.90 – No clause for reservation in the concerned Act. Held that policy could not have been made applicable. Orders set aside. (Para 2)
Constitution
Articles 226, 15, 16 – Reservation policy – Applicability – Post advertised on 10.1.90 – Last date for application on 30.1.90 – No clause for reservation in the concerned Act. Held that policy could not have been made applicable. Orders set aside. (Para 2)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
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 Sub-section (5) of Section 57 of the Act, will not apply to the present case.
3. The appeal is allowed.
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 Sub-section (5) of Section 57 of the Act, will not apply to the present case.
3. The appeal is allowed.
