Dismissed

Amit Kumar v. Union of India

Bombay HC6 Aug 2004WP/2123/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal, relying on a Supreme Court precedent, held that a reserved-category candidate who topped the list was rightly considered for a non-reserved post, and the petitioner was not entitled to interference.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as being devoid of merit.

Amit Kumar Vs Union of India — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2004)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 2123 OF 2004

¶5

Amit Kumar S/o R.B.B. Roy

¶6

...............Petitioner

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

Union of India & Ors. ...........

¶9

Respondents

¶10

Mr. G.C. Singh for the petitioner

¶11

Mrs. C.S. Jain, Upper Division Clerk of respondent No. 2, present.

¶12

CORAM: DALVEER BHANDARI, C.J., & DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.

¶13

DATE : AUGUST 6, 2004.

¶14

P.C.:-

¶15

The petitioner is aggrieved by the Order dated 17^th June, 2004

¶16

passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Bombay

¶17

¶18

Bench, Mumbai.

¶19

The brief facts, which are necessary to dispose of the present Writ Petition, are recapitulated as under:-

¶20

(a) Respondent No.1 - Union of India issued advertisement, inviting applications for two posts of Store Keeper. One post was unreserved, and the other post was reserved for Other Backward Classes (OBC). The educational qualification required for the post is matriculation or equivalent. The petitioner, Amit Kumar, applied for the said post in the Open Category. Respondent No.9, Ramesh Kumar Yadav, applied in the Category of OBC.

¶21

(b) Both petitioner, Amit Kumar, and Ramesh Kumar Yadav were selected, along with Ravi Prakash and Namita Khaire. Petitioner, Amit Kumar, was shown as the selected candidate for the said post from General Category and respondent No. 9, Ramesh

¶22

¶23

Kumar Yadav, for the said post from OBC.

¶24

(c) The case of the petitioner is that he was found suitable and selected to the said post. When the petitioner, Amit Kumar, did not receive the letter of appointment, he filed the application before the CAT, Mumbai. The CAT held that Ramesh Kumar

¶25

Yadav, who topped the list, is entitled to the said post of Store Keeper under General Category. The contention of the petitioner is that Ramesh Kumar Yadav is entitled to be considered for that post only under the OBC Category. The CAT, while relying on

¶26

the judgment of the Supreme Court in R.K. Sabharwal & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors., reported at (1995) 2 SCC 745, came to the conclusion that Ramesh Kumar Yadav has to be considered in General Category. The petitioner, aggrieved by the judgment of the CAT, preferred this Writ Petition.

¶27

Admittedly, Ramesh Kumar Yadav was placed at No.1 in the Merit

¶28

¶29

List. According to the judgment of the Apex Court in R.K. Sabharwal (supra), Ramesh Kumar Yadav was rightly considered in General

¶30

Category. The relevant portion of the said judgment is as under:-

¶31

“When a percentage of reservation is fixed in respect of a particular cadre and the roster indicates the reserve points, it has to be taken that the posts shown at the reserve points are to be filled from amongst the members of reserve categories and the candidates belonging to the general category are not entitled to be considered for the reserved posts. On the other hand the reserve category candidates can compete for the non-reserve posts and in the event of their appointment to the said posts their number cannot be added and taken into consideration for working out the percentage of reservation.”

¶32

The impugned judgment of the CAT is in consonance with the law declared by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court. We find no infirmity in the impugned judgment. No interference is called for.

¶33

The Writ Petition, being devoid of any merit, is accordingly

dismissed.

CHIEF JUSTICE

DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.

Amit Kumar v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Kumar v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Ashish H. Kapadia Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Chandrakant J. Patel Vs the State Bank of India and Anr.

Gautam Ashokkumar Vashi Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Varghese Joseph Vs the Mmtc Ltd.and Ors.

Shridhar P. Shanbag Vs Government of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dr. Mrs. Nilima Rajendra Borulkar Vs State of Maharashtra