Gujarat High Court
Union Of India & vs A K Chaudhary S/O Kumar on 19 July, 2013
Author: Vijay Manohar Sahai
Bench: Vijay Manohar Sahai
UNION OF INDIAV/SA K CHAUDHARY S/O KUMAR CHAUDHARY C/SCA/28773/2007 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 28773 of 2007 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJAY MANOHAR SAHAI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.G.URAIZEE ================================================================ 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? No 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? No 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? No ================================================================ UNION OF INDIA & 1....Petitioner(s) Versus A K CHAUDHARY S/O KUMAR CHAUDHARY & 13....Respondent(s) ================================================================ Appearance: MR NS SHEVADE, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 - 2 MS HINA DESAI, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 - 2 MR CP JADHAV, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 10 MR NIKHIL C JADHAV, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1 SERVED BY AFFIX.-(R) for the Respondent(s) No. 11 - 14 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJAY MANOHAR SAHAI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.G.URAIZEE Date : 19/07/2013 ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJAY MANOHAR SAHAI)
1. We have heard Ms. Hina Desai, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. C.P. Jadhav, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. Learned counsels for the parties agree that the matter is squarely covered by a Division Bench judgment of this Court passed in Special Application No. 1152 of 2013 (Union of India Vs. Salim Ansari and 17 others) decided on 18th December 2009, which is extracted below :
1.
Heard learned counsel for the parties. This litigation arises out of the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, where the main question which was decided by the Tribunal with respect to the controversy that in the case of upgradation, whether on the upgraded posts, the question of reservation applies or not. This question, at that time was pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which has been answered in the case of Union of India vs. Pushpa Rani and others, 2008(1) SCC, 242 and it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in the upgraded posts also, reservation will apply. The order of the Central Administrative Tribunal proceeds on the premises which is contrary to this proposition. Therefore, the order of Central Administrative Tribunal deserves to be set aside and it is held that in the case of upgraded posts, the question of reservation will have to be implemented by the respondent authorities. In that view of the matter, the order of Central Administrative Tribunal is set aside and the O.A. filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal stands disposed of. With these observations, the appeals are disposed of as indicated above.
2. No orders are required to be passed in the Civil Applications.
3. Therefore, following the aforesaid Division Bench judgment we also allow this writ petition and set aside the impugned order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, challenged in this Special Civil Application, and it is held that in case of upgraded post, the question of reservation will have to be implemented by the authorities. This judgment shall be complied with by the appellants with in a period of 4 months from today. Rule made absolute to the above extent.
(V.M.SAHAI, J.) (A.G.URAIZEE,J) Chandrashekhar Page 3 of 3