Delhi High Court
Dr. Anju Dhawan And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 26 November, 2001
Author: Sharda Aggarwal
Bench: Sharda Aggarwal
JUDGMENT
Khan, (J)
1. This petition has been filed by resident doctors and Resident Doctors Association of All India Institute of Medical Science challenging advertisement notification No. 4 dated 18.6.1994 inviting applications for appointment to seven posts of Senior Residents and two posts of Senior Demonstrator reserved for SC/ST and OBC and for directing the respondent No. 2 to 4 from exempting these posts from reservation.
2. Their case is that these posts are speciality posts for which no reservation could be made and in any case 100% reservation to these posts was not permissible. Reliance in this regard is placed on Supreme Court observations in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India and Ors., 1992 Supp (3) Supreme Court Cases 215 and some other judgments.
3. Respondents 2 to 4 have disputed that the Supreme Court judgment in Indra Sawhney's case imposed any bar for applying reservation rule to these posts. On the second issue, it is explained that out of 34 posts of Senior Residents advertised, only 16 were reserved for SC,ST and OBC and that posts of Senior Resident and Senior Demonstrator were one category posts and the question of making wholesale reservation to these, therefore, did not arise.
4. We have already held in connnected CWP No. 4223/94 filed amongst others by Faculty Association of All India Institute of Medical Science holding that Supreme Court had not imposed any prohibition against application of reservation rule for appointment to speciality and super speciality posts and therefore petitioners' first plea shall stand rejected in that light.
5. Petitioners' second grievance also appears to be suffering from some misconception. It is true that there can't be any reservation of single post cadre or for that matter wholesale 100% reservation of available posts in a cadre. But that does not seem to be the case here because the ratio of reservation has to be ascertained in the light of the availability of posts in a cadre irrespective of description of post in advertisement notification. No foundation has been laid by petitioners to show that advertised posts were the only available posts in the cadre which stood all reserved. Having failed to do so and considering the explanation offered by respondent 2-4 it can't be said or held that respondents had made 100% wholesale reservation for appointment to these posts depriving all other from consideration.
6. In any case, impugned notification No. 4 dated 18.6.1994 had become redundant by efflux of time and there was no scope of its being acted upon more in the aftermath of dismissal of connected CWP No. 4223/94 which had opened the way for fresh selection process to be undertaken for appointment to various faculty posts under rules. Therefore, nothing survives in this petition which is dismissed.