BIHAR STATE HARIJAN KALYAN PARISHAD versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [1985] 3 S.C.R. 12 · Decided: 01-03-1985 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: O. CHINNAPPA REDDY · Disposal: Case Allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
ll 
c 
12 
BIHAR STATE HARIJAN KALYAN PARISHAD 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
March 1, 1985. 
[0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, E. S. VEKKATARAMIAH., JJ.) 
Constitution of India 19:i0, Article 16 
Reseri1ation of posts for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe:,-Group 
'A' serv/ces--Promotlon by selection method-Presidential Directive para 
9-Publfe Sec/or Undertaking-Government communications denying benefit of 
D 
restrJation-Quaslted. 
In case of promotion to posts promotion to which are by the selection 
method, 15% and 7f per cent of posts were to be reserved for Scheduled 
Castes and Scheduled Tribes respectively. 
Para 9 of the Presidential Direc· 
tive provided that the aforesaid 
rule of reservation was also applicable to 
promotions by selection to posts within Group 'A' carrying a salary of 
Rs. 2250 per month or less. and prescribed that officers belonging to the 
E 
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes would be considered for promotion, 
who are senior enough to be within the zone of consideration, and described 
the procedure to be adopted. 
F 
G 
II 
' 
By a I'Ctter dated the 8th APril 1982, the Ministry of Steel and 
Mines, Department of Steel, i"nformed the Chairman, Steel Authority of 
India Limited, that in accordance with para 9 of the Presidential Directive 
there was no reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in 
promotion by selection to posts within Group 'A'. 
This letter in turn was 
followed up by a co1DD111Dication dated August 19, 1982 by the SteeJ 
Authority of India to ; the Chief Personnel Manager, Bokaro Steel Plant 
stating that nO reservation for scheduled caste/scheduled tribe candidates in 
matters of promotions to any iirade within Group-A posts are· t0 be provi-
ded, sjnce pro1notions within Group. A posts in the company are based on 
select i o method. 
The writ petition of the Appellant, complaining that the letter dated 
April 8, 1982 of the Ministry of Steel & Mines and the letter dated August 
' 
BmAlt ST. KALYAN PRISHAD v. UNiON CChinnappa Reddy, J.) 
13 
19, 1982 to the Chief-Personnel Manager of Bokaro Steel Plant purported 
to deny to the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes the benefit of reser-
vation in the matter of promotion to selection posts within Group 'A', was 
summarily dismissed by the High Court. 
Allowing the Appeal to this Court, 
HELD : 1. Para 9 or the Presidential Directive, which deals with 
"conccss=on to employee! of Schedaled Castes and Scheduled Tribes 'in 
prorE.ot!ons by selection method" makes abundanily clear that the rule of 
reservation ia also applicable to promotions by aclection to posts within 
Group 'A' which carry an ultir11atc salary of Rs. :l,250/-pcr month or 
Jess. 
It however, prescribes a procedure'diffcrent from tho u1ual 
pro~edure 
adopted in filling up posts res1rved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled 
Tiihos. [16F-0] 
· 
l. The letters of the Department of Steel dated 8th April, 1982, 
aod of the Steel Authority of India Ltd., dated August 19, 1982 are 
contrary to para 9 of the Presidential Directive. [17A] 
3. The writ petition is allowed. 
The letters dated April 8. 1982 
and August 19, 1982 are quashed. 
The respondents are directed to give 
effect to paragraph 9 of the Presidentiai Directive. [17A] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 680 of 
1985. 
From the Judgment and order dated 1.2.1983 of the High 
Court of Patna at Ranchi in C.W.J.C. No. 1152/82. 
V.M. Tarkunde, P.H. Parekh and Miss Lata Krishnamurthi 
for tlie petitioners. 
V.A. Syed Mohammad, Abdul Khader, K.J. John, S.R. Grover, 
Manjul Bajpayee, D. Goverdhan, C.V. Subba Rao, R.N. Poddar, and 
Miss A. Subhashlni for the Respondents. 
The judgment of the Court was delivered by 
CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. 
Special leave granted. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
F. 
G 
The ~ihar State Harijan Kalyan Parishad whose writ p!lkition 
against the Steel Authority of India Ltd., the Union of India and 
others, was dismissed in limine is the. appellant before us in this 
appeal. 
We are afraid, notwithstandinlJ the summary dismissal 
!l 
' 
A 
B 
c 
14 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1985] 3 S.C R 
of the writ petition by the High Court, this appeal has to be allowed. 
The appellant is rightly aggrieved with letter No. 18.(12)/81-SAIL-II/ 
Coord dated April 8, 1982 from the Ministry of Steel and Mines 
addressed to the Chairman of the Steel Authority of India Limi-
ted and letter No. PER/IR/7949 (pt) dated August 19, 1982 from 
the Steel Authority of India Limited to the Chief Personnel Man
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.