Supreme Court of India
The Flag Officer Commanding - In Chief & ... vs Mrs. M.A. Rajani & Anr on 17 March, 1997
Equivalent citations: AIR 1997 SUPREME COURT 2099, 1997 (4) SCC 276, 1997 AIR SCW 1931, 1997 LAB. I. C. 2085, 1997 (3) SCALE 339, 1997 (3) ADSC 703, (1997) 4 JT 212 (SC), 1997 ADSC 3 703, 1998 (1) SERVLJ 218 SC, (1997) 2 SCR 1155 (SC), (1997) 4 LAB LN 84, (1997) 2 SERVLR 508, (1997) 3 SCALE 339, (1997) 2 SCT 612, (1997) 3 SUPREME 516, (1997) 1 CURLR 854, 1997 SCC (L&S) 938
Bench: K. Ramaswamy, G.T. Nanavati
PETITIONER: THE FLAG OFFICER COMMANDING - IN CHIEF & ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: MRS. M.A. RAJANI & ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17/03/1997 BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT:
O R D E R Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
This appeal arises from the order of the C.A.T. Trivendrum Bench, made on 8.3.1996 in O.A. No. 1399/95.
The 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.
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 dereservatiion is clearly illegal and, 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.