UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. versus MADHAV S/0. GAJANAN CHAUBAL AND ANR.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 503 · Decided: 18-09-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, FAIZAN UDDIN, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
MADHA V S/0. GAJANAN CHAUBAL AND ANR. 
SEPTEMBER 18, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY, FAIZAIN UDDIN AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law : 
Promotion-Reservation i1t-Single post-Rule of rotation and roster 
point-Tribunal holding that no reservation could be granted to the reserved • C 
candidates as it would amount to 100% reservation and therefore the promo-
tion made was unconstitutional-On appeal held, 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 candidates belonging to reserved categories at the point on 
which they are eligible to be considered such a rule is not violative of Art. D 
16(1)-Constitution of India, Articles 14, 16(1) and 16(4). 
Arati Ray Choudhary v. Union of India & Ors., [1974] 1 SCC 87 
' 
followed. 
Chetan Dilip Motghare v. B.L. Education Society Nagpur & Ors., [1995] 
E 
Supp.1SCC157, overruled. 
General Manager, Southern Railway v. Rangachari, [1962] 2 SCR 596; 
State of Kera/a v. Thomas, [1976] 1 SCR 906; State of Punjab v. Hira Lal, 
[1970] 3 SCC 567; A.B.S.K Sangh v. Union of India, [1985] 2 SCR 185; 
Comptroller & Auditor General v. S.K Jagannath, [1986] 2 SCR 17; Indra 
Sawhney & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [1992] Supp. 3 SCC 217; S.R. 
Bommai v. Union of India, [1994] 3 SCC 1; LIC of India v. Consumer 
Education and Research Center, [1995] 5 SCC 482; Smt. H.B. Usha v. D.S. 
Ramachandra, [1995) Supp. 2 SCC 49; R.K Sabharwal & Ors. v. The State 
F 
of Punjab & Ors., [1995) 2 SCC 745 and State of Bihar v. Bageshwardi Prasad, G 
[1995) Suppl. 1 SCC 432, relied on. 
Dr. Chakradhar Pasvan v. State of Bihar, [1988) 2 SCC 214; Commis-
sioner of Commercial Taxes v. D. Sat/tu Madhva Rao, [1996) 7 SCC 512 and 
M. Venkteswarlu v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, [1996) 5 SCC 167, 
referred to. 
H 
503 
504 
SUPREMECOURTREPORTS [1996]SUPP.6S.C.:. 
A 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 12871 of 
1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.3.92 of the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal, Bombay in O.A. No. 613 of 1990. 
B 
N.N. Goswami, Ms. Shashi Kiran, D.S. Mehra, S.W.A. Qadri and Das 
c 
for the Appellants. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Delay condoned. 
Leave granted. 
On the last occasion when the matter had come up after notice, since 
the respondents were not represented either in person or through counsel 
and when the counsel had pointed out the decision followed by the 
D Tribunal, namely, Dr. Chakradhar Pasvan v. State of Bihar, [1988] 2 SCC 
214, this Court had referred the matter to three-Judge Bench. Thus, the 
matter has come up to-day. Even now, none is appearing for the respon-
dents; nor are they appearing in person. We have taken the assistance of 
Sri Goswami, learned senior counsel. We requested him to place on record 
E the decisions for or against him. He has fairly argued case. 
The admitted facts are that in the National Savings Scheme Service, 
the Governn;ient had created various posts upto the post of Superintendent; 
there are number of posts but there is only one post of Secretary. This post 
is a feeder post for promotion as Regional Deputy Director in which 
F 
category there are several posts. The Government applied the rule of 
reservation by rotation to the vacancies in the post of Secretary. 40 point 
roster is also being applied to these vacancies. In the post of Secretary, 
point No. 4 vacancy was reserved for Scheduled Tribes. When that vacancy 
was sought to be filled up by promotion from the Superintendents in Group 
A category from Scheduled Tribe candidates, the respondent filed OA in 
G the Central Administrative Tribunal at Bombay. The Tribunal following the 
decision of this Court in Pasvan's case (supra), by order dated March 11, 
1992 in OA No. 613/90, set aside the promotion holding that since the post 
of Secretary is a single point post, no reservation could be granted to the 
reserved candidates as it would amount to 100% reservation; therefore, it 
H is unconstitutional. Thus, this appeal by special leave. 
U.01.v.MADHAV 
505 
The question is : whether the application of 40 point roster to the A 
successive vacancies in thy post of Secretary violates Article 16(1) of the 
Constitution? Shri Goswami has contended that in Pasvan's case, that 
question was left open since the controversy did not arise therein on those 
facts. Since the Gove
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.