SONIA versus ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 8 S.C.R. 883 · Decided: 07-08-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

~ 
~ 
SONIA 
A 
v. 
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ORS. 
AUGUST 7, 2007 
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANY AN, JJ.] 
B' 
"t"--
Service law: 
Selection-Selection process initiated by Respondents-Advertisement c 
issued on 30-10-03 inviting applications-One vacancy reserved for STs-
Advertisement permitted exchange of reservation between SCs and STs, hence, 
both SCs and STs were eligible to compete for this reserved vacancy-
Appellant, SC by birth, appeared for competitive examination against the 
vacancy reserved for STs and listed as a successful candidate-But not called 
for interview for selection purposes in view of O.M dated 6-11-03 issued by D 
,. 
Respondents by which permission of exchange of reservation between SCs 
j 
and STs was withdrawn-Writ petition filed by Appellant dismissed by High 
Court-On appeal, held: O.M. dated 6-11-03 was issued at a time when 
candidates including Appellant had already acted on the basis of 
advertisement-Also no retrospective effect given to the O.M.-Appellant 
governed by the date on which applications were invited, i.e. on 30-10-03- E 
0. M will not be applicable in case of Appellant and to the pending process 
of selection, hence, Appellant would be entitled to be empanelled to appear 
before the Interview Board. 
On 30th October, 2003, Respondents issued advertisement notifiying . F 
' 
vacaneies for appointment to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer 
(AAO). Out of the five vacancies notified, one vacancy was reserved for 
Scheduled Tribes. Since the advertisement specifically permitted exchange 
of reservation between Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, both 
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates were eligible to compete for 
this reserved vacancy. Appellant, who is Scheduled Caste by birth, was G 
permitted to appear for the competitive examination against the reserved 
\ 
vacancy. Her name appeak ~d in the list of successful candidates, however, she 
was not called for interview and not considered for selection in view of O.M. 
No.36012/17/2002-Estt.(Res) dated 6th November, 2003 issued by the 
883 
H 
884 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 8 S.C.R. 
A Respondents by which permission of exchange of reservation between 
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes was withdrawn. The said O.M. 
provided that a post reserved for Scheduled Tribes could not be filled up by a 
Scheduled Caste candidate or vice versa by exchange of vacancies between 
the two. 
B 
Appellant filed writ petition before the High Court for a direction upon 
the Respondents to consider her case against the vacancy reserved for 
Scheduled Tribe candidates. High Court dismissed the writ petition holding 
that no legal right of the Appellant have been infringed for not empanelling 
her as a successful candidate to appear before the interview Board set up by 
C the Respondents. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowir.g the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The Office Memorandum dated 6th November, 2003 by which 
permission_ of exchange of reservation between Scheduled Caste and Scheduled 
D Tribes was withdrawn, was issued at a time when candidates including the 
appellant had already acted on the basis of the advertisement dated 30th 
October, 2003 in which permission was granted for exchange of reservation 
between Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes. Appellant acted on the basis 
of the aforesaid advertisement which permitted her to apply for the post and 
in fact she was permitted to sit in the examination and was subsequently also 
E found to be a successful candidate in the said examination. 
(Para 7) (888-B; 889-A) 
1.2. Law is well settled that an Office Memorandum cannot have a 
retrospective effect unless and until intention of the authorities to make it as 
F such is revealed expressly or by necessary implication in the Office 
Memorandum. The Office Memorandum dated 6th November, 2003 cannot have 
or could not have retrospective effect as the appellant would be governed or 
covered by the date on which applications were invited to fill up the posts of 
Assistant Administrative Officer, i.e., on 30th October, 2003 and also for 
the reason that no retrospective effect has been given to the said Office 
G Memorandum. [Para 7) (889..C-D; 888-E-F[ 
H 
1.3. On a plain reading of Clause (6) of the Cmce Memorandum dated 
6th November, 2003, it can be seen that in case some posts reserved for 
Scheduled Tribes might have been filled by Scheduled Caste candidates by 
exchange of reservatio

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