Supreme Court of India

M. SELVANATHAN AND ANR. ETC.versusTHE REGISTRAR, CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: 2005 INSC 70
Decided: 11 February 2005
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Bench: R C LAHOTI

Holding

The Supreme Court set aside the CAT judgment and allowed the appeals, following the reasoning in Civil Appeal Nos. 6‑7 of 1998.

Summary

The petitioners, migrant Scheduled Caste candidates, challenged the Central Administrative Tribunal's (CAT) order allowing certain respondents to retain positions without reservation. The Madras High Court had dismissed the writ petition, but the Supreme Court revisited the matter, noting that the issues were identical to those decided in Civil Appeal Nos. 6‑7 of 1998 and Civil Appeal Nos. 4‑5 of 1998. Relying on the reasoning in those earlier appeals, the Court held that the CAT's judgment was erroneous. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the CAT order and allowed the appeals filed by the petitioners. The decision reaffirmed the principle that reservation benefits must be extended to eligible migrant Scheduled Caste candidates under service law.

Issues considered

Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal correctly applied reservation provisions to migrant Scheduled Caste candidates.
Whether the CAT's order granting relief to the respondents was legally valid under service law.

Subjects

reservationScheduled Casteservice lawCentral Administrative Tribunalmigrant candidatesaffirmative action

Judgment

                        M. SELVANA THAN AND ANR. ETC.                                 A
                                          v.
         THE REGISTRAR, CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
                      CHENNAI AND ORS. ETC.

                               FEBRUARY 11, 2005
                                                                                      B
       [R.C. LAHOTI, CJ., K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND G.P. MATHUR, JJ.]


             Service law :

           Resen,ation--Claimed by migrant Scheduled Caste candidates-Held,           C
     for reasons given in Civil Appeal Nos. 6-7 of 1998* etc. these appeals are
     allowed.

           *S. Pushpa and Ors. v. Sivachanmughave/ue and Ors., [2005] 1 SCR
     1158, referred to.
                                                                                      D
             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 1381-82 of
     2004.

          From the Judgment and Order dated 29.1.2002 of the Madras High
     Court in W.P. Nos. 8279 and 8280 of 1998.
                                                                                      E
                                         AND

             C.A. No. 1383 of 2004.

         V. Prabhakar, C.U. Sunanithni, R.S. Krishan Kumar and M.K.D.
     Namboodiri for the Appellant in C.A. Nos. 1381-82/2004.                          F
           S. Gurukrishna Kumar, Ms. Srikala, G.K. and S.R. Setia for the Appellant




,,
     in C.A. No. 1383/2004

          M.N. Rao, V.R. Reddy, R. Venkataramani, T.S. Doabia, M.A.
     Chinnaswamy, V.G. Pragasam, V. Balachandran, Naveen, R. Nath, Ms. Lalit          G
     Mohini Bhat, Ms. Hetu Arora, Ms. Anitha Shenoy, Ashok Panigrahi, V.K.
     Verma, S.N. Terdal and Ms. Sunita Sharma for the Respondents.

             The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

                                                                                      H
    2                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2005) 2 S.C.R.

A          G.P. MATHUR, J. The issue involved in these appeals is similar to
    that of Civil Appeal Nos. 6-7 of 1998 and Civil Appeal Nos. 4-5 of l 998. In
    these cases, the Central Administrative Tribunal had allowed the O.A. flied
    by some of the respondents following· its earlier judgment and order dated
    5.11.1996 given in O.A. No. 199/1996 and 0.A. No. 214/1996 and the writ
B   petition filed by the appellants challenging the said ord.er was dismissed by
    the Madras High Court.

         For the reasons given in Civil Appeal Nos. 6-7 of 1998 etc. these
    appeals are allowed and the impugned judgment and order of the Central
    Administrative Tribunal (Madras Bench) is set aside.
c R.P.                                                         Appeals allowed.




                                                                                    ..   r

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "reservation"Sign in to search