Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.94 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 309 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
P.S.Mahal & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 23 May, 1984
It may incidentally be
mentioned that this view was approved and reiterated in P.S.
Mahal's case.
O.P. Singla & Anr. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 14 August, 1984
Now proceeding on the assumption that Rule 25 (I) (ii) is
valid and therefore seniority inter-se between recruits from
three different sources has to be computed according to the
quota by rotating substantive vacancies in the grade
reserved for each source, if in actual implementation it
creates disparities between persons who are similarly
circumstanced and thereby deny equal treatment, the rule
would be violative of Art. 16. The outcome is not on account
of an invidious implementation of the rule but non-
implementation of a part of rule for years. The end product
as will be demonstrably established is unjust and unfair and
yet this unjust and unfair action is being sup- ported by
the Union of India which was responsible for utter inaction
in implementing the rule in its letter and spirit and for
unreasonably long intervals. As pointed out earlier, direct
recruitment has not been made for years. Limited competitive
examination has also not been held for years. Promotions
from the select list have been presumably in excess of the
quota but they were appointed to substantive vacancies in
the service and have been holding the posts as in the case
of petitioners for over 6 to 8 years. The promotions were
not styled as temporary, adhoc or stop-gap- Blanks related
to allocated vacancies kept open for future direct recruits
and candidates qualifying at limited competitive examination
in the seniority list indicate 17 that if the next direct
recruitment is made, say in 1990 and the limited competitive
examination is held in 1988, the recruits from the
aforementioned two sources will have to be placed at Sr. No.
170 in the case of direct recruits and little down below in
case of a candidate qualifying at the limited competitive
examination. The direct recruit already placed at Sr. No Fin
170 in 1990 would score a march over departmental promotees
of 1978 and persons in service after qualifying at the
limited competitive examination in 1988. The emerging
situation would be in pari materia with what was found by
this Court in Janardhana's case and O.P. Singla's case and
the reasons therein mentioned will mutatis mutandis apply
for quashing the seniority list for the self same reason.
S. G. Jaisinghani vs Union Of India And Ors.(With Connected ... on 22 February, 1967
Now turning to the impugned seniority lists, what the
Union of India appears to have done is that it has applied
the quota and rotated the vacancies but where candidates
from a particular source were not available, the vacancies
were deemed to be kept open (some kind of carry forward) to
be filled in by later recruitment from the same source years
after the vacancy occurred, but in the meantime the vacancy
was filled in presumable by excess recruitment from the
other sources. That is clearly either non-implementation of
the quota rule or mal-functioning of the quota rule and yet
the rota rule is adhered to which is both impermissible
under the Rules as well as unjust, unfair and inequitous
being violative of Arts. 14 and 16. 1)
It was however contended on behalf of the respondents
that the quota prescribed by Rule 13(1) being mandatory in
character, any appointment in excess of the quota in any
year would render the excess appointees as irregularly
appointed and they would not become members of the service
and hang outside the service, and can be demoted. It was
said that once recruits are available from the source for
which quota was prescribed, the promotees in excess Or their
quota can and must be replaced by later entrants. It was
submitted that such excess promotees have to be demoted but
to solve them from this harsh situation, the courts have
evolved a rule that they may be pushed down and regularised
in subsequent years. This indulgence, it was said, cannot be
claimed as a matter of right and therefore such excess
promotees cannot claim seniority over recruits from other
sources who may have come at a later date. Reliance was
placed in two decisions of this Court in S.G. Jaisinghani v.
Union of India & Ors. (1) and Bishan Sarup Gupta etc. v
Union of India & Ors. (2) These two decisions are of little
help in; view of the later decisions directly on the point
and discussed hereinabove,
(1) [1967] 2 S.C.R.. 703,
(2) [1975] 1 S.C.R. 104,
456
The language of Rule 13(1) appears to be mandatory in
character. Where recruitment to a service or a cadre is from
more than one source, the controlling authority can
prescribe quota for each source. It is equally correct that
where the quota is prescribed, a rule of seniority by
rotating the vacancies can be a valid rule for seniority.
But as pointed out earlier if the rule of seniority is
inextricably intertwined with the quota rule and there is
enormous deviation from the quota rule, it would be unjust,
inequiutous and unfair to give effect to the rota rule. In
fact as held in O.P. Singla's case, giving effect to the
rota rule after noticing the enormous departure from the
quota rule would be violative of Art. 14. There fore
assuming that quota rule was mandatory in character as
pointed out earlier, its departure must permit rejection of
rota rule as a valid principle of seniority;
A. Janardhana vs Union Of India And Others on 26 April, 1983
inferred from various relevant circumstances then prevailing
that the appoints not in consonance with the prescribed
procedure for direct recruitment must have been made in
relaxation of the rules. When the question again came up in
Janardhana's case the Court held that if direct recruitment
was made in relaxation of the relevant rules, the same
reasons will mutatis mutandis apply to hold that promotions
in excess of quota were given by relaxing the rules. It is
therefore reasonable to believe in this case that though the
quota was mandatory it was not adhered to by exercising the
power of relaxation both qua persons and posts.
N.K. Chauhan & Ors vs State Of Gujarat & Ors on 1 November, 1976
Once there is power to relax the
mandatory quota rule, the appointments made in excess of the
quota from any given source would not be illegal or invalid
but would be valid and legal as held by this Court in N.K.
Chandan and Ors. v. State of Gujarat(2). Therefore the
promotion of the promotees was regular and legal both on
account of the fact it was made to meet the exigencies of
service in relaxation of the mandatory quota rule and to
substantive vacancies in service.
Article 32 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of U. P vs Manbodhan Lal Srivastava on 20 September, 1957
Coming
home in h State of U.P. v. Manbodon Lal Srivastava(1) a
Constitution Bench of this Court specifically held that
where consultation with the Public Service Commission is
provided as required by Art. 320(3)(c) of the Constitution
such provision is not mandatory and they do not confer any
rights on public servants so that the absence of
consultation or irregularity in consultation does not afford
him a cause of action in a court of law. There are number of
subsequent decisions to which our attention was called
reiterating the same principle. Therefore assuming there was
failure to consult the Union Public Service Commission
before exercising the power to relax the mandatory quota
rule and further assuming that the posts in Integrated Grade
II and Ill were within the purview of the Union Public
Service Commission and accepting for the time being that the
Commission was not consulted before the power. to relax the
rule was exercised yet the action taken would not be
vitiated nor would it furnish any help to Union of India
which itself cannot take any advantage of its failure to
consult the Commission. Therefore it can be safely stated
that the enormous departure from the quota rule year to year
permits an inference that the departure was in exercise of
the power of relaxing the quota rule conferred on the
controlling authority.