LexARATI RAY CHOUDHURY versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
0
E
F
(i
IJ
ARATI RAY CHOUDHURY
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
October 11, 1973
LA· N. RAY, C.J., D. G. PALEKAR, Y. v. CHANDRACHUD,
P. :N. BHAGWATI AND V. R. KRISHNA IYER, JJ.J
1
c_orkflilll:ion ot, India, A~t. 1~(,1)-Resenation of posts for Scheduled CaJte
nuulldates m Rt~~.way Scn•1ce-Carry forward Rule-Application of
where
there is only one post-Railway Doarcfs administrative Instructions 1964 1971-..:.
/lome Ministry Memorandum, 1963.
'
After .the decision of the S.upreme Court in Devadasan's case [1964] 4 S.C.R.
680 holdmg that the reservation for the backward communities should not be
so excessive ~
.~o create ~ .monopoly or distur.b ~nduly the legitimate claims of
?!her c~mmumllcs, t~c Mtmstry of .Home A!Ia_s~ tssued ~ ~emorandu~ mOllify-
Ing the carry foward Rule so as to comply wtth the dectstoo. The s:ud memo-
randum was suitably modified by the Railway Board in its application to Railway
sc~·ices by their .!et~cr .da_tcd 6th October, 1964. The Railway Board prepared
a
Modd Roster stgmfymg the turns of reserved and unreserved
vacancies.
The note <~ppendcd to the Roster provided "if there are only two vacancies to be
ftllcd on a particular occasion, not more than one may be treated as reserved
and if there be only one vacancy, it should be treated as unreserved. If on this
<~ccount, a rescr1cd post is treated as unre.served, the reservation may be carried
forward in the subsequent two re<:ruitment years", In order to minimise
the
chances of reserved posts being converted into unreserved posts, the Railway
Uoard modified the Reservation Rule in 1971 by adding the followins words "if
there is one post to be filled, selection should invariably be held for two posts,
i.e. one actual and the other to cover unforeseen ci rcum~tances". The South-
Eastern Railway, a Go\·ernment of India Undertaking, runs two higher secon-
. Jary schools for girls, one at Adra nnd the other at Kb.;lragpur. A vacancy in
the po~t of H.cadmi<rre,;~ uf the A.<.lra School ar~e in 1966. A=rding to the
){aster, being the fir>t vacancy, it should have been treated as a reserved post.
Hut since there wa5 only one post, the same w-.13 treated as an unreserved post
and the appointment WiL' made on that footing.
In Decemb-!r 1968, the Rail·
way admini~tr<~tioo was to hold interviews for the post of Headmistress at the
Kharagnur ~chool as the incumbent Headmistress was to retire with efiect from
1·1-1 '.169.
The sekction was stayed by the Calcutta High Court on a writ peti-
tion filed hv Resporulent No. 8. a Scheduled Casto candidate, for readjustment of
her seniority. R.ospondent No. 8 filed another writ petition under Civil Rule
No. 499 (W) of 1969 in the Calcutta High Court calling upon the court to
tlcdare that the Kharal(pur post ~hould bo treated as a
.re!lerved p06t. The
M'CQOu «Hcm;>t at holding the interview by the Railway Administration was
thwarted by an injunction is~ucd by Cnlcutta High Court at th~· imtance of Re~
ponJcnt No. 8. In Civil Rule No. 4ti9(W) of 1969, a learned sinl:le Jud~te of
the Calcutta High Court unc.l then, on appeal (No. 454 of 1971) thl!" Division
fitnch of tile High Court held that the Kharagour post wa~ a reserved post.
Through the impugned letter of 6th November 1971 the Railway Administration
made ytt another :.ttempt to fill the vacancy in tertll.!l of the modification of the
.Knle i.n 1971. The same was obstructed by nn injunction issued by the sin!!le
J ud~,;e of the High Court in n writ petition ftled by the pe1itioncr (Ci\·il
Rule
No. 1395 (W) of 1972). However. at the time of final hearing, the learned
~ingle Jud~:e recullc<l the Rule und tho injunction i.~u~<l on the ground th:\t h:
" ·:L\ Lept in the dark regardinv the direction of the appellate court in appeal No.
454 of 1971. The petitioner did not pr.:fer any appeal against the decision of
th-: Je~rneJ single Ju•fiN hut filed a writ petition in thi,; Court.
Th~ petitioner
contc-nrled th;,t on a true in~rp~tation of the Rules, th~ vacancy in the post of
Ho:admbtre\~ at Kharagrur ou~ht 10 be treakd lLS nn unreserv~d vacancv and.
~ewnJJy, that the carry forwarJ provhion ot the rules is violative of articles 14
;tnJ 16 of th~ CoMtitutlon. Tho ~pondcnt~ raised a preliminary objection to
the m:Jnta.inabilitv oC the \\Tit ~tition on the grounJ that thz same wa.~ barred
ht prindpln analogou~ to rts-/udlcato.
~-1.447 Sup Ct/74
1
. _....,
i·· · .... _;-, .. ...
I ..
'
I.
l
SlExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.