P. SHESHADRI versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Citation: [1995] 2 S.C.R. 621 · Decided: 09-03-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

P. SHESHADRI 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
MARCH 9, 1995 
(S.C. AGRAWAL AND FAIZAN UDDIN, JJ.J 
B 
Service Law: 
Promotion-'-CentrOJ Water Engineering (Group-A) Servic~Appoint­
ment to the post of Dy. Director/Executive Engineet-Reservations C 
policy/scheme for Scheduled Tribe candidates--Procedure to be followed-In-
terpretation of Office Menwffinda issued in this regard and the scheme 
underlying it. 
The appellant who belongs to S.T. community was holding the post D 
of Assistant Director/Assistant Executive Engineer in Central Water En· 
gineering (Group-A) and was eligible for promotion to the next grade of 
Deputy Director/Executive Engineer. His name was included in the panel 
of sel~d candidates and was placed at SI.No. 26 in the combined lisL 
Persons at sl.no.1 to 22 In the panel were promoted and the appellant was 
not promoted. He approached the Central Administrative Tribunal claim· E 
ing that since 22 persons were promoted, adeast there could be one Roster 
point belonging to Scheduled Tribe candidate against which he could have 
been promoted. 
/ 
/ 
. 
,/ 
The Respondents contested the appellant's-'lipplication by stating . F 
that 75 vacancies were expected upto 31.U.90 and accordingly the panel 
was prepared; that as per the directions contained in omce Memorandum 
No. 27/2171-E(SET) dated 27.11.197~ issued by the Department of Person· 
nel, three separate lists one of general candidates and the other two of SC 
a'1d ST respectively were prepared and were merged into one combined list 
in which the names of all the selected officers including those belonging to G 
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes were arranged in the order of 
their inter·se seniority in the feeder cadre; that the number of vacancies 
as were anticipated did not come through and they could promote only 22 
officers from the combined. list and that the appellant's chances of promo-
tion would coQle according to his placement in the approved panel. 
H 
621 
622 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1995) 2 S.C.R. 
A 
The Tribunal, after analysing the Office Memorandum dated 
27.11.1972, took the view that the respondents committed no illegality in 
~ 
promoting the 22 persons. Thus it rejected the application of the appellant. 
In this appeal against the abovesaid order, the appellant contended 
B that atleast one post could have been available for Scheduled Tribes when 
,,,-, 
22 promotions were ordered and that he could have been promoted against 
such a vacancy. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. A combined reading of the instructions contained in the 
relevant memoranda would show that in the first instance the number of 
reserved vacancies in a year have to be worked out on the basis of 40 point 
roster as envisaged in sub- clause (i) of paragraph 3 of O.M. dated 
27.11.1972. Thereafter separate lists are to be drawn up of the eligible 
D Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes officers arranged in the order of 
their inter se seniority in the main list. Clause (iii) of paragraph 3 enjoins 
a duty on the Departmental Promotion Committee to adjudge the 
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes officer separately in regard to 
their fitness. Thereafter the select lists of the officers in the general 
E category and those belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled 
Tribes are prepared by the Departmental Promotion Committee. The same 
bave to be merged into a combined select list in which the names of all the 
selected officers, general as well as those belonging to Scheduled Castes 
and Scheduled Tribes are arranged in the order of their inter se seniority 
in the original seniority list of the category/grade from which the promo-
F tion is being made and this combined select list is the basis for making 
promotions in vacancies as and when they arise during the year. [629-8-DJ 
2. Clause (ii) of paragraph 2.3.2 of O.M. dated 10.3.1989 con-
templates that selection against vacancies reserved for Schedule Castes 
and Schedule Tribes will be made only from those Schedule 
G Caste/Schedule Tribes officers who are within the normal zone of con-
sideration prescribed by the Department of Personnel and A.R. vide O.M. 
No. 22011 dated 24th December, 1980. It further contemplates that where 
number of Scheduled Caste/Schedule Tribes candidates are not available 
within the normal field of choice, it may be extended to Five Times the 
H number of .acaDdes and Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribe candidates (and 
y 
·~ 
P. SHESHADRI v. U.0.1. 

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