SHRI SURESH CHANDRA versus SHRI J.B. AGARWAL AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] 3 S.C.R. 665 · Decided: 04-04-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Leave Granted & Allowed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

SHRI SURESH CHANDRA 
A 
v. 
SHRI J.B. AGARWAL AND ORS. 
APRIL 4, 1997 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATIANAIK, JJ.) 
B 
Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 14, 16, and 335. 
Service Law-Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes-Reservati01t-
Appella11t working as Assistant Manager (Electrical)-Considered for promo-
C 
lion to Senior Manager's post by applying Rule of Rostei-Colllention of 
Respondent that Rule of Reservation could not be appiied to the single pmt 
cadre-/?.ejection of-Rule of reservation held applicable to the single post 
cadre. 
Arati Ray Choudhwy v. Union of India & Ors., [1974) 2 SCR l; Union D 
of India & Anr. v. Madhav, JT (1996) 9 SC 320 and State of U.P. v. Dr. Dina 
Nath Shukla & Anr., JT (1997) 2 SC 467, relied on. 
Dr. Cl1akradhar Paswan v. State of Bihar and Ors., [1988) 2 SCC 214, 
dissented from. 
E 
Chetana Dilip Motghare v. Bhide Girls' Education Society, Nagpur & 
Ors., [1985) Supp. 1 SCC 157; Ahmedabad St. Xavier College v. State of 
Gujarat,[1975) 1SCR173;Dr. Pradeeplain & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 
(1984) 3 SCC 654; Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao v. Dean Seth G.S. Medical 
College & Ors., [1990) 3 SCC 130 andAsfwk Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P., 
p 
(1997) 3 Scale 289, referred to. 
S. Vinod Kumar & Anr. v. Union of India, JT (1996) 8 SC 643, held 
Inapplicable. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3081 of G 
1997. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.4.95 of the Delhi High Court 
in C.W.P. No. 4254 of 1994. 
M.P. Raju, Ms. Mary Searia, T,U, Raja and LJ. Vadakara for the H 
665 
666 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1997) 3 S.C.R. 
A Appellant. 
B 
c 
Ms. Pinky Anand, Ms. Geeta Luthra, D. Goburdhan and R.P. Gupta 
for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides. 
This appeal by special leave arises from the jt•dgment of the Division 
Bench of the Delhi High Court, made on April 18, 1995 in CWP No. 
4254/94. 
The admitted position is that to the post of the Assistant Manager 
(Electrical) carrying the pay scale of Rs. 1000-1600, the next channel of 
promotion is Senior Manager (Electrical) carrying the pay scale of Rs. 
3000-45000. When the case of the appellant was sought to be considered 
for the said post by applying rule of roster, the respondent filed a writ 
D petition. The High Court following the judgment of this Court in Dr. 
Chakradhar Paswa11 v. State of Bihar & Ors., (1988) 2 SCC 214 had held 
that rule of reservation could not be applied to the single post cadre as it 
would amount to 100% reservation violating Article 16(1) read with Article 
14 of the Constitution. In Arti Ray Choudhury v. Unio11 of l11dia & Ors., 
(1974) 2 SCR 1, a Constitution Bench of this Court had held that the 
E reservation in single post applying the rule of the roster is constitutionally 
valid. This Court has considered the entire case law in Union of India & 
A11r. v. Madhav, JT (1996) 9 SC 320. The Bench of three Judges, to which 
both of us were members, held that in case of solitary isolated post on the 
ba~is of the rule of rotation, the benefits and facilities should be extended to 
F 
G 
the reserved candidates, namely Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for 
appointment by promotion to the single post and, therefore, application of the 
rule of reservation is not unconstitutional. Accordingly, it was held thus : 
"Even though there is a single post, if the Government have applied 
the rule of rotation and the roster point to the vacancies that had 
arisen in the single point post and were sought to be filled up by · 
the candidates belonging to the reserved categories at the point 
on which they are eligible to be considered, such a rule is not 
violative of Article 16(1) of the Constitution." 
This principle was reiterated in State of U.P. v. Dr. Dina Nath Shukla 
H & A11r., JT ( 1997) 2 SC 467. Shri Goburdhan, learned counsel appearing 
SURESH CHANDRAv. J.B. AGARWAL 
667 
for the respondents, has contended that this Court has considered that the A 
judgment in Chetana Dilip Motghare v. Bhide Girls' Education Society, 
Nagpur & Ors., (1985) Supp. 1 SCC 157. The said judgment was considered 
in Madhav's case and it was held therein, as a question fact, that since the 
material was not placed before the Court, having noticed the Constitution 
Bench judgment in Arati Ray Clzoudhwy case, the Court limited the 
decision to the facts of that case and held that it is not possible to accede B 
to the contentions
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.