Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.21 seconds)T.Devadasan vs The Union Of India And Another on 29 August, 1963
In response to those instructions the Deputy Chief Engineer sent two select lists showing the names of eligible employees, one according to the general seniority from amongst the Head Clerks and the other of Scheduled Castes candidates from amongst the Senior Clerks because at that point of time there Was no Scheduled Caste candidate holding the post of Head Clerk. It appears from Annexure "A" to the petition that the fourth respondent was appointed in the grade of Head Clerks on December 16, 1976 and since that time he is holding that post. At the time when the fourth respondent was so promoted, he bypassed eight senior clerks all of whom were senior to him in service in the cadre of Senior Clerks as shown by the combined seniority list of Senior Clerks of the Engineering Workshop. The Headquarters Office of the Western Railway by their letter dated September 1, 1976 informed the Deputy Chief Engineer, Engineering Workshop, Sabarmati, a copy of the letter being Annexure "C" to the petition, that the reservation roster was applicable even to a single post in a cadre and it was not exempted from the scope of reservation as it did not infringe the principles laid down by the Supreme Court judgments in M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore or in Devadasan v. Union of India, . Thereafter a letter was sent on July 11, 1977 by the Headquarters Office to the Deputy Chief Engineer (Engineering Workshop), Sabarmati, calling upon him to send names of eligible staff from the category of Head Clerks as per the seniority from unreserved candidates and also from reserved Scheduled Castes candidates so that the exact date of selection by the Selection Committee for selecting person for the post of Chief Clerk could be carried out. It was proposed to hold the selection in the second week of August 1977 and the staff concerned was to be informed to keep them selves in readiness. In response to this letter of July 11,1977 the Deputy Chief Engineer (Engineering Workshop), Sabarmati, sent six names, three of them being unreserved candidates and, the remaining three being reserved candidates. Those six names were sent as the names of eligible staff for being selected as Chief Clerk as per the seniority from the unreserved candidates and reserved candidates. The three petitioners m the present proceedings were all of them in the panel of unreserved candidates. The fourth respondent is at S. No. 1 in the panel of reserved candidates and the other two persons in the panel of reserved candidates are Senior Clerks.
Article 133 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
M. R. Balaji And Others vs State Of Mysore on 28 September, 1962
In response to those instructions the Deputy Chief Engineer sent two select lists showing the names of eligible employees, one according to the general seniority from amongst the Head Clerks and the other of Scheduled Castes candidates from amongst the Senior Clerks because at that point of time there Was no Scheduled Caste candidate holding the post of Head Clerk. It appears from Annexure "A" to the petition that the fourth respondent was appointed in the grade of Head Clerks on December 16, 1976 and since that time he is holding that post. At the time when the fourth respondent was so promoted, he bypassed eight senior clerks all of whom were senior to him in service in the cadre of Senior Clerks as shown by the combined seniority list of Senior Clerks of the Engineering Workshop. The Headquarters Office of the Western Railway by their letter dated September 1, 1976 informed the Deputy Chief Engineer, Engineering Workshop, Sabarmati, a copy of the letter being Annexure "C" to the petition, that the reservation roster was applicable even to a single post in a cadre and it was not exempted from the scope of reservation as it did not infringe the principles laid down by the Supreme Court judgments in M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore or in Devadasan v. Union of India, . Thereafter a letter was sent on July 11, 1977 by the Headquarters Office to the Deputy Chief Engineer (Engineering Workshop), Sabarmati, calling upon him to send names of eligible staff from the category of Head Clerks as per the seniority from unreserved candidates and also from reserved Scheduled Castes candidates so that the exact date of selection by the Selection Committee for selecting person for the post of Chief Clerk could be carried out. It was proposed to hold the selection in the second week of August 1977 and the staff concerned was to be informed to keep them selves in readiness. In response to this letter of July 11,1977 the Deputy Chief Engineer (Engineering Workshop), Sabarmati, sent six names, three of them being unreserved candidates and, the remaining three being reserved candidates. Those six names were sent as the names of eligible staff for being selected as Chief Clerk as per the seniority from the unreserved candidates and reserved candidates. The three petitioners m the present proceedings were all of them in the panel of unreserved candidates. The fourth respondent is at S. No. 1 in the panel of reserved candidates and the other two persons in the panel of reserved candidates are Senior Clerks.
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
A.R.S. Choudhury vs The Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 9 July, 1956
This decision of the Supreme Court cannot help the petitioners, because, as pointed out by the Supreme Court in A.R. Choudhury v. Union of India , the decision in Devadasan's case was rendered on August 29, 1963 and on December 4, 1963 the Ministry of Home Affairs issued a memorandum modifying the carry forward rule so as to comply with the decision. By para 2 of the Memorandum (as amended by the Memorandum of September 2 1964), the carry forward rule was amended by providing that "in any recruitment year, the number of normal reserved vacancies and the carried forward reserved vacancies together shall not exceed 45 percent of the total number of vacancies". Nevertheless, "if there be only two vacancies, one of them may be treated as a reserved vacancy. But if there be only one vacancy, it shall be treated as unreserved. The surplus above 45 per cent shall be carried forward to the subsequent year of recruitment, subject however, to the condition that the particular vacancies carried forward do not become lime barred due to their becoming more than two years old".
Sudama Prashad vs Divisional Supdt. W. Rly. And Ors. on 23 November, 1964
9. The decision in Sudama Prashad v. Divisional Supdt. W. Rly which was also relied upon by Miss Shah does not help the petitioners because in that particular case, the question was not whether the reservation should b in accordance with vacancies or merely posts but the question was whether reversion of an employee who was an open unreserved candidate who had been regularly promoted should be set aside in favour of another candidate who after the date of appointment put forward his claim as a Scheduled castes personnel. Hence it is not necessary for us to refer to that case any further.
1