THE FLAG OFFICER COMMANDING-IN-CHIEF AND ANR. v. MRS. M.A. RAJAN! AND ANR.
vidhipandit.com/case/sc-1997-2-1155-1156
Decision dates shown here are day-precision where the judgment's own text states a date the extractor is confident in, and year only otherwise -- never a fabricated day. See the editorial policy for how dates are extracted.
Headnote — Supreme Court Reports (editorial summary, not part of the judgment)
Reporter's headnote (continued) and case details
MARCH 17, 1997.
B
Service Law:
Ministry of Defence Recmitme1:t of Stenographers (Grade Ill) Rules:
Rule 1 (d)-Recroitment-:l'ost reserved for Scheduled Castes-Sources c of appointment-By promotion/Transfer/Direct recroitment-After exhausting the sources of appointme11t by promotion and transfer, 11ames were called from Employment Exchange and the. respondent, a Scheduled Caste can- didate, was selected-Meanwhile vacancy was dereserved, and respondent was refused appointme11f-Tribw1al directed appointment of respo11dent--Held, D when the candidate was available, resort to dereservatio11 is clearly il- legaf-Tribu11al was right i11 gi.ving the direction to appoi11t the respondent who was duly selected by the Committee. ·.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2235 of
1997. E From the Jutlgment and Order dated 8.3.96 of the Central Ad- ministrative Tribunal, Ernakulam, Kerala in O.A.No. 1399 of 1995. •
V.C. Mahajan, Mrs. Sushma Manchanda and Mrs. Anil Katiyar for the Appellants. F K.M.K. Nair for the Respondents.
Judgment
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides. G This appeal arises from the order of the C.A.T. Trivendrum Bench, made on 8.3.1996 in 0.A. No. 1399/95.
The only controversy is whether the respondent is entitled to ap- pointment by direct recruitment to a reserved vacancy? Admittedly, Rule H . . 1155
p. 1156
A l(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 appel- lants resorted to direct recruitment and the respondent was called through the Employment Exchange for selection. Though she was selected, she was B 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 TriJ:>unal 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. c It is seen that Rule l(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 seletion. Wh~n the candidate was available, resort to dereservation is clearly illegal' and, D therefore, the Tribunal was right in giving the direction to appoint the respondent who was duly selected by the Committee.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
R.P. Appeal dismissed."
Report an error in this judgment →
Contains information from the Indian High Court / Supreme Court Judgments dataset, licensed under CC-BY-4.0