SATISH RAWAT versus UNION OF INDIA

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 671 · Decided: 26-08-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
SATISH RAWAT 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA 
AUGUST 26, 2002 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND P. VENKATARAMA REDD!, JJ.] 
B 
Service law: 
Appointment under sports quota-Challenge of-Tribunal, quashing 
appointment, issued a direction to Department to select candidates on merit- C 
Accordingly, another candidate appointed-Review and fresh Petitions by 
affected candidates dismissed-Writ Petition also dismissed by High Court-
on appeal, held, since complete record not placed before the Tribunal, it 
could not draw appropriate conclusion-Und~r the circumstances, the earlier 
appointee, whose services were terminated in compliance with the directions D 
of Tribunal, shall be reinstated with due protection of pay, if need be by 
creating a supernumerary post-A/so appointment of another candidate made 
pursuant to Tribunal's directions should not be disturbed 
Customs Department made appointment of Inspectors under sports 
quota after conducting written test, interview and field trial. One candidate E 
was appointed under "football" category. Respondent alleged before the 
Tribunal that appellant had failed in the field test, and yet he was 
appointed; and the respondent, though qualified in the field test, was not 
selected. Tribunal quashed the appointment of the appellant and issued 
direction to the Department to make selection on merit and the appellant F 
need not be considered as he had failed in the field test. Accordingly, 
Department selected another candidate, Respondent No.3. Aggrieved, 
appellant filed a Review Petition on the ground that the Department had 
not furnished relevant records before the Tribunal and therefore an 
adverse inference was drawn against him. Tribunal dismissed the Review 
Petition as well as a fresh Petition filed by the appellant. Writ Petition G 
filed before the High Court was also dismissed. Hence this appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The documents filed by the State before the Tribunal 
671 
H 
672 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A mentioned the merit list of the candidates upto the field test. Later on, a 
report on the performance in the field test was submitted by the Official 
team in association with the Coach. The appointing authority selected the 
appellant and Respondent No.3. In the meanwhile, Tribunal passed the 
order and Respondent No.3 displaced the appellant. The Tribunal held 
that on the basis of the records before it, Respondent No.3 was entitled to 
B be considered to the exclusion of the appellant. Had complete record been 
placed before the Tribunal appropriate conclusion could have been drawn 
by it. For the mess that arose in this matter, the Department is entirely 
blameworthy. (674-B-D; 675-A] 
C 
1.2. Pursuant to the selection made by the Department earlier, the 
appellant had worked for nearly 8 years and 7-112 months except for a 
break for tertain period. Appellant is now over-aged for selection for any 
post under sports quota. On the basis of the records that were made 
available at the time when the Tribunal passed the order, the appellant 
was excluded from consideration by the Department and on their own 
D showing the difference between the appellant and Respondent No.3 in 
securing marks is not much inasmuch as both tiad secured almost identical 
marks in the written examination with a difference of one mark and in 
the interview there was a big margin. So far as the field test is concerned, 
the results thereof were not very categorical as to the competence of the 
E candidates because the appellant and Respondent No.3 fell in two different 
categories in the game of football for which the Department wanted to 
recruit players. In view of the above, the appellant's appointment is 
justifiable. (674-E-G] 
2. In the circumstances of the case the appointment of Respondent 
F No.3, as directed by the Tribunal, should not be disturbed, and it would 
be proper for the Department to provide a post to the appellant and such 
post, if not available, shall be created on supernumerary basis to be 
absorbed when a regular vacancy arises. However, the appellant shall not. 
be entitled to any monetary benefits for the period he had not worked. 
He be appointed in the post on the basis he had been originally appointed 
G and due benefits of increments be given to him and his pay-scale should 
be appropriately fixed on the basis of last pay drawn at the time of his 
discharge from service. (675-B, CJ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
Civil Appea

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