The Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief & Anr. Vs. Mrs. M.A. Rajani & Anr.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No.2235 of 1997
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.1118 of 1997)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 8.3.96 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam, Kerala in O.A.No. 1399 of 1995)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.1118 of 1997)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 8.3.96 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam, Kerala in O.A.No. 1399 of 1995)
Petitioner: The Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief & Anr.
Respondent: Mrs. M.A. Rajani & Anr.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No.2235 of 1997
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.1118 of 1997)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 8.3.96 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam, Kerala in O.A.No. 1399 of 1995)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.1118 of 1997)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 8.3.96 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam, Kerala in O.A.No. 1399 of 1995)
Judges: K. RAMASWAMY & G.T.NANAVATI, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 17, 1997
Appearances:
V.C. Mahajan, Senior Advocate, Mrs. Sushma Manchanda and Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Advocates with him for the Appellants.
K.M.K.Nair, Advocate for the Respondents.
Head Note:
SERVICE AND LABOUR LAW
Reservation – Direct Recruitment to a reserved vacancy – Ministry of Defence Recruitment of Stenographers (Grade III) Rules – Rule 1(a) – Held appellant having been called for selection in a reserved vacancy, and candidate was available, resort to dereservation of the vacancy was clearly illegal – Held Tribunal right in directing appointment of the ~4~ Appeal dismissed.
Held:
It is seen that Rule 1(a) postulates three sources for recruitment – first by promotion, second by transfer and on failing both of these methods, by direct recruitment. Admittedly, the post was reserved for Scheduled Castes. Accordingly, the respondent was called for selection. When the candidate was available, resort to dereservation is clearly illegal and, therefore, the Tribunal was right in giving the direction to appoint the respondent who was duly selected by the Committee. (Para 4)
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
2. This appeal arises from the order of the C.A.T. Trivendrum Bench, made on 8.3.1996 in O.A. No.1399/95.
3. The only controversy is whether the respondent is entitled to appointment by direct recruitment to a reserved vacancy? Admittedly, Rule 1(a) of the Ministry of Defence Recruitment of Stenographers, (Grade III) Rules postulates appointment by promotion; failing that, by transfer; and failing both, by direct recruitment. In this case, the sources of appointment, viz., by promotion and transfer, were exhausted. Consequently, the appellants resorted to direct recruitment and the respondent was called through the Employment Exchange for selection. Though she was selected, she was not given appointment on the specious ground that by proceedings under Ex.A3 the post was dereserved and that, therefore, she was not eligible for appointment. The Tribunal has not agreed with the contention of the appellants and directed them to appoint the respondent in accordance with Rules. Thus this appeal, by special leave.
4. It is seen that Rule 1(a) postulates three sources for recruitment – first by promotion, second by transfer and on failing both of these methods, by direct recruitment. Admittedly, the post was reserved for Scheduled Castes. Accordingly, the respondent was called for selection. When the candidate was available, resort to dereservation is clearly illegal and, therefore, the Tribunal was right in giving the direction to appoint the respondent who was duly selected by the Committee.
5. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
1. Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
2. This appeal arises from the order of the C.A.T. Trivendrum Bench, made on 8.3.1996 in O.A. No.1399/95.
3. The only controversy is whether the respondent is entitled to appointment by direct recruitment to a reserved vacancy? Admittedly, Rule 1(a) of the Ministry of Defence Recruitment of Stenographers, (Grade III) Rules postulates appointment by promotion; failing that, by transfer; and failing both, by direct recruitment. In this case, the sources of appointment, viz., by promotion and transfer, were exhausted. Consequently, the appellants resorted to direct recruitment and the respondent was called through the Employment Exchange for selection. Though she was selected, she was not given appointment on the specious ground that by proceedings under Ex.A3 the post was dereserved and that, therefore, she was not eligible for appointment. The Tribunal has not agreed with the contention of the appellants and directed them to appoint the respondent in accordance with Rules. Thus this appeal, by special leave.
4. It is seen that Rule 1(a) postulates three sources for recruitment – first by promotion, second by transfer and on failing both of these methods, by direct recruitment. Admittedly, the post was reserved for Scheduled Castes. Accordingly, the respondent was called for selection. When the candidate was available, resort to dereservation is clearly illegal and, therefore, the Tribunal was right in giving the direction to appoint the respondent who was duly selected by the Committee.
5. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
