THE FLAG OFFICER COMMANDING-IN-CHIEF AND ANR.
A
v.
MRS. M.A. RAJAN! AND ANR.
MARCH 17, 1997.
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.]
Service Law:
Ministry of Defence Recmitme1:t of Stenographers (Grade Ill) Rules:
Rule 1 (d)-Recroitment-:l'ost reserved for Scheduled Castes-Sources
of appointment-By promotion/Transfer/Direct recroitment-After exhausting
the sources of appointme11t by promotion and transfer, 11ames were called
from Employment Exchange and the. respondent, a Scheduled Caste can-
didate, was selected-Meanwhile vacancy was dereserved, and respondent was
refused appointme11f-Tribw1al directed appointment of respo11dent--Held,
when the candidate was available, resort to dereservatio11 is clearly il-
legaf-Tribu11al was right i11 gi.ving the direction to appoi11t the respondent who
was duly selected by the Committee.
·.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2235 of
1997.
From the Jutlgment and Order dated 8.3.96 of the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal, Ernakulam, Kerala in O.A.No. 1399 of 1995. •
V.C. Mahajan, Mrs. Sushma Manchanda and Mrs. Anil Katiyar for
B
c
D
E
the Appellants.
F
K.M.K. Nair for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
G
This appeal arises from the order of the C.A.T. Trivendrum Bench,
made on 8.3.1996 in 0.A. No. 1399/95.
The only controversy is whether the respondent is entitled to ap-
pointment by direct recruitment to a reserved vacancy? Admittedly, Rule H
.
. 1155
1156
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1997] 2 S.C.R.
A
l(a) of the Ministry of Defence Recruitment of Stenographers, (Grade III)
Rules postulates appointment by promotion; failing that, by transfer and
failing both, by direct recruitment. In this case, the sources of appointment,
viz., by promotion and transfer, were exhausted. Consequently, the appel-
lants resorted to direct recruitment and the respondent was called through
B
c
the Employment Exchange for selection. Though she was selected, she was
not given appointment on the specious ground that by proceedings under
Ex. A3 the post was dereserved and that, therefore, she was not eligible
for appointment. The TriJ:>unal has not agreed with the contention of the
,appellants and directed them to appoint the respondent in accordance with
Rules. Thus this appeal, by special leave.
It is seen that Rule l(a) postulates three sources for recruitment-
first by promotion, second by transfer and on failing both of these methods,
by direct recruitment. Admittedly, the post was reserved for Scheduled
Castes. Accordingly, the respondent was called for seletion. Wh~n the
candidate was available, resort to dereservation is clearly illegal' and,
D therefore, the Tribunal was right in giving the direction to appoint the
respondent who was duly selected by the Committee.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
R.P.
Appeal dismissed."
Lex