DR. CHAKRADHAR PASWAN versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

Citation: [1988] 3 S.C.R. 130 · Decided: 08-03-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
DR. CHAKRADHAR PASWAN 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. 
MARCH 8, 1988 
[A.P. SEN AND B.C. RAY, JJ.] 
Constitution of India-Article 16(4)-Reservation of posts and 
appointments for members of backward classes read with Art. 16( 1)-
Equal opportunity to all citizens relating to public employment-
Reservation of posts for scheduled castes /tribes must not be so excessive 
which would in effect efface the guarantee of equal opportunity--Reserva-
tior:i of the only post in cadre for scheduled caste candidate amounts to 
JOO per cent reservation-JOO per cent reservation is excessive and is not 
permissible under Art. 16(4)-Reservation of first vacancy in a particu-
lar cadre for scheduled caste candidate is violative of Art. 16( 1). 
D 
The State of Bihar had a Directorate of Indigenous Systems of 
Medicines which was a part of its Health Department and one Dr. 
Nagesh Dwivedi was its Director. On 6.5.1978 the State Government 
created a separate Directorate of Indigenous Medicines, the Director 
being from one of the systems of medicines consisting of Ayurvedic, 
Unani and Homeopathic. At the time of creation of the separate 
E 
Directorate, the Government sanctioned the posts of two Deputy Direc-
tors for each of the two remaining systems. The State Government had 
in the meanwhile prescribed a SO point roster to implement the policy of 
reservation to posts and appointments for members of the backward 
classes under Art. i6(4). It was laid down that 'if in any grade, there is 
only one vacancy for the first time, then it will be deemed to be unreserved 
F 
and for the second time also, if there be only one vacancy, then it will be 
deemed to be reserved'. Acting upon this roster the Government 
reserved the post of Deputy Director (Homeopathic) for a scheduled 
caste candidate. The Public Service Commission on being moved by the 
Government, issued an advertisement inviting applications from mem-
bers of the scheduled caste and the appellant was selected for appoint-
G 
men! to the post. Respondent No. 4 challenged the selection of the 
appellant in the High Court by filing a petition under Article 226 of the 
Constitution. In October, 1982 an additional post of Deputy Director 
(Ayurvedic) was created and filled. 
The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the said 
H adve·rtisement and the consequent order of appointment of the appel-
130 
+ 
t 
j 
~-
., 
~· , 
-~ 
-~ 
J, 
DR. C. PASWAN v. STATE OF BIHAR 
131 
lant. The High Court was of the view that the post of Director and three 
A 
Deputy Directors could not be clubbed together for reservation of posts 
and appointments. Nor could the posts of Deputy Directors Homeo-
pathic," Ayurvedic and Unani which form distinct and separate systems 
of medicines be grouped for purposes of reservation. 
The ·appellant contended that there were four posts in the Directo-
B 
rate of Indigenous Medicines and all the posts were Class. I l'osts and 
therefore according to the 50 point roster the post of Director having 
been treated as unreserved by the Rotational system, the post of Deputy 
Director (Homeopathic) was rightly reserved for a scheduled caste 
candidate. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court, 
c 
HELD: The posts of the Director and those of the Depnty 
Directors constitute different cadres of the service. It is manifest that 
the post of the Director of Indigenous Medicines, which is the highest 
post in the Directorate carried on a higher grade or scale, could not 
D 
possibly be.equated with those of the Deputy Directors on a lower grade or 
scale. In view of this, according to the 50 point roster, if in a particular 
cadre a single post falls vacant, it should, in the case of first vacancy, be 
considered as general. That being so, the State Government could not 
have directed reservation of the post of Deputy Director (Homeopathic) 
which was the first vacancy in a particular cadre i.e. that of the Deputy 
E 
Directors, for candidates belonging to the schedule castes. Such reser-
vation was not in conformity with the principles laid down in the 50 
point roster and was impermissible under Ari. 16(4) of the.Constitution 
and clearly violative of the guarantee enshrined in Art. 16(1) of equal 
opportunity to all citizens relating to public emplo)'.ment. Clause ( 4) of 
Art. 16 is by way of an exception of the proviso to Art. 16(i). The High F 
Court rightly held that the reservation of the post of Deputy Director 
(Homeopathic) amounted to 100% reservation 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.