CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION AND ANR. versus SURINDER KUMAR AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 283 · Decided: 27-11-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BRIJESH KUMAR · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
SURINDER KUMAR AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 27, 2003 
[BRIJESH KUMAR AND ARUN KUMAR, JJ.J 
B 
Service Law : 
Service Law of Union Territory Employees Rules, 1966 : 
Reservation-SCISTIOBC-Migrants from other States/UTs-Grant c 
of benefits/concessions to the migrated persons-Candidates were in 
possession of caste certificates issued by their respective States-But were 
denied benefits of reservation by the UT to which they had migrated-
Validity of-Held: recognised SCIST/OBC candidates of any other States/ 
UTs entitled to benefits and facilities provided in the UT to which they had D 
migrated-In view of Govt. of India Circular No. BC. 12017186-SC & 
BCD. !(Ch. Admn.) dt. 26-8-1986. 
The employees of the appellant-Union Territory were governed 
by the rules/instructions as applicable to the Central Government E 
employees in view of service of Union Territory Employees Rules, 
1966. ~he appellant issued an advertisement inviting applications for 
fourteen posts of Assistant Sub-Inspecrors. Two posts were meant for 
SC and four posts for OBC candidates. Respondents I to 5 were 
applicants for the said posts in pursuance of the advertisement. F 
Resp<mdents I and 2 were SC candidates while respondents 3 to 5 were 
OBC candidates. These respondents had caste certificates issued by 
their respective States. Based on the caste certificate held by them the 
respondents sought the benefit of reservation but the same was denied 
to them. 
Being aggrieved the respondents approached the Central Admin-
istrative Tribunal which directed the appellant to give appointments 
G 
to these _respondents if they were found to be otherwise eligible. The 
High Court upheld the order of the Tribunal relying on the Govt. of 
India Circular No. BC 12017/86-SC & BCD.I (Ch. Admn.) dated H 
283 
284 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A 26-8-1986 to the effect that SC/ST candidates of any other State were 
entitled to the benefit of reservation in the appellant-UT to which they 
had migrated. Hence the appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
B 
HELD : 1.1. The Government of India instructions contained in 
the Circular No. BC. 12017/9/86-SC & BCD.ICCh. Admn.) dated 26-
8-1986 specifically permit that a recognized Scheduled Caste/Scheduled 
Tribe of any other State or Union Territory would be entitled to the 
benefits and facilities provided for SC/ST in the services in the 
C appellant-Union Territory. Therefore, there is no reason to ignore the 
instructions contained in the said letter. (290-F, G] 
1.2. The appelhant cannot overlook the instructions contained in 
the Government of India Circular dated 26-8-1986 especially when 
those instructions were being adm,ittedly all along followed by the 
D appellant. (291-G] 
· 
Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao v. Dean, Seth G.S Medical College, 
(1990) 3 SCC 130; Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate to 
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State of Maharashtra v. 
E Union of India, [1994] 5 SCC 244 and State of Maharashtra v. Kumari 
Tanuja, (1999] 2 SCC 462, held not attracted;. 
CIVIL APELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4684 of 
2001. 
F 
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.9.2000 of the Punjab and 
Haryana High Court in C. W.P. No. 8319-CAT of 2000. 
Ms. Kamini Jaiswal and Ms. s, Bakshi for the Appellant. 
Nidesh Gupta, Ms. Renu George and Dinesh Kumar Garg for the 
G Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARUN KUMAR, J. With the. promulgation of the Punjab Re,. 
organisation Act I 966 in place of erstwhile State of Punjab, three States · 
H viz. Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh were carved out while 
CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION v. S. KUMAR [ARUN KUMAR, J.] 
285 
Chandigarh became a Union Territory. Under Article 239 of the Consti- A 
tution of India the Union Territories are administered by the President of 
India acting through an Administrator to be appointed by him. But this 
does not mean that the Union Territories become merged with the Central 
Government. They are centrally administered but they retain their inde-
pendent entity. On formation of the Union Territory of Chandigarh, its B 
employees were governed by the rules/instructions as applicable to the 
Central Government employees in view of Service of Union Territory 
Employees Rules, 1966. In the present case these facts have become 
relevant for the reason that the Chandigarh Administ~ation issued an 
advertisement inviting applications for fourteen
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.