Supreme Court of India
K. MANORAMAversusUNION OF INDIA REP. BY GENL. MANAGER SOUTHERN RAILWAY & ORS.
- Citation
- 2010 INSC 658
- Decided
- 29 September 2010
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- R V RAVEENDRAN
Holding
When a single post cadre becomes a multi‑post cadre, one of the vacancies must be treated as reserved, and the principle that an SC candidate selected on merit in open competition is not counted against the quota does not apply to promotions based on seniority‑cum‑suitability.
Summary
The appellant, a Scheduled Caste (SC) Chief Law Assistant in Southern Railways, challenged the promotion of a fellow SC candidate (Respondent No.3) to Assistant Law Officer, arguing that the SC candidate was selected on merit and therefore should not occupy the reserved seat, which should have gone to the appellant. The promotion was made under a seniority‑cum‑suitability system after the Assistant Law Officer post, originally a single post, was expanded to two posts in 1994, triggering reservation. The Central Administrative Tribunal held the SC candidate’s selection was in an unreserved vacancy and ordered the appellant to be empanelled in the reserved category, a decision later set aside by the Madras High Court. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether one of the two 1994 vacancies must be treated as reserved and whether the principle that an SC candidate selected on merit in open competition is not counted against the quota applies to promotions based on seniority‑cum‑suitability. The Court held that the vacancy should indeed be treated as reserved, the SC candidate’s selection was essentially because of the reserved seat, and the merit‑based exemption applies only to open competition recruitment, not to such promotions. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether, when a single post cadre is converted into a multi‑post cadre, one of the resulting vacancies must be treated as a reserved seat for Scheduled Castes.
- Whether a Scheduled Caste candidate promoted on the basis of merit in a seniority‑cum‑suitability promotion should be counted against the reserved quota.
- Whether the rule that SC candidates selected on merit in open competition are treated as open candidates applies to promotions effected on seniority‑cum‑suitability.
- Whether the appellant, having lower marks than the other candidate, is entitled to promotion under the reserved vacancy.
Subjects
reservationpromotionseniority-cum-suitabilityScheduled Casteservice lawreserved vacancymeritrailway
Judgment
[2010] 11 S.C.R. 841
K. MANORAMA A
v.
UNION OF INDIA REP. BY GENL. -MANAGER
SOUTHERN RAILWAY & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 2379 of 2005)
B
SEPTEMBER 29, 2010
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.]
Service law:
Reservation in promotion - Two posts - Selection -
Challenged by appellant on the ground that the first appointee
was promoted on his merit and not because he was a
Scheduled Caste and therefore the appellant ought to hal!e
been promoted on the basis of her status as a Scheduled D
Caste candidate in place of the second appointee - Held: The
first appointee belonged to a Scheduled Caste and was
selected essentially because it was a Scheduled Caste
vacancy, which came to be allotted to him, keeping aside.
other candidates - First appointee had, in fact, got marks E
lesser than the second appointee and his selection was
basically because he was a Scheduled Caste candidate -
Even otherwise, the principle that 'when a member belonging
to a Scheduled Caste gets selected in the open competition
field on the basis of his own merit, he will not be counted F
against the quota reserved for Scheduled Castes, but will be
treated as open candidate', will apply only in regard to
.recruitment by open competition and not to the promotions
effected on the basis of seniority-cum-suitability.
Reservation in promotion - When a single post cadre G
becomes a multi-post cadre, and consequently two seats
become available, one out of the two seats has to be treated
as a reserved seat.
841 H
- 842 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 11 S.C.R.
A Appellant belonging to a scheduled caste, was
working as Chief Law Assistant in Southern Railways.
The post higher to that post was that of the Assistant Law
Officer. Initially ·Assistant L:aw Officer' was a single post
cadre. It was filled up by an open category candidaia in
B the year 1991. Subsequently two posts were created. The
posts were to be filled up on the basis of seniority-cum-
s u ita bil ity, A notification holding 10 senior most
candidates eligible for being considered for the two posts
was issued on .10.11.1994. To determine their suitability,
c a written examination was held. Eight Law Assistants
obtained qualifying marks and became eligible for being
called for the interview. The concerned committee
recommended tespondent nos. 3 and 4 for those two
posts. Out of them, respondent no. 3 was a Scheduled T
0 Caste candidate. The .promotion order for both of them ,
was issued. on 26.5.1995.
The ,appellant challenged the -appointment of
respondent no.4 on_ the ground that respondent no.3 was
promoted to the post of Assistanu..:aw Officer on his merit
E and not becaus~ he was· a Scheduled Caste and,
therefore, the appellant ought to have been promoted on
the basis of Jier status as a Scheduled Caste candidate
. in place of respondent no.4. _
F The Central Admi~istrative Tribunal allowed the OA
and declared that the selection of resp·ondent no. 3 was
in an unreserved vacancy on his own ~erit. It directed ,
respondents nos. 1 and 2 to em panel the appellant in the _
reserved category proyided that she was qualified
G according to the marks and seniority tn the selection
made, and there. was no Scheduled Caste candidate
above her either on marks or in seniority. The selection
of respondent no . 4 was held to
be erroneous. However,
since he had retired in the meanwhile; the emoluments
H
I
K. MANORAMA v. UNION OF INDIA REP. BY GENL. 843
MANAGER SOUTHERN RAILWAY
received were directed not to be disturbed. The tribunal A
further directed that the appellant if found fit, would be
deemed to be entitled to the seniority in the service, from
the date of selection of respondent no. 3, though she
would not get the salary till the date she actually assumed
charge of the higher post. B
Respondent nos.1 and 2 filed writ petitions before the
High Court which were allowed. The instant appeal was
filed challenging the order of the High Court.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court c
HELD: 1. One out of the two vacancies which
occurred in the year 1994 had to be treated as reserved.
This was because the first point in the roster was
otherwise meant for a reserved candidate. Since, in 1991, D
it was a single post cadre, it had been treated as
unreserved. When a single post cadre became a multi-
post cadre, and consequently two seats became available
in 1994, the Department had to treat one out of the two
seats as a reserved seat. [Para 11] [849-H; 850-A-B] E
2. The chart of the marks obtained by the candidates
depicted that respondent no. 4 had obtained the highest
marks i.e. 128. Two general category candidates were
next to him with 127 and 125 marks respectively. F
Thereafter, respondent no.3 and two other candidates
got 124 marks. Respondent no.3 was selected out of
them, essentially because it was a Scheduled Caste
vacancy, which came to be allotted to him, keeping aside
other candidates. Not only that, but he was placed at G
number one and respondent no. 4 (having higher marks)
was placed at number two. The tribunal had held that if
respondent no. 3 got marks lesser than that of
respondent no. 4, only then he can be said to be selected
against Scheduled Caste point. The tribunal did not
H
844 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 11 S.C.R.
A realize that respondent no.3 had, in fact, got marks lesser
than respondent no.4 and his selection. was basically
because he was a Scheduled Caste candidate. Even
otherwise, the pr!nciple that when a member belonging
to a Scheduled Caste gets selected in the open
B competition field on the basis of his own merit, he will not
be counted against the quota reserved for Scheduled
Castes, but will be treated as open candidate, will apply
only in regard to recruitment by open competition and
not to the promotions effected on the basis of seniority-
C cum-suitability. [Para 14] [854-G-H, 855-A-D]
3. The appellant had relied upon the Rules governing
the promotion of subordinate staff and had argued before
the High Court that the candidates who obtained 80%
marks or above are to be placed at the top indicating that
D they are to be selected irrespective of the community
factor. However, none of the candidates had obtained
more than 80% marks, and therefore, could not ~e
considered as outstanding to be eligible on that footin~.
On that count also selection of respondent no.3 could not
E be considered as one only on merit irrespective of the
community factor. [Para 15) [855-E; 856-B]
R.K. Sabharwal and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.
1995 (2) sec 745 - held inapplicable
F
Ajit Singh Januja and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.
1996 (2) sec 715 - referred to.
Case Law Reference:
G 1995 (2) SCC 745 held inapplicable Paras 4, 5,14
1996 (2) sec 715 referred to Para 5
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
H
K. MANORAMA v. UNION OF !NOIA REP. BY GENL. 845
MANAGER SOUTHERN RAILWAY
2379 of 2005. A
From the Judgment & Order dated 28.01.2003 of the High
Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Petition No. 1311 of
1999.
B
C.K. Chandarsekkar, S.R. Setia for the Appellant.
A.K. Ganguly, V. Mohan, Shweta, A.K. Sharma, Shreekant
N. Terdal, V. Balachandran, V. Ramasubramanian, A. Lakshmi
Narayanan for the Respondents.
c
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
GOKHALE, J. 1. This appeal seeks to challenge the
judgment and order dated 28.1.2003 rendered by the Madras
High Court allowing Writ Petition No. 1311 of 1999 filed by the D
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, and setting aside the order passed
by the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 27 .11.1998 which
had allowed the Original Application No. 891 of 1996 filed by
the appellant herein. The O.A. filed by the appel]ant thus stood
dismissed by the impugned judgment and order of the High E
Court.
2. Short facts leading to this appeal are as follows:- At the
relevant time in November 1994, the appellant was working as
a Chief Law Assistant which was a Group-'C' post in the
Southern Railways. The post higher to this post is that of the F
Assistant Law Officer which is a Group-'B' post. At the relevant
time the total cadre strength of Assistant Law Officers in
Southern Railway was three. Initially when 'Assistant Law
Officer' was a single post cadre, in the year 1991, it was filled
by an open category candidate. Subsequently, when two more G
posts were created in the year 1994, reservation was
applicable. The posts were to be filled on the basis of seniority-
cum-suitability. A notification holding 10 senior most candidates
H
846 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [201 OJ 11 S.C.R.
A eligible for being considered for the two posts was issued on
10.11.1994. (The second respondent herein is the Chief
Personal Officer of Southern Railways). To determine their
suitability, a written examination was held. Eight Law Assistants
obtained qualifying marks and became eligible for being called
B for the interview (one out of them opted out). The concerned
committee recommended Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 for those
two posts. Out of them, Respondent No. 3 is a Scheduled Caste
candidate. Accordingly, the promotion order for both of them
was issued on 26.5.1995.
c 3. The appellant also belongs to a Scheduled Caste and
was of the view that the Respondent No. 3 (Mr. M. Siddiah),
was promoted to the post of Assistant Law Officer on his merit
and not because he was a Scheduled Caste candidate. It was
her contention that instead of Respondent No. 4 (Mr. K.
D Rajagopalan Nair) belonging to the open category, she should
have been promoted to the post of Assistant Law Officer on
the basis of her status as a Scheduled Caste candidate. She,
therefore, represented to the Chairman of the Railway Board
on 14.2.1996 but there was no response. She, therefore, filed
E the above referred O.A. in the Central Administrative Tribunal
(hereinafter referred to as Tribunal) at Chennai. The
respondents Nos. 1 and 2 filed their reply statement before the
Tribunal and pointed out that as per the Railway Board's
decision dated 29.7.1993 in small cadres having less than 4
F posts, reservation had to be provided as per the 40 point roster
when no SC/ST candidate was available in the Cadre. As per
model 40 point roster the first point will have to be filled by a
Scheduled Caste candidate, and the next two points were to
be treated as unreserved. In para 1 & 2 of their reply the
G Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 stated as follows:-
"In this selection, the roster points to be filled up for the
two vacancies were point Nos. 2 and 3. Both the points
are UR (i.e Un-Reserved) points. As the first point which
was a SC point was filled up by an UR candidate, being
H
K. MANORAMA v.
UNION OF INDIA REP. BY GENL. 84 7
MANAGERSOUTHERN .RAlLWAY[H.LGOKHALE, J:]
a single vacancy, out of the two va.cancies for which A
notification was issued, one
' .
post was .treated as SC.~·
' ' '.
6. The Tribunal therefore, allowed the 0.A by its order F
dated 27.11.1998. It declared that the selection of Respondent
No. 3 was in an unreserved vacancy on his own merit. It.
directed Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to empanel the appellant
in the reserved category provided that she was qualified
according to the marks and seniority in the selection· made, and G
if there was no SC candidate above her either on marks or in
seniority. The Selection of Respondent No. 4 was held to be
erroneous, However, s(nce he had retired in the meanwhile, the
emoluments received were directed not to be disturbed. The
Tribunal further. directed that the appellant if found fit, will be
H
.. ,·.
- ·. ,; :~·< -
848 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [201 OJ 11 S.C.R.
A deemed to be entitled to the seniority in the service from the
date of selection of Respondent No. 3, though she will not get
the salary till the date she actually assumed charge of the higher
post.
B 7. Being aggrieved by this judgment and order Respondent
Nos. 1 and 2 filed Writ Petition No. 1311 of 1999 in the High
Court of Madras. The High Court allowed the Writ Petition and
set aside the order of the Tribunal. Being aggrieved thereby,
the appellant has filed the present appeal.
C 8. The main-stay of the argument of the appellant was, as
stated earlier, that since Respondent No. 3 had been selected
on merits he should not be considered as occupying a
Scheduled Caste seat. The Scheduled Caste vacancy must
therefore go to the next Scheduled Caste candidate as per the
D order of merit, and the appellant was that next candidate.
Respondent No. 4 (Mr. K. Rajagopalan Nair) should not have
been therefore promoted as an open category candidate and
that post should have been allotted to the appellant. The
appellant relied upon the Railway Board order dated 29.7.1993
E in this behalf, which was issued to implement a full-bench
decision of the Tribunal at Hyderabad, which states that where
ST/SC candidates were promoted on their own merit, their
seniority should not be counted as reserved candidates. The
relevant part of the Railway Board's letter dated 29.7.1993
F clarifies as follows in para (Vl):-
"(VI) Whether a person belonging to SC/ST promoted on
his own merit and seniority should be treated as reserved
candidate for counting available SC/ST candidates-
G As per judgment of the Full Bench of Central Administrative
Tribunal/Hyderabad, the SC/ST candidates who have been
promoted on their own merit and seniority should not be
counted as reserved candidates. It has further been laid
H
K. MANORAMA v. UNION OF INDIA REP. BY GENL. 849
MANAGER SOUTHERN RAILWAY [H.L. GOKHALE, J.]
down in Board's letter dated 16.06.1992 that SC/ST A
candidate can be placed on the panel/select list even in
excess of the reserved quota in case such candidates
qualify against'general posts on meriUseniority. These SC/
ST candidate should be excluded for the purpose of
counting the available SC/ST candidates while computing B
the reserved quota."
9. Now, as far as this aspect is concerned, Respondent
Nos. 1 and 2 had made it clear that where the posts were less
than 4, the 40 point roster was expected to be applied. As per c
that roster the first point was meant for a Scheduled Caste
candidate and second and third points were meant for
candidates from unreserved category. There is a note below
this model roster which reads as follows:-
"Note-/f there are only two vacancies to be filled D
in a particular year, not more than one may be treated
as reserved and if there is only one vacancy, it should
be treated as unreserved. If on this account, a reserved
point is treated as unreserved, the reservation may be
carried forward to the subsequent three recruitment E
years."
10. It was submitted on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and
2 that in view of this note, and the first vacancy in the year
1991 having been treated as unreserved, when two vacancies F
occurred subsequently, one out of them was being treated as
reserved. This was as per the above note which stated that
where the reserved point is treated as unreserved, the
reservation is to be carried forward. Respondent Nos. 1 and
2 therefore, had to treat one of the two vacancies as a reserved G
vacancy.
11. In our view, the submission of the respondents Nos.
1 and 2 is well taken. They had to treat one out of the two
H
850 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 11 S.C.R.
A vacancies which occurred in the year 1994 as reserved. This
is because the first point in the roster was otherwise meant for
a reserved candidate. Since, in the year 1991, it was a single
post cadre, it had been treated as unreserved. When the single
post cadre became a multi-post cadre, and consequently two
B seats became ·available in 1994, they had to treat one out of
the two seats as a reserved seat. The selection of Mr. Siddiah,
therefore, as a Scheduled Caste candidate cannot be faulted.
12. The submission of the appellant was that Respondent
C No~ 3 had been selected on his merit and that Mr.
K.Rajagopalan Nair was placed in the panel contrary to the
Railway Board letter dated 14.4.1983. Respondents Nos. 1
and 2 had denied this averment in para 10 of their additional
reply before the Tribunal. In para 14 of its order the Tribunal
observed as follows:-
0
. .
"14. Reference made in paragraph 10 have no
bearing on the point for decision in this case. It is also
the contention on behalf of the respondents that since
respondent No. 3 is the senior most in the SC quota he
E is empanelled. The question is, he has obtained the
highest number of marks in the said selection. Therefore,
the question of he being the SC candidate is evaporated
on account of his being the meritorious candidate in the
entire selection. If respondent No. 4 has come up in the
F marks over that of respondent No. 3 and the question of
the respondent 3 being the senior in the SC candidates,
then respondent No. 3 would have been justified being
empanelled in the reserved vacancy. But that was not the
case here.
G
13. Respondents Nos.1 and 2 point out that this finding is
erroneous on facts. The chart of the marks obtained by the
candidates has been produced before us. The chart reads as
follows.
H
K. MANORAMA v. UNION OF fNDIA REP. BY GENL. 851
MANAGER SOUTHERN RAILWAY [H.L. GOKHALE, J.]
SELECTION FOR THE POST OF ASSISTANT LAW A
OFFICER IN SCALE RS. 2000-3500
VIVA VOICE ON 27.04.1995
NUMBER OF VACANCIES 2 (SC-1: UR-1)
COMMITTEE MEMBERS: 1. SDGM B
2. FA & CAO
3. CPO
4. CELE SHRI R. MOHAN DAS
SI. No. Name& Date of Date of Date of Edu ca-
Desig-
nation
Birth appoint-
ment
promo-
tion to
tional
qua Ii-
c
present fication
grade
1. M. SIDDAIAH 04.08.43 16.6.65 9.5.85 B.Sc, B.L.
(SC) D
CLA/HQRS
Marks Obtained Total Remarks
Total (200 marks)
Profes- Record of Personality address
sional service (25) & leadership/
Ability Academic E
(150) Technical/
Qualification (25)
91 15 18 124
SI. No. Name& Date of Date of Date of Educa- F
Desig- Birth appoint- promo- tional
nation ment tion to qua Ii-
present fjcation
grade
2. K. 24 08.39 16.11.63 .,01.04.87 B.Sc.,LLB
RAJAGOPALAN G
NAIR
ASST. SEC.
(ADHOC) RRT
Marks Obtained Total Remarks
Total (200 marks) H
852 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 11 S.C.R.
A Profes- Record of Personality address
sional service (25) & leadership/
Ability Academic
(150) Technical/
Qualification (25)
91 21 16 128
8
SI. Name& Date of Date of Date of Edu ca-
No. Desig- Birth appoint- promo- ti on al
nation ment lion to qua Ii-
c present fication
grade
3. V.
SUBRAMANIAN 10.03.40 31.5.62 23.11.87 B.A.,
L.O. (ADHOC) B.G.L.
D ICF Diploma in
·Labour
Laws with
Admn.
I Law
Marks Obtained Total Remarks
E Total (200 marks)
Profes- Record of Personality address
sional service (25) & leadership/
Ability Academic
(150) Technical/
Qualification (25)
F 92 18 17 127
SI. Name& Date of Date of Date of Educa-
G No. Desig- Birth appoint- promo- tional
nation ment tion to qua Ii-
present fication
grade
4. M.ABDUL 01.11.43 11.09.64 01.04.90 B.A, LLB
KHADER
H
K. MANORAMA v. UNION OF INDIA REP. BY GENL. 853
MANAGER SOUTHERN RAILWAY [H.L. GOKHALE, J.]
.--·. ... _. -·.. A
I O/MYS
Marks Obtained Total Remarks
Total (200 marks)
Profes- Record of Personality address
sional service (25) & leadership/
Ability Academic B
(150) Technical/
Qualification (25)
92 17 15 124
SI. Name& Date of Date of Date of Educa-
c
No. Desig- Birth appoint- promo- tional
nation ment tion to qua Ii-
present fication
grade
5. K. 22.12.60 13.11.81 24.07.90 B.A.,B.L. D
MAN ORAMA
(SC)
CLA/HQRS
Marks Obtained Total Remarks
Tota! (200 marks)
Profes- Record of Personality address E
sional service (25) & leadership/
Ability Academic
(150) Technical/
Qualification (25)
91 15 16 122
F
SI. Name& Date of Date of Date of Edu ca-
No. Desig- Birth appoint- promo- tional
nation ment lion to quali-
present fication
grade G
6. R. 05.05.55 22.12.79 03.4.91 B.Sc, LLB
MUTHUSAMY
CLA/DPO/O/
MAS
Marks Obtained Total Remarks H
Total (200 marks)
854 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [201 OJ 11 S.C.R.
A Profes- Record of Personality address
sional service (25) & leadership/
Ability Academic
(150) Technical/
Qualification (25)
B 91 16 17 124
SI. Name& Date of Date of Date of Educa-
No. Desig- Birth appoint- promo- tional
c nation ment tion to qua Ii-
present fication
grade
7. T.P. 26.08.55 31.07.91 24.7.91 MA, LLB
BHASKAR
D CLA/MAS
Marks Obtained Total Remarks
Total (200 marks)
Profes Record of Personality address
sional service (25) & leadership/
E Ability Academic
( 150) Technical/
Qualification (25)
95 15 15 125
F (R. MOHANDAS) (V. NATARAJAN) (P.MURUGAN)
14. As can be seen from this chart it was Respondent No.
4 who had obtained the highest marks i.e. 128. Mr. V.
G Subramanian and Mr. T.P. Bhaskar are next to him with 127
and 125 marks respectively. Thereafter, there are other
candidates i.e. Mr. Siddaiah, Mr. Abdul Khader and Mr.
Muthusamy who all get 124 marks. Mr. Siddaiah has been
selected out of them, essentially because it was a Scheduled
H Caste vacancy which came to be allotted to him keeping aside
K. MANORAMA v. UNION OF INDIA REP. BY GENL. 855
. MANAGER SOUTHERN RAILWAY [H.L. GOKHALE, J.]
other candidates. Not only that, but he was placed at number A
. one and respondent No. 4 (having higher marks) was placed
at number two. The Tribunal held that if Respondent No. 3 got
marks lesser than that of Respondent No. 4, only then he can
be said to be selected against Scheduled Caste point The
Tribunal did not realize that the third Respondent had in fact got B
marks lesser than the fourth Respondent, and his selection was
basically because he was a Scheduled Caste candidate. In
view of this position, there is no occasion to apply the
instruction contained in Railway Board's letter dated 29. 7.1993
nor the propositions in R.K; Sabharwal's judgment (supra) to c
the present case. Eve.n otherwise, the principle that when a
member belonging to a Scheduled Caste gets selected in the
open competition field on the basis of his own merit, he will not
be counted against the' quota reserved for Scheduled Castes,
but will be treated as open candidate, will apply only in regard
D
to recruitment by open competition and not to the promotions
effected on the basis of seniority-cum-suitability.
. I .
15. The appellan' had argued before the High Court that
the candidates who obtained 80% marks or above are to be
placed at the top indicating that they are to be selected E
irrespective of the community factor. In appellant's submission
Mr. M. Siddiah, had to be consic. .... red as one such candidate.
Now the two relevant rules 204.8 and 204.9 read as follows:-
"204.8 The successful candidates shall be arranged as F
follows:
(1) Those securing 80% marks and above graded as
'Outstanding'.
(2) Those securing between 60% marks and 79%·marks G
graded as 'Good'.
204.9 The panel should consist of employees who
had qualified in the selection, corresponding to the number
of vacancies for which the selection was held. Employees
H
856 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 11 S.C.R.
A securing the gradation 'Outstanding' will be placed on top
followed by those securing the gradation 'Good' interse
seniority within each group being maintained.'
It is to be noted, as seen from the marks which have been
referred to earlier, that none of the candidates obtained more
8
than 80% marks, and therefore, could not be considered as
outstanding to be eligible on that footing. On this count also Mr.
M. Siddiah's selection cannot be considered as one only on
merit irrespective of the community factor.
C 16. In the circumstances, there is no error in the judgment
and order rendered by the High Court. The appeal is, therefore,
dismissed. Original Application, filed by the first respondent
before the Administrative Tribunal, shall stand dismissed.
D.G Appeal dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "reservation"Sign in to search