MALKHAN SINGH versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] 1 S.C.R. 64 · Decided: 07-01-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI, SUJATA V. MANOHAR · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
MALKHAN SINGH 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
JANUARY 7, 1997 
[AM. AHMADI, AND SUJATA V. MANOHAR, J.] 
Se1vice Law-Rese1vatio11s SC and ST-Excha11ge of-vacancy of Ad-
ditio11al District a11d Sessions fudge--Rese1ved for ST-Canied fonvard upto 
third recmitment year in 198~No ST candidate was still available-But 
C vacancy was not e.xchanged for SC candidate-Held: in the circumstances of 
the case, in the year 1985, being the third year of cany fo1ward; the rese1vatio11 
for ST candidate could have been exchanged for SC candidate-Govt. of 
India, MHA, DP & AR OM No. 1-9-1974 Estt. (SCT) dated 
29.4.197~Brvchure on Rese1vation for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled 
D T1ibes in Se1vices,_ Chapter 11, paras 11.1 and 11.2. 
The petitioner was a practising advocate of more than 21 years' 
standing and he applied for the post of Additional District & Sessions 
Judge in the Delhi Higher Judicial Service in response to an advertisement 
in June 1985. The advertisement was in respect of four vacancies out of 
E which two vacancies were in the general category, one was reserved for a 
Schedule Caste candidate and one was reserved for a Scheduled Tribe 
candidate. As against the two vacancies, which were reserved for Scheduled 
Caste and SCheduled Tribe candidates, three Schedule Caste candidates 
were selected. No suitable Scheduled Tribe candidate was, however, avail-
able. There were three candidates in the Select Panel. The candidate who 
F was at the head of the Select Panel was appointed against the vacancy, 
which was reserved for a S~heduled Caste candidate. The petitioner who 
was at serial No. 2 was not appointed in the vacancy, which was meant for 
a Scheduled Tribe candidate, and it was kept unfilled. 
G 
Several vacancies had arisen thereafter, but the petitioner was not 
appointed. Being aggrieved the petitioner filed a writ petition before the 
High Court, which was dismissed. Hence this appeal. 
On behalf of the petitioner it was contended that 1985 was the third 
recruitment year for the reservation meant for a Scheduled Tribe can-
H didate and in that year .the reservation could have been exchanged for a 
64 
) 
M. SINGH v. u.o.r. [SUJATA v. MANO HAR, .T.] 
65 
Scheduled Caste candidate in view of the definition of the "recruitment A 
year" in Note (1) to para 11.1 Chapter 11 of the Brochure of Reservation 
for Scheduled Castes.and Scheduled Tribes in Services. 
Disposing of the Petition, this Court 
HELD : 1. There is considerable merit in the contention of the B 
petitioner that 1985 was the third recruitment year for the reservation 
• 
meant for a Scheduled Tribe candidate and in that year the reservation 
could have been exchanged for a Scheduled Caste candidate, especially in 
view of the definition of "recruitment year" in Note (1) to paragraph 11.1, 
Chapter 11 of the Brochure on Reservation for Schedule Castes and C 
Scheduled Tribes in Services. The benefit of such exchange was not given 
to the petitioner because of the erroneous view taken by the High Court 
that the post was not exchangeable in 1985. However, as rightly conceded 
IJy the petitioner, he has by now attained the age of 50 years and it would 
not now be appropriate to appoint him as an Additional District Judge. 
(69-H, 70-A-B] D 
Arati Ray Choudhury v. Union of India & Ors., AIR (1974) SC 532, 
referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C) 
No. 3174 of 1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 3.8.94 of the Delhi High Court 
in C.W. No. 1656 of 1986. 
R.K. Jain, S.C. Gupta, S.C. Paul and Rishi Kesh for the Petitioner. 
Ms. A. Subhashini and Ms. Birioo Tamta for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
E 
F 
MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR, J. The petitioner is a pracllsmg 
advocate of more than 21 years' standing. He applied for the post of an 
Additional District & Sessions Judge in the Delhi Higher Judicial Service G 
in response to an advertisement which was issued in June 1985. The 
advertisement was in respect .of four vacancies out of which two vacancies 
were in the general category, one was reserved for a Scheduled Caste 
candidate and one was reserved for a Scheduled Tribe candidate. The 
petitioner who belongs to a Scheduled Caste, applied for one of these H 
66 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1997] 1 S.C.R. 
A vacancies. For the two vacancies which were reserved for general category 
candidates, One Mr. Malhotra and one Mr. Singh were appointed. As 
against the two vacancies which were reserved
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.