ROHTAS BHANKHAR & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: [2014] 8 S.C.R. 871 · Decided: 15-07-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RAJENDRA MAL LODHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

[2014) 8 S.C.R. 871 
ROHTAS BHANKHAR & ORS. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal Nos.6046-6047 of 2004) 
JULY 15, 2014 
[R.M. LODHA,CJI, JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J. 
CHELAMESWAR, A.K. SIKRI, R.F. NARIMAN,.JJ.] 
A 
B 
Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 16(4), 16(4A) and 
335 - Reservation for Promotion - Relaxation of standards of C 
evaluation for the members of reserved category (SC/ST 
candidates) in the departmental competitive examination for 
promotion - Permissibility - In view of judgment in *Vinod 
·Kumar case that provisipns for lower qualifying marks! 
standafd of evaluation was contrary to Art. 16(4), State by its D 
-rvlemorandum of 1997 withdrew the Memorandum of 1970 
whereby relaxed standard of evaluation was provided -
Validity of the 1997 Memorandum - Held: 1997 memorandum 
was illegal - Judgment in *Vi nod Kumar case was per incuriam 
as the same was passed without taking into consideration 
E 
provisions uls. 16(4A) brought into by Constitution (Seventy.-
Seventh Amendment) Act, 1995 - Moreover, a proviso has 
also been appended to Art. 335 by Constitution (Eighty 
Second Amendment) Act, 2000 - Central Secretariat Service 
Section Officers' Grade/Stenographers' Grade 'B (Limited 
F 
Departmental Competitive Examination) Regulations, 1964 
- Central Secretariat Service Section Officers' Gradel 
Stenographers' Grade 'B ·(Limited Departmental Competitive 
. Examination) A'mendment Regulations, 1998 . 
. O.M. No. 36012123/96 - Estt. (Res.) dated 22.7.1997 
G 
was issued Whereby instructions contained in O.M. No. 
8/12/69-Estt. (SCT) dated 23.12.1970 were withdrawn 
which provided ·relaxing standards in the case of 
87t 
H 
872 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 8 S.C.R. 
A Scheduled Castes/Tribes candidates in departmental 
competitive examinations. Accordingly, The Central 
Secretariat 
Service 
Section 
Officers' 
Grade/ 
Stenographers' Grade 'B (Limited Departmental 
Competitive Examination) Regulations, 1964 were 
B amended by Central Secretariat Service Section Officers' 
Grade/Stenographers' Grade 'B (Limited Departmental 
Competitive Examination) Amendment Regulations, 1998. 
The Court below relied on Vinod Kumar's case 
C wherein it was held that provisions for lower qualifying 
marks/standard of evaluation was not permissible u/s. 
16(4) of the Constitution in view of Article 335 of the 
Constitution. In appeal to this Court, Division Bench 
noticing that Kuldeep Singh's case was passed without 
noticing the Indra Sawhney case and referred the matter 
D to a Three-Judge Bench. The matter was further referred 
to the present Constitution Bench, doubting the 
correctness of judgment in Kuldeep Singh's case. 
E 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. Article 16(4A) was inserted in the 
Constitution to undo the observations in Indra 
Sawhney's case that there can not be dilution of 
standards in matters of promotion. Though Article 16(4A) 
F had been brought into Constitution by the Constitutfon 
(Seventy-seventh Amendment) Act, 1995 with effect from 
17 .6.1995, S. Vi nod Kumar's case did not take_ into 
consideration this constitutional provision. Kuldeep 
Singh's case was decided by this Court having regard to 
the· constitutional provision contained in Article 16(4A). 
G Therefore, the view taken by this Court in ~uldeep 
Singh's case is in accord with constitutional scheme 
articulated in Article 16(4A). Moreover by the Constitution 
(Eighty-second Amendment) Act, 2000, a proviso has 
been appended to Article 335 of tt1e Constitution wi~h 
H 
ROHTAS BHANKHAR v. UNION OF INDIA 
873 
effect from 8.9.2000. [Paras 3, 4, 9 and 10] [875-C-D; 879-
A 
D] 
2. The Central Administrative Tribunal has followed 
S. Vinod Kumar's case which is not a good law and 
resultantly 1997 O.M. is also illegal. The respondents are 
directed to modify the results in the Section Officers/ 8 
Stenographers (Grade B/Grade-1) Limited Departmental 
Competitive Examination, 1996 by ·providing fo·r 
reservation and extend all consequential reliefs to the 
appellants, if not granted so far. [Paras 10 and 11] [879-
F-H] 
C 
S. Vinod Kumar vs. Union of India and Ors. 1996 (7) 
Suppl. SCR 142 = (1996) 6 SCC 580 - held per incuriam. 
Superintending Engineer, 
Public Health, 
U. T. 
Chandigarh and Ors. vs. Ku/deep Singh & Others 1997 (1) D 
SCR 454 = (1997) 9 sec 199 - affirmed. 
M. Nagraj and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors. 2006 (7) 
Suppl. SCR 336 = (2006)8 SCC 212 - followed. 
Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India and Ors. 19

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