Union of India & Ors. Vs. R. Ayyappan
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 6467 of 1997
(Arising out of SLP No. 3097 of 1997)
(Arising out of SLP No. 3097 of 1997)
Petitioner: Union of India & Ors.
Respondent: R. Ayyappan
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 6467 of 1997
(Arising out of SLP No. 3097 of 1997)
(Arising out of SLP No. 3097 of 1997)
Judges: SUJATA V. MANOHAR & D.P. WADHWA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Dec 09, 1997
Head Note:
CONSTITUTION
Article – 14,15,16,136 – Promotion – Isolated post of operator – Filling only by promotion – Respondent, only general category candidate, working as operator, though was assistant operator – Plea that single post was reserved for SC candidate. Held that even though a single post con be reserved by rotation on basis of roster, as held in UOI v. Madhav JT 1996 (9) SC 320, distinguishing the case of Dr. Chakradhar Paswan, in absence of roster, the Tribunal was entitled to rely upon Dr. Chakradhar’s Case, that there cannot be reservation of Single post (Para 4, 5)
Cases Reffered:
1. Chakradhar Paswan (Dr) v. State of Bihar. JT 1988 (1) SC 496) (Paras 3,4.5) Referred in JT 1998 (5) SC 346
2. Union of India v. Madhav JT 1996 (9) SC 320).(Paras 4,5)Distinguwinshed in JT 1998 (5) SC 346
3. Chetana Dilip Motghare v. Bhide Girls’ Education Society (1995 Supp (1) SCC 157). Referred in JT 1998 (5) SC 346
4. State of Bihar v. Bageshwari Prasad (1995 Supp (1) SCC 432) Referred in JT 1998 (5) SC 346
2. Union of India v. Madhav JT 1996 (9) SC 320).(Paras 4,5)Distinguwinshed in JT 1998 (5) SC 346
3. Chetana Dilip Motghare v. Bhide Girls’ Education Society (1995 Supp (1) SCC 157). Referred in JT 1998 (5) SC 346
4. State of Bihar v. Bageshwari Prasad (1995 Supp (1) SCC 432) Referred in JT 1998 (5) SC 346
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The dispute relates to an isolated post of Operator (Ice Plant) in the Integrated Fisheries Project of the Union of India. The recruitment rules provide for the post being filled by promotion failing which, by direct recruitment. It is contended by the appellants that the vacancy which is the subject-matter of dispute, was reserved for a Scheduled Caste candidate and hence the first respondent who had been working as an Assistant Operator for the last 26 years and was otherwise eligible for promotion was not entitled to be promoted to this post since he belonged to the general category. The respondent in fact had been acting as Operator since 31.8.1993 when the previous incumbent voluntarily retired.
3. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam has allowed the application of the respondent on the ground that a solitary post cannot be reserved, relying upon the decision of this Court in Chakradhar Paswan (Dr) v. State of Bihar JT 1988 (1) SC 496) and Chetana Dilip Motghare v. Bhide Girls’ Education Society (1995 Supp (1) SCC 157).
4. The appellants have pointed out that in the case of State of Bihar v. Bageshwari Prasad (1995 Supp (1) SCC 432) this court held that even a single post can be reserved by rotation on the basis of a roster, distinguishing the case of Dr. Chakradhar Paswan v. State of Bihar JT 1988 (1) SC 496). This view has been reaffirmed by a Bench of three Judges of this Court in Union of India v. Madhav JT 1996 (9) SC 320).
5. In the present case, however, the appellants are unable to point out to us any such reservation of the present post which is a single post, by rotation as contemplated in the case of State of Bihar v. Bageshwari Prasad or Union of India v. Madhav JT 1996 (9) SC 320). The Tribunal, therefore, was entitled to rely upon the decision in the case of Dr. Chakradhar Paswan v. State of Bihar JT 1988 (1) SC 496 . The appeal is hence dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
1. Leave granted.
2. The dispute relates to an isolated post of Operator (Ice Plant) in the Integrated Fisheries Project of the Union of India. The recruitment rules provide for the post being filled by promotion failing which, by direct recruitment. It is contended by the appellants that the vacancy which is the subject-matter of dispute, was reserved for a Scheduled Caste candidate and hence the first respondent who had been working as an Assistant Operator for the last 26 years and was otherwise eligible for promotion was not entitled to be promoted to this post since he belonged to the general category. The respondent in fact had been acting as Operator since 31.8.1993 when the previous incumbent voluntarily retired.
3. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam has allowed the application of the respondent on the ground that a solitary post cannot be reserved, relying upon the decision of this Court in Chakradhar Paswan (Dr) v. State of Bihar JT 1988 (1) SC 496) and Chetana Dilip Motghare v. Bhide Girls’ Education Society (1995 Supp (1) SCC 157).
4. The appellants have pointed out that in the case of State of Bihar v. Bageshwari Prasad (1995 Supp (1) SCC 432) this court held that even a single post can be reserved by rotation on the basis of a roster, distinguishing the case of Dr. Chakradhar Paswan v. State of Bihar JT 1988 (1) SC 496). This view has been reaffirmed by a Bench of three Judges of this Court in Union of India v. Madhav JT 1996 (9) SC 320).
5. In the present case, however, the appellants are unable to point out to us any such reservation of the present post which is a single post, by rotation as contemplated in the case of State of Bihar v. Bageshwari Prasad or Union of India v. Madhav JT 1996 (9) SC 320). The Tribunal, therefore, was entitled to rely upon the decision in the case of Dr. Chakradhar Paswan v. State of Bihar JT 1988 (1) SC 496 . The appeal is hence dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
