LexFACULTY ASSOCIATION OF AIIMS versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2014] 14 S.C.R. 1634 FACULTY ASSOCIATION OF AllMS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 4500 of 2002) JULY18,2013 [ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI, SURINDER SINGH. NIJJAR, RANJAN GOGOi, M. Y. EQBALAND ,. VIKRAMAJIT SEN, JJ.] C Constitution of India - Arts. 15, 16 and 335.- Reservation - In speciality and super-speciality faculty posts in the All India Institute of Medical Sciences-Applicability- Held: In view of the observations made by Nine Judge Bench in Indira Sawhney case, rule of reservation is not applicable D to speciality and super-speciality level - The very concept . ' of reservation implies mediocrity - All India Institute of Medical Sciences Act, 1956. The question for consideration in the present E appeals was whether policy of reservation was inapplicable to speciality and super-speciality faculty posts in the All India Institute of Medical Sciences. ' Disposing of the appeals, the Court · 1. The main issue raised regarding reservation at F the super-specialty level has already been considered in *Indra Sawhney's case by a Nine~Judge Bench of this Court. Having regard to such decision, the c.ourt is not inclined to take any view other,than the view expressed by the Nine-Judge Bench on the issue. There could be G no compromise with merit at the super specialty stage. [Para 17][1648-C-E · · 2. In *Indra Sawhney's case, it was observed that while the relevance and significance of merit at the stage H of initial recruitment cannot be ignored, it cannot ·also 1634 FACULTY ASSOCIATION OF AllMS v. UNION OF INDIA 1635 be ignored that the same idea of reservation implies A selection of a less meritorious person. It was also observed that at the same time such a price would have to be paid if the constitutional promise of social justice was to be redeemed. However, after making such suggestions, a note of caution was introduced in the B light of Article 15 of the Constitution. A distinction was, however, made with regard to the provisions of Article 16 and it was held that Article 335 would be relevant and it would not be permissible not to prescribe any minimum standard at all. Of course, the said observation was made c in the context of admission to medical colleges. [Para 18][1649-B·D] 3. The Nine.Judge Bench while discussing the provisions of Article 335 also observed that there were certain services and posts where either on account of D the nature of duties attached to them or the level in the hierarchy at which they stood, merit alone counts. In such situations, it cannot be advised to provide for reservations. The position was made even more clear when the Court observed that they were of the opinion E that in certain services in respect of certain posts, application of rule of reservation may not be advisable with regard to various technical posts including posts in super specialty in medicine, engineering and other scientific and technical posts. [Para 18)[1649-F-H; F 1650-A] . 4. Even though it has been suggested that such an observation taken by the Nine-Judges Bench was not · binding, being obiter in nature, this Court cannot take a G different view. The very concept of reservation implies mediocrity. [Para 19)[1650-B] *Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India and Ors. (1992) ·Supp. (3) sec 215-followed. H 1636 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R. A Jagdish Saran & Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors. (1980) 2 SCR 831; Dr Pradeep Jain etc. vs. Union of India and Ors. etc. (1984) 3 SCR 942; Dr Preeti Srivastava vs. ·state of M.P (1999) 7 sec 120: 1999 (1) suppl. scR 249; B Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad- Deccan vs. Vazir Sultan and Sons 1959 Supp (2) SCR 375; State of MP vs. Nivedita Jain (1981) 4 SCC 296: 1982 (1) SCR 759 - relied on. Dr Faza/ Ghafoor vs. Union of India and Ors. c (1988) Supp. SCC 794; Saurabh Chaudri and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors. (2003) 11 SCC 146: 2003 (5) Suppl. SCR 152; TM.A. Pai Foundation vs. State of Karnataka (2002) 8 SCC D 481: 2002 (3) Suppl. SCR 587; Nagaraj and Others vs. Union of India and Others (2006) 8 SCC 212: 2006 (7) Suppl. SCR 336; E. V. Chinnaiah vs. State of AP and Others (2005) 1 SCC 394: 2004 (5) Suppl. SCR 972 - referred to. E Case Law Reference: (1988) Supp. sec 794 referred to Para 9 2003 (5) Suppl. SCR 152 referred to Para 11 2002 (3) Suppl. SCR 587 referred to Para 12 F 1959 S.upp (2) SCR 375 relied on Para 12 2006 (7) Suppl. SCR 336 refer
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.