K. Manorama versus Union of India Rep. by Genl. Manager Southern Railway & Ors.

Reservation in promotion - Two posts - Selection - Challenged by appellant on the ground that the first appointee was promoted on his merit and not because he was a Scheduled Caste and therefore the appellant ought to hal!e been promoted on the basis of her status as a Scheduled Caste candidate in place of the second appointee - Held: The first appointee belonged to a Scheduled Caste and was selected essentially because it was a Scheduled Caste vacancy, which came to be allotted to him, keeping aside. other candidates - First appointee had, in fact, got marks lesser than the second appointee and his selection was basically because he was a Scheduled Caste candidate - Even otherwise, the principle that 'when a member belonging to a Scheduled Caste gets selected in the open competition field on the basis of his own merit, he will not be counted against the quota reserved for Scheduled Castes, but will be treated as open candidate', will apply only in regard to . recruitment by open competition and not to the promotions effected on the basis of seniority-cum-suitability.

¶12

Reservation in promotion - When a single post cadre becomes a multi-post cadre, and consequently two seats become available, one out of the two seats has to be treated as a reserved seat.

¶13

D

E

F

G

841

H

842 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 11 S.C.R.

¶20

A Appellant belonging to a scheduled caste, was working as Chief Law Assistant in Southern Railways. The post higher to that post was that of the Assistant Law Officer. Initially ·Assistant L:aw Officer' was a single post cadre. It was filled up by an open category candidaia in B the year 1991. Subsequently two posts were created. The posts were to be filled up on the basis of seniority-cums u ita bil ity, A notification holding 10 senior most candidates eligible for being considered for the two posts was issued on .10.11.1994. To determine their suitability, c a written examination was held. Eight Law Assistants obtained qualifying marks and became eligible for being called for the interview. The concerned committee recommended tespondent nos. 3 and 4 for those two posts. Out of them, respondent no. 3 was a Scheduled T 0^{Caste candidate. The .promotionorder for bothof them ,} was issued. on 26.5.1995.

¶21

The ,appellant challenged the -appointment of respondent no.4 on_ the ground that respondent no.3 was promoted to the post of Assistanu..:aw Officer on his merit E and not becaus~ he was· a Scheduled Caste and, therefore, the appellant ought to have been promoted on the basis of Jier status as a Scheduled Caste candidate . in place of respondent no.4. _

¶22

F The Central Admi~istrative Tribunal allowed the OA and declared that the selection of resp·ondent no. 3 was in an unreserved vacancy on his own ~erit. It directed , respondents nos. 1 and 2 to em panel the appellant in the _ reserved category proyided that she was qualified G according to the marks and seniority tn the selection made, and there. was no Scheduled Caste candidate above her either on marks or in seniority. The selection of respondent no .. 4 was held to be erroneous. However, since he had retired in the meanwhile; the emoluments

¶23

H

¶24

I

¶25

K. MANORAMA v. UNION OF INDIA REP. BY GENL. 843 MANAGER SOUTHERN RAILWAY

¶26

received were directed not to be disturbed. The tribunal further directed that the appellant if found fit, would be deemed to be entitled to the seniority in the service, from the date of selection of respondent no. 3, though she would not get the salary till the date she actually assumed charge of the higher post.

¶27

A

¶28

B

¶29

Respondent nos.1 and 2 filed writ petitions before the High Court which were allowed. The instant appeal was filed challenging the order of the High Court.

¶30

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

¶31

HELD: 1. One out of the two vacancies which occurred in the year 1994 had to be treated as reserved. This was because the first point in the roster was otherwise meant for a reserved candidate. Since, in 1991, it was a single post cadre, it had been treated as unreserved. When a single post cadre became a multipost cadre, and consequently two seats became available in 1994, the Department had to treat one out of the two seats as a reserved seat. [Para 11] [849-H; 850-A-B]

¶32

The chart of the marks obtained by the candidates depicted that respondent no. 4 had obtained the highest marks i.e. 128. Two general category candidates were next to him with 127 and 125 marks respectively. Thereafter, respondent no.3 and two other candidates got 124 marks. Respondent no.3 was selected out of them, essentially because it was a Scheduled Caste vacancy, which came to be allotted to him, keeping aside other candidates. Not only that, but he was placed at number one and respondent no. 4 (having higher marks) was placed at number two. The tribunal had held that if respondent no. 3 got marks lesser than that of respondent no. 4, only then he can be said to be selected against Scheduled Caste point. The tribunal did not

c

D

E

F

G

H

844 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶40

[2010] 11 S.C.R.

¶41

A realize that respondent no.3 had, in fact, got marks lesser than respondent no.4 and his selection. was basically because he was a Scheduled Caste candidate. Even otherwise, the pr!nciple that when a member belonging to a Scheduled Caste gets selected in the open B competition field on the basis of his own merit, he will not be counted against the quota reserved for Scheduled Castes, but will be treated as open candidate, will apply only in regard to recruitment by open competition and not to the promotions effected on the basis of seniorityC cum-suitability. [Para 14] [854-G-H, 855-A-D]

¶42

The appellant had relied upon the Rules governing the promotion of subordinate staff and had argued before the High Court that the candidates who obtained 80% marks or above are to be placed at the top indicating that D they are to be selected irrespective of the community factor. However, none of the candidates had obtained more than 80% marks, and therefore, could not e considered as outstanding to be eligible on that footin. On that count also selection of respondent no.3 could not E be considered as one only on merit irrespective of the community factor. [Para 15) [855-E; 856-B]

¶43

R.K. Sabharwal and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors. 1995 (2) sec 745 - held inapplicable

¶44

F

¶45

Ajit Singh Januja and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors. 1996 (2) sec 715 - referred to.

¶46

Case Law Reference:

¶47

G

¶48

1995 (2) SCC 745 held inapplicable Paras 4, 5,14 1996 (2) sec 715 referred to Para 5

¶49

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. H

¶50

K. MANORAMA v. UNION OF !NOIA REP. BY GENL. 845 MANAGER SOUTHERN RAILWAY

¶51

2379 of 2005. A

¶52

From the Judgment & Order dated 28.01.2003 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Petition No. 1311 of 1999.

¶53

C.K. Chandarsekkar, S.R. Setia for the Appellant.

¶54

B

¶55

A.K. Ganguly, V. Mohan, Shweta, A.K. Sharma, Shreekant N. Terdal, V. Balachandran, V. Ramasubramanian, A. Lakshmi Narayanan for the Respondents.

¶56

c

¶57

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

¶58

GOKHALE, J. 1. This appeal seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 28.1.2003 rendered by the Madras High Court allowing Writ Petition No. 1311 of 1999 filed by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, and setting aside the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 27 .11.1998 which had allowed the Original Application No. 891 of 1996 filed by the appellant herein. The O.A. filed by the appel]ant thus stood dismissed by the impugned judgment and order of the High Court.

¶59

D

¶60

E

¶61

Short facts leading to this appeal are as follows:- At the relevant time in November 1994, the appellant was working as a Chief Law Assistant which was a Group-'C' post in the Southern Railways. The post higher to this post is that of the Assistant Law Officer which is a Group-'B' post. At the relevant time the total cadre strength of Assistant Law Officers in Southern Railway was three. Initially when 'Assistant Law Officer' was a single post cadre, in the year 1991, it was filled by an open category candidate. Subsequently, when two more posts were created in the year 1994, reservation was applicable. The posts were to be filled on the basis of senioritycum-suitability. A notification holding 10 senior most candidates

F

G

H

[201 OJ 11 S.C.R.

846 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶67

A eligible for being considered for the two posts was issued on 10.11.1994. (The second respondent herein is the Chief Personal Officer of Southern Railways). To determine their suitability, a written examination was held. Eight Law Assistants obtained qualifying marks and became eligible for being called

¶68

B for the interview (one out of them opted out). The concerned committee recommended Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 for those two posts. Out of them, Respondent No. 3 is a Scheduled Caste candidate. Accordingly, the promotion order for both of them was issued on 26.5.1995.

¶69

c

¶70

The appellant also belongs to a Scheduled Caste and was of the view that the Respondent No. 3 (Mr. M. Siddiah), was promoted to the post of Assistant Law Officer on his merit and not because he was a Scheduled Caste candidate. It was her contention that instead of Respondent No. 4 (Mr. K. D Rajagopalan Nair) belonging to the open category, she should have been promoted to the post of Assistant Law Officer on the basis of her status as a Scheduled Caste candidate. She, therefore, represented to the Chairman of the Railway Board on 14.2.1996 but there was no response. She, therefore, filed E the above referred O.A. in the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal) at Chennai. The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 filed their reply statement before the Tribunal and pointed out that as per the Railway Board's decision dated 29.7.1993 in small cadres having less than 4 F posts, reservation had to be provided as per the 40 point roster when no SC/ST candidate was available in the Cadre. As per model 40 point roster the first point will have to be filled by a Scheduled Caste candidate, and the next two points were to be treated as unreserved. In para 1 & 2 of their reply the G Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 stated as follows:-

¶71

"In this selection, the roster points to be filled up for the two vacancies were point Nos. 2 and 3. Both the points are UR (i.e Un-Reserved) points. As the first point which was a SC point was filled up by an UR candidate, being H

¶72

K. MANORAMA v. UNION OF INDIA REP. BY GENL. 84 7 MANAGERSOUTHERN .RAlLWAY[H.LGOKHALE, J:]

¶73

a single vacancy, out of the two va.cancies for which A notification was issued, one post was .treated ' . ' ' as SC.~· '.

¶74

The Tribunal therefore, allowed the 0.A by its order dated 27.11.1998. It declared that the selection of Respondent No. 3 was in an unreserved vacancy on his own merit. It. directed Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to empanel the appellant in the reserved category provided that she was qualified according to the marks and seniority in the selection· made, and if there was no SC candidate above her either on marks or in seniority. The Selection of Respondent No. 4 was held to be erroneous, However, s(nce he had retired in the meanwhile, the emoluments received were directed not to be disturbed. The Tribunal further. directed that the appellant if found fit, will be

F

G

H

.. ,·. - ·. ,; :~·< -

¶79

848 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶80

[201 OJ 11 S.C.R.

¶81

A deemed to be entitled to the seniority in the service from the date of selection of Respondent No. 3, though she will not get the salary till the date she actually assumed charge of the higher post.

¶82

B

¶83

Being aggrieved by this judgment and order Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed Writ Petition No. 1311 of 1999 in the High Court of Madras. The High Court allowed the Writ Petition and set aside the order of the Tribunal. Being aggrieved thereby, the appellant has filed the present appeal.

¶84

C 8. The main-stay of the argument of the appellant was, as stated earlier, that since Respondent No. 3 had been selected on merits he should not be considered as occupying a Scheduled Caste seat. The Scheduled Caste vacancy must therefore go to the next Scheduled Caste candidate as per the D order of merit, and the appellant was that next candidate. Respondent No. 4 (Mr. K. Rajagopalan Nair) should not have been therefore promoted as an open category candidate and that post should have been allotted to the appellant. The appellant relied upon the Railway Board order dated 29.7.1993 E in this behalf, which was issued to implement a full-bench decision of the Tribunal at Hyderabad, which states that where ST/SC candidates were promoted on their own merit, their seniority should not be counted as reserved candidates. The relevant part of the Railway Board's letter dated 29.7.1993 F clarifies as follows in para (Vl):-

¶85

"(VI) Whether a person belonging to SC/ST promoted on his own merit and seniority should be treated as reserved candidate for counting available SC/ST candidates-

¶86

G

¶87

As per judgment of the Full Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal/Hyderabad, the SC/ST candidates who have been promoted on their own merit and seniority should not be counted as reserved candidates. It has further been laid

¶88

H

¶89

K. MANORAMA v. UNION OF INDIA REP. BY GENL. 849 MANAGER SOUTHERN RAILWAY [H.L. GOKHALE, J.]

¶90

down in Board's letter dated 16.06.1992 that SC/ST candidate can be placed on the panel/select list even in excess of the reserved quota in case such candidates qualify against'general posts on meriUseniority. These SC/ ST candidate should be excluded for the purpose of counting the available SC/ST candidates while computing the reserved quota."

¶91

A

¶92

B

¶93

Now, as far as this aspect is concerned, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had made it clear that where the posts were less than 4, the 40 point roster was expected to be applied. As per c that roster the first point was meant for a Scheduled Caste candidate and second and third points were meant for candidates from unreserved category. There is a note below this model roster which reads as follows:-

¶94

"Note-/f there are only two vacancies to be filled in a particular year, not more than one may be treated as reserved and if there is only one vacancy, it should be treated as unreserved. If on this account, a reserved point is treated as unreserved, the reservation may be carried forward to the subsequent three recruitment years."

¶95

D

¶96

E

¶97

It was submitted on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that in view of this note, and the first vacancy in the year 1991 having been treated as unreserved, when two vacancies occurred subsequently, one out of them was being treated as reserved. This was as per the above note which stated that where the reserved point is treated as unreserved, the reservation is to be carried forward. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 therefore, had to treat one of the two vacancies as a reserved vacancy.

¶98

F

¶99

G

¶100

In our view, the submission of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 is well taken. They had to treat one out of the two

¶101

H

¶102

[2010] 11 S.C.R.

¶103

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶104

850

¶105

A vacancies which occurred in the year 1994 as reserved. This is because the first point in the roster was otherwise meant for a reserved candidate. Since, in the year 1991, it was a single post cadre, it had been treated as unreserved. When the single post cadre became a multi-post cadre, and consequently two

¶106

B seats became ·available in 1994, they had to treat one out of the two seats as a reserved seat. The selection of Mr. Siddiah, therefore, as a Scheduled Caste candidate cannot be faulted.

¶107

The submission of the appellant was that Respondent

¶108

C No~ 3 had been selected on his merit and that Mr. K.Rajagopalan Nair was placed in the panel contrary to the Railway Board letter dated 14.4.1983. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 had denied this averment in para 10 of their additional reply before the Tribunal. In para 14 of its order the Tribunal observed as follows:-

¶109

0

¶110

"14. Reference made in paragraph 10 have no bearing on the point for decision in this case. It is also the contention on behalf of the respondents that since respondent No. 3 is the senior most in the SC quota he E is empanelled. The question is, he has obtained the highest number of marks in the said selection. Therefore, the question of he being the SC candidate is evaporated on account of his being the meritorious candidate in the entire selection. If respondent No. 4 has come up in the F marks over that of respondent No. 3 and the question of the respondent 3 being the senior in the SC candidates, then respondent No. 3 would have been justified being empanelled in the reserved vacancy. But that was not the case here.

¶111

G

¶112

Respondents Nos.1 and 2 point out that this finding is erroneous on facts. The chart of the marks obtained by the candidates has been produced before us. The chart reads as follows.

¶113

H

¶114

K. MANORAMA v. UNION OF fNDIA REP. BY GENL. 851 MANAGER SOUTHERN RAILWAY [H.L. GOKHALE, J.]

¶115

SELECTION FOR THE POST OF ASSISTANT LAW A OFFICER IN SCALE RS. 2000-3500

¶116

VIVA VOICE ON 27.04.1995

¶117

NUMBER OF VACANCIES 2 (SC-1: UR-1)

¶118

COMMITTEE MEMBERS: 1. SDGM

¶119

B

¶120

FA & CAO

¶121

CPO

¶122

CELE SHRI R. MOHAN DAS

¶123

SI. No. Name& Date of Date of Date of Edu ca-
Desig- Birth appoint- promo- tional c
nation ment tion to qua Ii-
present fication
grade
1. M. SIDDAIAH 04.08.43 16.6.65 9.5.85 B.Sc, B.L.
(SC) D
CLA/HQRS
Marks Obtained Total Remarks
Total (200 marks)
Prof es- Record of Personality address
sional service (25) & leadership/
Ability Academic E
(150) Technical/
Qualification (25)
91 15 18 124
SI. No. Name& Date of Date of Date of Educa- F
Desig- Birth appoint- promo- tional
nation ment tion to qua Ii-
present fjcation
grade
2. K. 24 08.39 16.11.63 .,01.04.87 B.Sc.,LLB
RAJAGOPALAN G
NAIR
ASST. SEC.
(ADHOC) RRT
Marks Obtained Total Remarks
Total (200 marks) H

¶124

852 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶125

[2010] 11 S.C.R.

¶126

A

¶127

Profes-	Recordof	Personality address
sional	service (25)	& leadership/
Ability		Academic
(150)		Technical/ Qualification(25)
91	21	16	128

8

c

D

E

F

G

SI. No.	Name& Desig- nation	Dateof Birth	Dateof appoint- ment	Dateof promo- lionto present grade	Educa- ti on al qua Ii- fication
3.	V. SUBRAMANIAN L.O. (ADHOC) ICF	10.03.40	31.5.62 I	23.11.87 ·	B.A., B.G.L. Diploma in Labour Laws with Admn. Law
Marks Total (	Obtained 200 marks)			Total	Remarks
Profes sional Ability (150)	- Recordof service (25)	Personality & leadersh Academic Technical/ Qualificatio	address ip/ n (25)
92	18	17		127

¶135

SI. No.	Name& Desig- nation	Dateof Birth	Dateof appoint- ment	Dateof promo- tion to present grade	Educa- tional quaIi- fication
4.	M.ABDUL KHADER	01.11.43	11.09.64	01.04.90	B.A, LLB

¶136

H

¶137

K. MANORAMA v. UNION OF INDIA REP. BY GENL. 853 MANAGER SOUTHERN RAILWAY [H.L. GOKHALE, J.]

¶138

I	^{. .} .. --·..._.-· O/MYS
Marks Total(	Obtained 200 marks)			Total	Remarks
Profes sional Ability (150)	- Recordof service (25)	Personality & leadershi Academic Technical/ Qualification	address p/ (25)
92	17	15		124
SI. No.	Name& Desig- nation	Dateof Birth	Dateof appoint- ment	Dateof promo- tion to present grade	Educa- tional quaIi- fication
5.	K. MAN ORAMA (SC) CLA/HQRS	22.12.60	13.11.81	24.07.90	B.A.,B.L.
Marks Tota!(	Obtained 200 marks)			Total	Remarks
Profes sional Ability (150)	- Recordof service (25)	Personality & leadersh Academic Technical/ Qualificatio	address ip/ n (25)
91	15	16		122
SI. No.	Name& Desig- nation	Dateof Birth	Dateof appoint- ment	Dateof promo- lion to present grade	Edu ca- tional quali- fication
6.	R. MUTHUSAMY CLA/DPO/O/ MAS	05.05.55	22.12.79	03.4.91	B.Sc, LLB
Marks Total (	Obtained 200 marks)			Total	Remarks

A

B

c

D

E

F

G

H

854 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[201 OJ 11 S.C.R.

A

B

c

D

E

F

Prof es-	Recordof	Personality address
sional	service (25)	& leadership/
Ability		Academic
(150)		Technical/ Qualification(25)
91	16	17	124

¶156

SI. No.	Name& Desig- nation	Dateof Birth	Dateof appoint- ment	Dateof promo- tion to present grade	Educa- tional qua Ii- fication
7.	T.P. BHASKAR CLA/MAS	26.08.55	31.07.91	24.7.91	MA, LLB
Marks Total (2	Obtained 00 marks)			Total	Remarks
Prof es sional Ability ( 150)	Recordof service (25)	Personality & leadersh Academic Technical/ Qualificatio	address ip/ n (25)
95	15	15		125
(R. MO	HANDAS)	(V.NATAR	AJAN)	(P.MURU	GAN)

¶157

As can be seen from this chart it was Respondent No. 4 who had obtained the highest marks i.e. 128. Mr. V. G Subramanian and Mr. T.P. Bhaskar are next to him with 127 and 125 marks respectively. Thereafter, there are other candidates i.e. Mr. Siddaiah, Mr. Abdul Khader and Mr. Muthusamy who all get 124 marks. Mr. Siddaiah has been selected out of them, essentially because it was a Scheduled H Caste vacancy which came to be allotted to him keeping aside

¶158

K. MANORAMA v. UNION OF INDIA REP. BY GENL. 855 . MANAGER SOUTHERN RAILWAY [H.L. GOKHALE, J.]

¶159

other candidates. Not only that, but he was placed at number A . one and respondent No. 4 (having higher marks) was placed at number two. The Tribunal held that if Respondent No. 3 got marks lesser than that of Respondent No. 4, only then he can be said to be selected against Scheduled Caste point The Tribunal did not realize that the third Respondent had in fact got B marks lesser than the fourth Respondent, and his selection was basically because he was a Scheduled Caste candidate. In view of this position, there is no occasion to apply the instruction contained in Railway Board's letter dated 29. 7 .1993 nor the propositions in R.K; Sabharwal's judgment (supra) to c the present case. Eve.n otherwise, the principle that when a member belonging to a Scheduled Caste gets selected in the open competition field on the basis of his own merit, he will not be counted against the' quota reserved for Scheduled Castes, but will be treated as open candidate, will apply only in regard D to recruitment by open competition and not to the promotions effected on the basis of seniority-cum-suitability.

¶160

. I .

¶161

The appellan' had argued before the High Court that the candidates who obtained 80% marks or above are to be placed at the top indicating that they are to be selected irrespective of the community factor. In appellant's submission Mr. M. Siddiah, had to be consic. .... red as one such candidate. Now the two relevant rules 204.8 and 204.9 read as follows:-

¶162

E

¶163

"204.8 The successful candidates shall be arranged as follows:

¶164

F

¶165

(1) Those securing 80% marks and above graded as 'Outstanding'.

¶166

(2) Those securing between 60% marks and 79%·marks graded as 'Good'.

¶167

G

¶168

204.9 The panel should consist of employees who had qualified in the selection, corresponding to the number of vacancies for which the selection was held. Employees

¶169

H

¶170

856 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶171

[2010] 11 S.C.R.

¶172

A securing the gradation 'Outstanding' will be placed on top followed by those securing the gradation 'Good' interse seniority within each group being maintained.'

¶173

It is to be noted, as seen from the marks which have been referred to earlier, that none of the candidates obtained more 8 than 80% marks, and therefore, could not be considered as outstanding to be eligible on that footing. On this count also Mr. M. Siddiah's selection cannot be considered as one only on merit irrespective of the community factor.

¶174

C 16. In the circumstances, there is no error in the judgment and order rendered by the High Court. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Original Application, filed by the first respondent before the Administrative Tribunal, shall stand dismissed.

¶175

D.G

¶176

Appeal dismissed.

K. Manorama v. Union of India Rep. by Genl. Manager Southern Railway & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Manorama v. Union of India Rep. by Genl. Manager Southern Railway & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Soham Mayankkumar Vyas and Ors. versus Union of India and Ors.

Alka Gupta versus Narender Kumar Gupta

Department of Telecommunications versus Gujarat Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd.

Amarjit Singh & Ors. versus State of Punjab & Ors.

Man Kaur (Dead) by Lrs. versus Hartar Singh Sangha

Raj Kumar versus Ajay Kumar & Anr.