LexSTATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. versus G.S. GILL AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. v. G.S. GILL AND ANR. MARCH 27, 1997 B [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] Co11stit11tion of India, 1950: A1ticles 14, 16 and 335 : Scheduled Castes and T1ibeJ~Rese1vation-First respondent, a general C candidate, appointed as a Junior Technical Assistant-Next promotio11al cadre-Assistant Superintendent-Single post cadre-Post reserved for Scheduled Caste candidate as per Roste~Second respondent promoted to sai~Wiit by first respondent to derese1ve the canied f01ward post and to consider his case as a ge11eral candidate-High Cowt held that si11ce it was a single post cadre there could not be any rese1vatio11 at all-Appeal before D Supreme Cowt-Held, High Court, e1red i11 holding that reservation in promo- tion to a single post and application of cany f 01ward mle and of roster was unconstitutional-Application of roster to si11gle post cadre and appointment by promotion to cany f 01ward post is valid and constitutional. Scheduled Castes a11d T1ibes--Rese1vation---Ca11y forward Rule-17ie E ca11y-f 011vard 111le is constitutio11ally pennissible-It is an extension of the pli11ciple of providing facility a11d opportu11ity to secure adequacy of the representatio11 Dalits and T1ibes mandated by Alticle 335-It should be canied for three years-Even in the post when the vaca11cy as per roster was available, but candidates were not available, same could be canied forward for three years-Howeve1; in each recmitment yew; the ca11)1-f01ward mle F cannot exceed 50% of the vacancies-17ze question does not alise in a situatio11 where there is si11gle post/cadre. No mandamus or direction sliould be issued to de-reserve the cmry forward vacancies reserved for appointment of the Scheduled Castes a11d T1ibes nor direction be given to fill up with ge11eral candidates. G Amti Ray Choudhwy v. Union of I11dia, [1974] 1 SCC 87; Indira Sawh11ey v. Union of India, [1992] Supp. SCC 217; S.S. Shanna & Ors. v. U11ion of I11dia & Ors., AlR (1981) SC 588; U.P. Sales Tax Service Associa- tion v. Ta.xatio11 Bar Association, Agra & Ors., [1995] 5 SCC 716; 171e Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief & Anr. v. Mrs. MA. Raja11i & Anr., JT (1997) H 4 SC 212; Union of India & Anr. v. Madhav, JT (1996) 9 SC 320; R.K 412 .. STATEv. G.S.GILL 413 Sabhanval & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors., [1995] 2 SCC 745; The A Ahmedabad St. Xavires College Society & Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Anr., [1975] 1SCR173; Dr. Pradeep Jain & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [1984] 3 SCC 654; Marri Chandra Sekhar Rao v. Dean, Seth G. S. Medical College & Ors., [1990] 3 SCC 130; As/wk Kumar Gupta & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors., [1997] 3 SCALE 289 and Unio11 of India & Ors. v. Brij Lal 17ialatr, JT B (1997) 4 SC 195, relied on. Devadasan v. Union of India, [1964] 4 SCR680: AIR (1964) SC 179, referred to. Dr. Panninder Kaur v. State of Punjab, (1976) 1 SLR 502, overruled. Dr. Chakradhar Pasvan v. State of Bihar, [1988] 1 SCC 496, explained & distinguished. A1ticle 261-Acts done by Executive-Full faith and credit to-Duty of bureaucracy not to f 01feit the full faith and credit. SC & ST Officers' Welfare Council v. State of U.P. & Anr., [1997] 1 SCC 701 and Superintending Enginee1; Public Health, U. T. of Chandigarh & Ors. v. Ku/deep Singh & Ors., [1997) 2 SCALE 138, referred to . c D CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3005 of E 1997. From the Judgment and Order dated 22.11.95 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in L.P.A. No. 351of1981. R.S. Sodhi and Darshan Singh for the Appellants. Rajesh .K. Sharma and Rakesh K. Sharma for the Rm;pondents. The following Order of the Court was delivered : As per Office Report dated September 13, 1996, the notice sent to F the first respondent was received back by the Registry with the postal G endorsement "No such person" indicating avoidance thereof on his part. Consequently, he was set ex-parte. The second respondent was directed to file counter-affidavit. Even today the first respondent is not appearing either in person or through counsel. Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and H 414 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] 3 S.C.R. A the second respondent. B This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, Chandigarh on 22nd November, 1995 in LP A No. 351 of 1981. The admitted facts are that the first respondent, a general candidate, was appointed as a Junior Technical As
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.