SHAM SUNDER versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [1969] 1 S.C.R. 312 · Decided: 15-07-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. BACHAWAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

SHAM SLJ.'il)ER 
v. 
U~ION OF INDIA & ORS. 
July 15, I %8 
[R. S. llACllAW.\! A'<ll A. N. GROl·ER . .IJ.] 
Co11s1i1u1ion of /11dia An\·. JJ 011d 1(1 
-H.('\'t·11·otio11 .\11f)cr1·iw1rs ()'>Ht 
iir Raifa,-ay Pc11<1/ druw11 un ')11 1/1c hcl\t' uJ < n ra111 
11p-.:r11din~ 01 po.10 
A.'11ihtiay /Jo(lrd J/(ilds irr1•gu/ar and dt'lcft'S---V"lidiry --if rio/01i1·1. of Ar:s. 
1-l (/fZd J 6. 
ll1c <..iL'ncr11\ 
~l;111Jgcr, Nor1hcrn Haihvay puhli-.hc<l a p;incl tif 38 
cnquiry-('11111-rc .. ~rv:niun clerk-. for sL'h:ction to 1hc po"t" of rcscrv.:ttion 
:-._upcr ... isors. 
·1 hi~ p;1r11.:I v.·a" published after ct1nsidcr!11).! 152 person ... i.e .. 
lour time:-. the n11n1hl.'r -.1f 
cxistin~ ;ind ;1nticip;11cd vacancies p]u.., 25'1(, 
thcrcQf for unforc.;;ccn \J.Cancic'>. 
Thl' an1icip;1tcd vac;tncics included 11 
,·ac~1nclc" on ;1ccnunt of pron1nti<'ll<> due 10 the upgradin.~ of I J P'hh in 
th·.· next hiµ:hL'r J!radc. 
Rcpre<>cntatio1h \~·ere m;alL' ag<iill'-t the con'ililution 
of the p~u1cl; and the Rait\\·ay Hoard <IL'cidcd !hat thi...: panel should consbt 
of 2-! pcr:-.on.., onlv to co,·cr IX upgraded v;iC';1ncics, 1 vacancy nn ;1ccount 
of rctirL'1ncnt and 5 v;1cancies rcpf'.:sentinµ 25 r;;; for contin~cncics anJ tht.· 
field of selection ..,hould be rcsirictc<l to ~x4-96 and not 152 pcrs.ons. 
So, the panel ;.ilready puhlishcd was ord·.::rcd to he operated only in res·· 
pcct of the fir..:.t 24 person" and the nan1cs of th!.! rcn1;iining pc'r.;;on' he 
delctt.:d. 
1\ccordingly, 
rh~ Gcncr;tl 
~1ana~cr hy an order implcn1cntcd 
the dcci<>ion. 
·rhe petitioner. \\'hose 
nanll~. \v;1.., ;1t No. 33 in the panel. 
puhlished earlier filed a \\.Til 
p-~tirion in this <.:ourt, challcnµin).! the order." 
;is violating hi'\ t'u111.L1mcnt;1l right .... 
HF.LO :-·rh~ petirion rnust be di<;1nis.;;cd. 
(i) Under 1hc geni.:·r;1l direction issucd h\' the Raih\,l\" Ho;ird in on~ of 
its h:tter ..... the General i\fana!;?cr \\'ilS competent 10 ;1nll:nd 1lY: p;inl'I 
\\it~ 
the ;1pprov;il of the Railv.-ay Bo.ird [31 :5 F-Gl 
Sri\·asra1·a v. !V.r:. Rc1i/11·ay, [19661 
~ S.C.R. hi. 6..i. 65. follo\-...ed. 
(ii l ·rhe, Raih-.·~l\" BoarJ held 1hat until the 
si.:l·~ctilln ,.,.·as 
n1aJc. it 
co1dd not he anticip;tlcd that 1 I pcr.'ioni; \\'Ould he promoted crcatin.I! 1 t 
con..,cquential vacancies in that grade dui.: to pron1otions lo the hi~r 
g-radc. 
Actin).! upon 1his viC\\' the R;iihvay Board decided 1ha1 the anti-
cip;1tcd v;icancics v;ould he Jc<;s and rhc panel should he ;1mcndcd accord. 
ingly and 5hould he opcr11tcd in rcc;pcet of !he first 24 person ... only. l"hc 
decision could not he <;aid to he pcrv..:rsc nor it could he qu~shcd or !'>Cl 
aside. 1115 A-316 BJ 
(iii) :\ll the 24 persons retained in the panel \\·cr~ senior to the peti-
tioner. 
All of them v.·ould have heen selected and included in the p:l.Ilel, 
even if 96 persons \vcrc originally called for sclcciion. 
·rherc \-...·as no 
foro:! in 1hc contention that the retention of the first 24 persons in th-.· 
po1ncl ''ithout hnlding a fresh selection \i.'a" discriminatory or \\':1" viola· 
tive of .A.rt'. 14 and 16 of the fo11.,;1itlltion (31(,...('} 
(iv) It j, .,;aid that panch of ('.J.1'>' 111 
~election p;.>s\c; of st;1tion mas-
te.:·.., on the Northerrt }{;1iJ1,1,·av and all cla.;;s 111 selection po.;;t..; on other 
Raihvay<> had been dr;l\vn uP on the footing that anticipated vacant;ics 
in the ..-election c.rade include v:ic:-incic.;; on promotjon.c; due to upgradtn~ 
of Pl}\!" in thi.: ~lc'>t higher gr;uJe ;ind th<ll the Railway Board had not 
A 
B 
. . 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
• 
SHAM SUNDER v. UNION (Bachawat, J.) 
313 
A 
issued any <Erection for amendment of those panels. 
But those panels 
relate to separate. classes of employees. and have no bearing on the Ques-
tion of equal opportunity in the matter of promotion of enquiry-cun1-
reservation clerks on the N.orthern Railway [316 D-F] 
B 
All Indian Station Masters' and .l.ssistant Station Masters' Associalion 
v. Genera/ Manager Central Railways, [1960] 2 
S.C.R. 
311, 
319, 
followed. 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 31 of 1967. 
Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for the 
enforcement of fundamental rights. 
Basudev Prasad and M. I. Khowaja, for the petitioner. 
C 
Ni'ren De, Solicitor-General, V. A. Seyid Muhammad, R. N. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Sachthey and S. P. Nayar, for the respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Bachawat, J. 
The petitioner is employed on the Northern 
R

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