Khan & Anr Vs. A. Gangadharan & Ors  Insc 415 (24 August 2001)
Babu & Brijesh Kumar Rajendra Babu, J. :
J U D
G M E N T
appeals arise out of an order made by the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Madras Bench [hereinafter referred to as the Administrative Tribunal] in which
the selection against 30% quota for the post of Assistant Controller of Stores
in the Stores Department of the Southern Railway through limited Departmental
Competitive Examination held in June 1994 was challenged on the ground that no
reservation for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe had been made as required. The
Railway Board had instructed by its letter sent on 16.6.1992 that while
computing the reserved quota such of the employees belonging to the said class
already in the grade had to be taken and if it was more than the prescribed
percentage, no reservation shall be provided and if such quota was less,
reservation must be provided. A clarification was subsequently issued on
29.7.1993 to the effect that Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates who
have been promoted on their own merit and seniority should not be counted as
reserved candidates and this has been the declaration of law made by this Court
in R.K. Sabharwal & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Ors., 1995 (2) SCC 745,
and Union of India & Ors. vs. Virpal
Singh Chauhan & Ors., 1995 (6) SCC 684. However, in the selections made by
the second respondent the requisite number of posts had not been reserved for
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates. Out of 7 posts at least 2 posts
should have been reserved for them which was available against 30% quota.
Therefore, the Administrative Tribunal gave certain directions to off-set the
imbalance caused by the wrong application of the instructions issued by the
Railway Board. Thus the view stated by the Administrative Tribunal appears us
to be correct and calls for no interference.
in the application of the decision certain factors will have to be taken note
of in the present case. The appellants have been selected quite sometime back
and the first appellant has been promoted to a higher grade. The appellants
were not responsible for the wrong computation of vacancies done by the second
respondent. After the empanelment and appointment of the appellants, it is
brought to our notice that there have been fresh promotions to the post of
Assistant Controller of Stores at least on two occasions in June, 1995 and May,
1997. In a new selection 5 Scheduled Caste candidates and 4 Scheduled Tribe
candidates have been selected. The appellants could not participate in the same
as they had already been promoted to the higher grade.
when the appellants have been working in the higher grade from 1994 onwards, it
would not be equitable to disturb their promotions.
the second respondent will have to enlarge the panel in order to accommodate
two more candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe in the next
recruitment that may take place and appropriate seniority be given to suitable
candidates whether already promoted or now to be promoted with effect from
17.8.1994 when the first appellant was promoted as Assistant Controller of
Stores. In such an event equity would stand balanced.
while upholding the order made by the Administrative Tribunal which is
consistent with the view taken by this Court in several decisions, including
R.K. Sabharwal & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Ors. (supra) and Union of
India & Ors. vs. Virpal Singh Chauhan & Ors. (supra), we direct as
appeals stand disposed of accordingly. However, in the circumstances of the
case, there shall be no order as to costs.
RAJENDRA BABU ] ..J.
BRIJESH KUMAR ] AUGUST