Flag Officer Commanding & ANR V. Mrs. M.A. Rajani & ANR  INSC 307
(17 March 1997)
RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI
O R D
E R Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
appeal arises from the order of the C.A.T.
Bench, made on 8.3.1996 in O.A. No. 1399/95.
only controversy is whether the respondent is entitled to appointment by direct
recruitment to a reserve vacancy? Admittedly, Rule 1 () of the Ministry of Defence
Recruitment of Stenographer, (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.
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.
the respondent was called for selection. When the candidate was available, resort
to dereservatiion is clearly illegal and, therefore, the Tribunal was right in
giving the direction to appoint the respondent who was duly selected by the
appeal is accordingly dismissed No costs.