LexK. MANORAMA versus UNION OF INDIA REP. BY GENL. MANAGER SOUTHERN RAILWAY & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 11 S.C.R. 841 K. MANORAMA v. UNION OF INDIA REP. BY GENL. -MANAGER SOUTHERN RAILWAY & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 2379 of 2005) SEPTEMBER 29, 2010 [R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.] Service law: A B Reservation in promotion - Two posts - Selection - Challenged by appellant on the ground that the first appointee was promoted on his merit and not because he was a Scheduled Caste and therefore the appellant ought to hal!e been promoted on the basis of her status as a Scheduled D Caste candidate in place of the second appointee - Held: The first appointee belonged to a Scheduled Caste and was selected essentially because it was a Scheduled Caste vacancy, which came to be allotted to him, keeping aside. other candidates - First appointee had, in fact, got marks E lesser than the second appointee and his selection was basically because he was a Scheduled Caste candidate - Even otherwise, the principle that 'when a member belonging to a Scheduled Caste gets selected in the open competition field on the basis of his own merit, he will not be counted F against the quota reserved for Scheduled Castes, but will be treated as open candidate', will apply only in regard to . recruitment by open competition and not to the promotions effected on the basis of seniority-cum-suitability. Reservation in promotion - When a single post cadre G becomes a multi-post cadre, and consequently two seats become available, one out of the two seats has to be treated as a reserved seat. 841 H - 842 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 11 S.C.R. A Appellant belonging to a scheduled caste, was working as Chief Law Assistant in Southern Railways. The post higher to that post was that of the Assistant Law Officer. Initially ·Assistant L:aw Officer' was a single post cadre. It was filled up by an open category candidaia in B the year 1991. Subsequently two posts were created. The posts were to be filled up on the basis of seniority-cum- s u ita bil ity, A notification holding 10 senior most candidates eligible for being considered for the two posts was issued on .10.11.1994. To determine their suitability, c a written examination was held. Eight Law Assistants obtained qualifying marks and became eligible for being called for the interview. The concerned committee recommended tespondent nos. 3 and 4 for those two posts. Out of them, respondent no. 3 was a Scheduled T 0 Caste candidate. The .promotion order for both of them , was issued. on 26.5.1995. The ,appellant challenged the -appointment of respondent no.4 on_ the ground that respondent no.3 was promoted to the post of Assistanu..:aw Officer on his merit E and not becaus~ he was· a Scheduled Caste and, therefore, the appellant ought to have been promoted on the basis of Jier status as a Scheduled Caste candidate . in place of respondent no.4. _ F The Central Admi~istrative Tribunal allowed the OA and declared that the selection of resp·ondent no. 3 was in an unreserved vacancy on his own ~erit. It directed , respondents nos. 1 and 2 to em panel the appellant in the _ reserved category proyided that she was qualified G according to the marks and seniority tn the selection made, and there. was no Scheduled Caste candidate above her either on marks or in seniority. The selection of respondent no .. 4 was held to be erroneous. However, since he had retired in the meanwhile; the emoluments H I K. MANORAMA v. UNION OF INDIA REP. BY GENL. 843 MANAGER SOUTHERN RAILWAY received were directed not to be disturbed. The tribunal A further directed that the appellant if found fit, would be deemed to be entitled to the seniority in the service, from the date of selection of respondent no. 3, though she would not get the salary till the date she actually assumed charge of the higher post. B Respondent nos.1 and 2 filed writ petitions before the High Court which were allowed. The instant appeal was filed challenging the order of the High Court. Dismissing the appeal, the Court c HELD: 1. One out of the two vacancies which occurred in the year 1994 had to be treated as reserved. This was because the first point in the roster was otherwise meant for a reserved candidate. Since, in 1991, D it was a single post cadre, it had been treated as unreserved. When a single post cadre became a multi- post cadre, and consequently two seats became available in 1994, the Department had to treat one out of the two seats as a reserve
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.