Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.22 seconds)
Shri Ram Prakash S/O Late Shri Jeet Ram, ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) Through The ... on 18 April, 2007 cites

B.R. Malhotra vs Union Of India on 12 November, 1997

5. Learned Counsel for respondents stated that according to Railway Board Secretariat Services (RBSS) Rules, 1969, Select List of Section Officers of RBSS is to be prepared from time to time. The Select List consists of persons promoted on the basis of Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) conducted by UPSC every year, and persons promoted on the basis of seniority-cum-suitability, in equal proportion. Learned Counsel for respondents have further stated that as per the RBSS (Amendment) Rules, 1989, in case of any shortfall either in LDCE or seniority quota in any year an equal number of vacancies must be diverted to the stream in the same year. In accordance with the amended rules, shortfall vacancies against LDCE quote for the years 1992 and 1993 were diverted to the seniority quota. The diverted vacancies were treated as 'Open Vacancies', i.e., reservations against diverted vacancies were provided as per the 40 Point Roster Register meant for seniority quota and the reservation points pertaining to the shortfall vacancies of a particular year of LDCE were carried forward to the next year's examination. This result in an enhanced number of reserved vacancies for the LDCE thereby adversely affecting the chances of promotion of the general candidates. This procedure of diversion of shortfall vacancies without diverting the reservation point was challenged before the Tribunal by Shri B.R. Malhotra and Ors. v. Union of India in OA-2051/1995 decided on 02.06.2000. In this order the respondents were directed to consider the applicability of their decision contained in the letter dated 03.10.1997 to the case pending before them in accordance with Rules and to pass a detailed speaking and reasoned order. This letter of 3.10.1997 decided to divert the 3 LDCE 1994 shortfall ST vacancies to the seniority stream along with the ST reservation points and not to carry forward these ST reservation points to LDCE 1995, but this decision had not been implemented for past cases as these were sub-judice in OA 2051/1995. Learned Counsel stated that judgment of the Tribunal has been implemented in respect of LDCE, 1993 and 1994 and Speaking Orders have been passed (vide orders 47/2003 and OA 48/2003 both dated 24.9.2003). Respondents have further stated that prior to finalisation of the aforesaid OA, vide Railway Board's order No. 36 of 1998 dated 31.7.1998, names of Assistants of Railway Board Secretariat Services empanelled for promotion to the Section Officers grade of RBSS on seniority basis for the panel year 1993-94, in terms of Clause (a) of sub-para (1) of the modified regulation (2) of the schedule attached to RBSS Rules, 1969 were notified and the aforesaid panel was framed based on the Post Based Roster which came into existence on 02.07.1997, based on DOP&T guide-lines. While adopting this post based roster, it was ensured that representation of persons belonging to the reserved categories in a cadre reaches the prescribed percentage of reservation. In the said order, it was advised that three vacancies in Section Officer's grade which had remained unfilled through LDCE 1993 had been diverted as per rules to seniority panel of 1993, and three additional candidates were included in the seniority panel against said three vacancies and applicant was one of the empanelled additional candidates included in the seniority panel of 1993.
Delhi High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

R. K. Sabharwal And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 10 February, 1995

12. Before moving to the implications of OA 2051/1995 it is worthwhile to understand the spirit of the DoPT guidelines of 2.7.1997 on substituting the vacancy based rosters by a post based roster in light of the Supreme Court's decision in the R.K. Sabharwal case. The Supreme Court had held, with prospective effect, that a post based roster should be used for reservations. The reference date for this prospective effect became 2.7.1997. Now a post based roster is something like a photograph taken on 2.7.1997, which would show how many of the posts in the cadre had been filled till then against the reserved quota and how many against the general category. Persons of reserved categories who had been appointed against the general 'quota' were to be counted as general candidates. If the number of posts that stood filled on 2.7.1997 by reserved category candidates was different from the prescribed percentage of reservation, the difference would be made good by adjusting future appointments, while keeping intact the sources of recruitment laid down in the relevant recruitment rules. Also the roster points for earmarking reserved category posts would be as per one of the model rosters exemplified in the said DoPT circular of 2.7.1997 and chosen by the concerned Ministry. This is exactly what the respondent did in notifying the 1993 panel on 31.7.1998, and in subsequent panels. In our view, the applicant's plea that post based roster could only apply to 'vacancies' arising after 2.7.1997 and till that date the vacancy based roster would be applicable is self-contradictory and is based on a misunderstanding of the concept of a post based roster. The applicant cannot acquiesce in the inclusion of his name in the 1993 panel and then attack the 1994 and 1995 panels, because all of them were prepared on a post based roster.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 786 - K Singh - Full Document
1