Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.71 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
R. K. Sabharwal And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 10 February, 1995
28. The Constitution Bench has, however, made it clear that
the rule enunciated by them shall operate only prospectively
[vide Para 11]. It has further been held in the said
decision that the "percentage of reservation has to be
worked out in relation to the number of posts which form the
cadre-strength (and that) the concept of `vacancy' has no
relevance in operating the percentage of reservation". (As a
matter of fact, it is stated that this batch of cases were
also posted for hearing before the Constitution Bench along
with R.L. Sabharwal batch of cases but these cases were de-
linked on the ground that they raise certain other issues
which did not arise in R.K. Sabharwal.) Be that as it may,
as a result of the decision in R.K. Sabharwal and the
views/findings recorded by us hereinabove, the following
position emerges:
Article 335 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The General Manager, Southern Railway vs Rangachari on 28 April, 1961
May be that Sri Dhawan's complaint is true - we
have already dealt with the possibility and consequence of
such a situation - but his grievance, in effect, is not
against Rule 3 aforestated but against the very rule of
reservation being applied in promotions. It may be recalled
that in Indra Sawhney, eight of the nine learned Judges
constituting the Bench opined that Article 16(4) does not
permit or warrant reservation in the matter of promotions.
This was precsely for the reason that such a rule results in
several untoward and inequitous results. The Bench, however,
permitted the existing rules in that behalf to operate for a
period of five years from the date of judgment based as
those rules were on an earlier Constitution Bench decision
in General Manager, Southern Railway & Anr. v. Rangachari
(1962 (2) S.C.R.687). It is another matter that since then a
constitutional amendment has been brought in permitting
reservation in promotions to the extent of Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes only, we need express no opinion on the
said amendment.
Karam Chand vs Haryana State Electricity Board & Ors on 31 October, 1988
42. The learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for
the appellants (Union of India and the Railways) challenged
the correctness of the decision of that Tribunal on the
ground that it has evolved a principle of seniority not
recognised by any rule or circular orders of the Railway
Board and is unsustainable in any event. He submitted,
relying upon the decision in Karam Chand v. Haryana State
Electricity Board (1989 Suppl.(1) S.C.C.342) that the date
of promotion to a particular grade or category determines
the seniority in that grade or category. Inasmuch as the
said thirty three candidates were alerted (Called for) on
the basis of their seniority for interview (for selection to
eleven posts in the grade of Rs.2375-3500/-) no valid
grievance can be made by any one to such a course.
Indra Sawhney Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Others, Etc. Etc. on 16 November, 1992
In
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992 Suppl.(III)
S.C.C.217), it has been held by the majority (in the opinion
delivered by one of us, B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.):
Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari ... vs Union Of India And Ors on 14 November, 1980
12. So far as the rule of reservation is considered, it has
been made applicable to Railway service by orders issued by
the Railway Board from time to time pursuant to and in
obedience to the policy decisions of the Ministry of Home
Affairs. The decision of this Court in Akhil Bhartiya Soshit
Karamchari Sangh v. Union of India (1981 (1) S.C.C.264)
refers to the several orders issued from time to time in
this behalf. They are also found at Pages 4 to 6 (Chapter-I)
and Pages 59 to 89 (Chapter-III) of the Brochure on
Reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in
Railway Services (Third Edition-1985). We do not think it
necessary to refer to them in this judgment since we are
concerned herein not with the validity of the rule of
reservation but with its nature and its effect upon the
question of seniority. We shall, therefore, refer to the
Railway Board's circulars alone relevant on this aspect.
Here too, we will refer first to orders applicable to non-
selection posts. Railway Board's letter dated 13th August,
1959 is of a general nature. It says that "as a general rule
the seniormost candidate should be promoted to a higher non-
selection post, susbject to his suitability. Once promoted
against a vacancy which is non-fortuitous, he should be
considered as senior in the grade to all others who are
subsequently promoted". [Printed at Page 507 in Chapter-XII
of the Brochure aforesaid]*. The Railway Board's letter
dated August 31, 1982 (at Page 512 - Chapter XII of the
Brochure) deals with the subject "Reservation for Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes in promotion in Group `D' and
`C' (Class IV and III) on the basis of seniority-cum-
suitability". Para-4 of the letter reads:
National Organisation Of Bank Workers' ... vs Union Of India And Others on 10 February, 1993
23. This statement of law makes it clear that there is no
uniform or prescribed method of providing reservation. The
extent and nature of reservation is a matter for the State
to decide having regard to the facts and requirements of
each case. Such a situation was indeed dealt with in
National Federation of State Bank of India v. Union of India
& Ors. (1995 (3) S.C.C. 432) [rendered by one of us, B.P.
Jeevan Reddy, J. on behalf of the Bench which included R.M.
Sahai and S.C. Sen, JJ.]. In the case of service under
Public Sector Banking Institutions, while reservation in
promotions was provided in the case of promotion from Class-
IV to Class-III, Class-III to Class-II and from Class-II to
Class-I, no such reservation was provided so far as
promotions within Class-I were concerned. Only a concession
(set out in the judgment) was provided in favour of
Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes candidates with a view to
enable them to obtain promotions within Clas-I which they
may not have obtained otherwise. It was held by this Court
that such a concession can also be provided under Article
16(4). In short, it is open to the State, if it is so
advised, to say that while the rule of reservation shall be
applied and the roster followed in the matter of promotions
to or within a particular service, class or category, the
candidate promoted earlier by virtue of rule of
reservation/roster shall not be entitled to seniority over
his senior in the feeder category and that as and when a
general candidate who was senior to him in the feeder
category is promoted, such general candidate will regain his
seniority over the reserved candidate notwithstanding that
he is promoted subsequent to the reserved candidate. There
is no unconstitutionality involved in this. It is
permissible for the State to so provide. The only question
is whether it is so provided in the instant case?
1