CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & ORS. versus CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA SC/ST EMPLOYEES WELFARE ASSOCIATION & ORS.

Citation: [2016] 1 S.C.R. 540 · Decided: 08-01-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: JASTI CHELAMESWAR · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] I S.C.R. 540 
A 
CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR CENTRAL BA"1K OF 
8 
c 
D 
E 
F 
INDIA & ORS. 
v. 
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA SC/ST EMPLOYEES WELFARE 
ASSOCIATION & ORS. 
(Review Petition (Civil) No. 891 of2015) 
IN 
(Civil Appeal No. 209of2015) 
JANUARY 08, 2016 
(J. CHELAMESWAR AND A. K. SIKRI, JJ.J 
Service lalv: Reservation in JJro1notio11 - Revielv petitions -
Supreme Court held in the judgment under review in paragraph 3./ 
that there is no reservation in promotion by selection within Group-
A posts which carry an ultimate salary of Rs.5700 per month and it 
is only· concession that applies -
Ho1veve1~ in the veJJ,. next line it 
obser1,ed thot reservation is provided in promotion by selection qua 
those posts which carry an ultimale salary of less 1han Rs. 5 700 per 
month - It is clearly an error 011 the face of !he record inasmuch as 
no such consequence follows - In fact, this is directly in conflict. 
with not only the earlier par/ion of paragraph 3./ but !he entire 
conclusion on the issue on which there is detailed discussion from 
paragraph 26 to 32 and even in earlier paragraph of the judgment 
- It is this error. which is appare/1/ on the face of the record, viz. the 
reservation is provided in promotion by selection in respect ()f posts 
carrying salary of less than Rs. 5, 700 per month, that has led to 
further error that such reservation in the mailer of promotion is 
applicable from Scale I upward up to Scale VI - Review petitions 
allowed by deleting paragraphs 33 to 36 of the judgment and 
directions contained therein as well as direclions contained in 
paragraph 37 and fresh paragraph 33 inserted - Review - Supreme 
G Court Rules, 20I3 - Or. XLVII Rule(/) - Code of Civil Procedure, 
I908 - Or. XLVII Rule {IJ. 
Allowing the review petitions, the Co1111 
H 
540 
CHAIRMAN & M. D. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA v. CENTRAL BANK OF 
IN DIA SC/STEMP. WELFARE ASSN. 
HELD: Once an error is found in the order/judgment, which 
is apparent on the face of record and meets the test of review 
jurisdiction as laid down in Order XLVII Rule (1) of the Supreme 
Court Rules, 2013 read with Order XLVII Rule (1) of the Code 
of Civil Procedure, 1908, the.re is no reason to not accept such a 
mistake and rectify the same. For adopting such a course of 
action, the Court is guided by the doctrine of ex debito justitiae 
as well as the fundamental principle of the administration of justice 
that no one should suffer because of a mistake of the Court. [Para 
13] J551-F-H; 552 -A] 
State of Rajasthan & Anr. v. Surendra Mohnot & Ors. 
2014 (6) SCR 191: (2014) 14 SCC 77; A.R. Antulay v. 
R.S. Nayak 1988 (1) Suppl. SCR 1 : (1988) 2 SCC 
602; S. Nagaraj v. State of Kamataka 1993 (2) Suppl. 
SCR I :1993 Sup11 (4) SCC 595 - relied on. 
Case Law Reference 
2014 (6) SCR 191 
1988 (I) Suppl. SCR 1 
1993 (2) Suppl. SCR I 
relied on 
relied on 
relied on 
Para 9 
Para 13 
Para 14 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : R. P. (C) NO. 891 OF 
2015 in Civil Appeal No. 209of2015 
From the Judgment and Order dated 09.01.2015 of the Cow1 in 
Civil Appeal No. 209of2015 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) 
No. 4385 of2010. 
WITH 
R.P. (C) No.837/2015 In C.A.No.213/2015 
R.P. (C) No.892/2015 In C.A.No.211/2015 
R.P. (C) No.903/2015 In C.A.No.210/2015 
R.P. (C) No.1104/2015 In C.A.No.212/2015 
R.P. (C) No.2131/2015 In C.A.No.209/2015 
Mukul Rohatgi.AG. Adarsh 8. Dial, Jaideep Gupta, Kapil Sibal. 
A. Mariarputham, Dhruv Mehta, Rajesh Singh, Khushbu Sahu, Rajiv 
Nanda, Piyush S., Navin R. Nath, Hetu Arora, L.M. Bhat,. Darpan K.M .• 
541 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
542 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] J S.C.R. 
0. P. Gaggar, B. Krishna Prasad, B.K. Gautam, Anuradha, Jennifer 
John, S.C. Sagar, (For E.C. Vidyasagar), Dr. Krishan Singh Chauhan, 
Ajit Kumar Ekka, Ravi Prakash, Chand Kiran, Murari Lal, H.C. 
Nainawat, C.K. Chandrasekhar, S.R. Setia, Rajesh Kumar, Gaurav 
Kumar Singh, Rakesh Chaurasiya, Mis. Mitter & Mitter Co., Harshad 
V. Hameed, Di Jeep Poolakkot, K. Rajeev for the appearing parties. 
Dr. Krishan Singh Chauhan, Respondent-in-person 
The .Judgment of the Cou1i was delivered by 
A. K. SIKRI, J. I. By our judgment dated January 09, 2015, we 
had decided batch of appeals which were preferred by the Union of 
India as well as certain banks. In these appeals, the validity of the 
judgment of the High Court of Madras was questioned which held that 
in the matter of promotions in the officer grades, there shall be reservatio
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.