Supreme Court of India
CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & ORS.versusCENTRAL BANK OF INDIA SC/ST EMPLOYEES WELFARE ASSOCIATION & ORS.
- Citation
- 2016 INSC 32
- Decided
- 8 January 2016
- Disposal
- Case Partly allowed
- Bench
- JASTI CHELAMESWAR
Holding
The Court held that the contradictory paragraph was a manifest error apparent on the face of the record and allowed the review petitions, correcting the judgment.
Summary
The Supreme Court had earlier held that there is no reservation in promotion by selection for Group‑A posts (salary up to Rs 5700) in banks, only a concession, but the judgment also contained a contradictory paragraph stating that reservation applies to posts with salary less than Rs 5700 (pre‑revised) and thus directed reservation up to Scale VI. This inconsistency was pointed out as an error apparent on the face of the record. Review petitions were filed by the Union of India and the banks seeking correction. The Court examined whether the error satisfied the test for review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules and the CPC, and whether it could be rectified. Finding the error manifest and self‑evident, the Court allowed the review petitions, deleted the erroneous paragraphs and inserted a corrected one, thereby setting aside the earlier direction on reservation up to Scale VI.
Issues considered
- Whether the paragraph stating that reservation applies to posts with salary less than Rs 5700 is an error apparent on the face of the record.
- Whether such an error falls within the jurisdiction of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 and Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. Order XLVII Rule 1
- Supreme Court Rules, 2013s. Order XLVII Rule 1
Subjects
reservationpromotion by selectionSC/ST employeeserror apparent on the face of the recordreview jurisdictionSupreme Court RulesCivil service promotionbanking sector
Judgment
[2016] I S.C.R. 540
A CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR CENTRAL BA"1K OF
INDIA & ORS.
v.
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA SC/ST EMPLOYEES WELFARE
ASSOCIATION & ORS.
8
(Review Petition (Civil) No. 891 of2015)
IN
(Civil Appeal No. 209of2015)
JANUARY 08, 2016
c
(J. CHELAMESWAR AND A. K. SIKRI, JJ.J
Service lalv: Reservation in JJro1notio11 - Revielv petitions -
Supreme Court held in the judgment under review in paragraph 3./
that there is no reservation in promotion by selection within Group-
D A posts which carry an ultimate salary of Rs.5700 per month and it
is only· concession that applies - Ho1veve1~ in the veJJ,. next line it
obser1,ed thot reservation is provided in promotion by selection qua
those posts which carry an ultimale salary of less 1han Rs. 5 700 per
month - It is clearly an error 011 the face of !he record inasmuch as
no such consequence follows - In fact, this is directly in conflict.
E
with not only the earlier par/ion of paragraph 3./ but !he entire
conclusion on the issue on which there is detailed discussion from
paragraph 26 to 32 and even in earlier paragraph of the judgment
- It is this error. which is appare/1/ on the face of the record, viz. the
reservation is provided in promotion by selection in respect ()f posts
F carrying salary of less than Rs. 5, 700 per month, that has led to
further error that such reservation in the mailer of promotion is
applicable from Scale I upward up to Scale VI - Review petitions
allowed by deleting paragraphs 33 to 36 of the judgment and
directions contained therein as well as direclions contained in
paragraph 37 and fresh paragraph 33 inserted - Review - Supreme
G Court Rules, 20I3 - Or. XLVII Rule(/) - Code of Civil Procedure,
I908 - Or. XLVII Rule {IJ.
Allowing the review petitions, the Co1111
H
540
CHAIRMAN & M. D. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA v. CENTRAL BANK OF 541
IN DIA SC/STEMP. WELFARE ASSN.
HELD: Once an error is found in the order/judgment, which A
is apparent on the face of record and meets the test of review
jurisdiction as laid down in Order XLVII Rule (1) of the Supreme
Court Rules, 2013 read with Order XLVII Rule (1) of the Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908, the.re is no reason to not accept such a
mistake and rectify the same. For adopting such a course of
B
action, the Court is guided by the doctrine of ex debito justitiae
as well as the fundamental principle of the administration of justice
that no one should suffer because of a mistake of the Court. [Para
13] J551-F-H; 552 -A]
State of Rajasthan & Anr. v. Surendra Mohnot & Ors.
2014 (6) SCR 191: (2014) 14 SCC 77; A.R. Antulay v. c
R.S. Nayak 1988 (1) Suppl. SCR 1 : (1988) 2 SCC
602; S. Nagaraj v. State of Kamataka 1993 (2) Suppl.
SCR I :1993 Sup11 (4) SCC 595 - relied on.
Case Law Reference
D
2014 (6) SCR 191 relied on Para 9
1988 (I) Suppl. SCR 1 relied on Para 13
1993 (2) Suppl. SCR I relied on Para 14
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : R. P. (C) NO. 891 OF
E
2015 in Civil Appeal No. 209of2015
From the Judgment and Order dated 09.01.2015 of the Cow1 in
Civil Appeal No. 209of2015 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil)
No. 4385 of2010.
WITH F
R.P. (C) No.837/2015 In C.A.No.213/2015
R.P. (C) No.892/2015 In C.A.No.211/2015
R.P. (C) No.903/2015 In C.A.No.210/2015
R.P. (C) No.1104/2015 In C.A.No.212/2015 G
R.P. (C) No.2131/2015 In C.A.No.209/2015
Mukul Rohatgi.AG. Adarsh 8. Dial, Jaideep Gupta, Kapil Sibal.
A. Mariarputham, Dhruv Mehta, Rajesh Singh, Khushbu Sahu, Rajiv
Nanda, Piyush S., Navin R. Nath, Hetu Arora, L.M. Bhat,. Darpan K.M .•
H
542 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] J S.C.R.
A 0. P. Gaggar, B. Krishna Prasad, B.K. Gautam, Anuradha, Jennifer
John, S.C. Sagar, (For E.C. Vidyasagar), Dr. Krishan Singh Chauhan,
Ajit Kumar Ekka, Ravi Prakash, Chand Kiran, Murari Lal, H.C.
Nainawat, C.K. Chandrasekhar, S.R. Setia, Rajesh Kumar, Gaurav
Kumar Singh, Rakesh Chaurasiya, Mis. Mitter & Mitter Co., Harshad
V. Hameed, Di Jeep Poolakkot, K. Rajeev for the appearing parties.
B
Dr. Krishan Singh Chauhan, Respondent-in-person
The .Judgment of the Cou1i was delivered by
A. K. SIKRI, J. I. By our judgment dated January 09, 2015, we
had decided batch of appeals which were preferred by the Union of
c India as well as certain banks. In these appeals, the validity of the
judgment of the High Court of Madras was questioned which held that
in the matter of promotions in the officer grades, there shall be reservation
provided for the officers belonging to the Scheduled Caste (SC) and
Scheduled Tribe (ST) categories working in these banks. This decision
D of the High Court was predicated on the interpretation to the provisions
of Office Memorandum (OM) dated August 13, 1997 issued by the
Central Government, along with certain other connected Office
Memoranda. It was concluded by the High Court that the aforesaid
OM dated August 13, 1997 provides for such a reservation in favour of
the SC/ST employees. The plea of the appellant banks was that the said
E OM does not make any provisions for reservation in respect of SC/ST
employees.
2. The question, therefore, that needed determination by this Court
was as to whether there is any reservation in the promotions from one
officer grade/scale to higher grade/scale. when such promotions are to
F be made on selection basis, i.e. on merits. The position taken by the
appellant banks was that there is no rule ofreservation for promotion in
Class-A (Class-I) to the post/scales having basic salary of more than '
5, 700 per month and OM dated August 13, 1997 at best provides only a
concession in the manner officers belonging to SC/ST category are to
be considered for promotion.
G
3. After hearingthe counsel for the parties, judgment dated January
09, 2015 was rendered. Provisions of OM dated August 13, 1997 and
other related Office Memoranda were considered by th is Court in that
judgment. This Court, after interpreting the said OM, came to the
conclusion that this OM did not provide for any reservation. Operative
H
CHAIRMAN & M. D. CENTRAL BANK OF JNDIA v. CENTRAL BANK OF 543
INDIA SC/STEMP. WELFARE ASSN. [A. K. SIKRI, J.]
portion of the judgment in arriving at the aforesaid conclusion reads as A
under:
"26. While considering this question, we have to keep in mind
that reservation policy of the Central Government is applicable to
the appellant Banks. It is the common case of both the parties.
In fact, as already noted above, there is a specific provision to this B
effect in the promotion policies framed by the appellant Banks.
27. Next thing which is to be kept in mind is the two office
memoranda, one dated I .11.1990 and the other dated 13 .8.1997,
which are referred to by the counsel for the parties. We have
already reproduced the aforesaid two office memoranda. Insofar c
as, Office Memorandum dated 1.11 .1990 is concerned, a bare
reading of this provision wou Id reflect the following two aspects:
(a) In promotion by selection within Class-I (Group-A) post, the
SC/ST candidates are to be given 'concession'.
(b)This concession is available to those SC/ST employees who D
are senior enough in the zone of consideration for pro111otion so as
to be within the number of vacancies for which select list has to
be drawn up.
Thus, first requirement is that such SC/ST candidates who come
within the zone of consideration for promotion are senior enough E
to be within the number of vacancies. Once they come within the
aforesaid zone of consideration, they have to be included in the
list, provided they are not considered unfit for promotion. It clearly
follows from the above that once they come under the zone of
consideration for promotion so as to be within the number of
F
vacancies for which select list has to be drawn up, for such SC/
ST employees the only embargo to deprive them of promotion is
when they are found unfit for promotion. For other officers in
general category, depending upon the rule of promotion, there may
be much stricter criteria based on comparative merit or selection
by merit, etc. However, in case of such senior enough SC/ST G
candidates, the criteria appears to be seniority, subject to fitness.
(c) This OM specifically clears the doubt that the aforesaid
provision is only a concession and not reservation in favour of
SC/ST candidates, inasmuch as para 3 of the OM states that "//
H
544 SUPREME C:OL:RT REPORTS [2016] I S.C.R.
A is hereby clarified that in pru111otion by selection within
Group-A post. which carry ulti111ute .rnlury of 5. 7001- per
month, there is no reservation". It is clear from the above that
insofar as Office Memorandum dated I. I I. I990 is concerned,
there was no provision for reservation made in favour of SC/ST
candidates in promotion by selection within Group-A posts carrying
B
an ultimate salary of 5,700 per month.
28. No doubt, this Office Memorandum was issued in the year
1990. that is much before amendment in Article 16 of the
Constitution. which was carried out in the year 1995 by inserting
Clause 4A. However, as already pointed out above, Clause 4A is
c an enabling provision which empowers the State to make
reservations in the matter of promotions as well as in favour of
SC/ST employees. There was no such provision till 1.11.1990 in
the matter of promotion by selection within Group-A post which
carry an ultimate salary of 5,700/- per month.
D 29. Having understood this, we come to Office Memorartdum
dated 13 .8.1997 to find out as to whether this Memorandum makes
any provision for reservations in the matter of promotion in favour
of SC/ST employees, inasmuch as no other Office Memorandum
or Circular or Rule, etc. is produced on record for this purpose.
E 30. We have already noted above that a nine Judge Bench decision
of this Court in lndrt1 St1w/111ey (supra) held that Clause 4 of
Article 16 does not cover the cases of promotion, meaning thereby,
as per the said clause no reservation in favour of SC/ST persons
in the matter of promotions is permissible. It is to nullify the effect
F of this dicta in the said judgment that Clause 4A was inserted in
Article 16 by Constitution's Seventy-Seventh Amendment with
effect from 17-06-1995. However, it is also a matter of record
that in Indra St1wl111ey's case (supra), this Court had also clarified
that reservation for SC/STs in promotion would continue for a
period of five years from 16-11-1992. What it meant was that if
G there is a provision of reservation made in the matter of promotions,
n9twithstanding the dicta in the said case that such a reservation
is not permissible, those provisions were allowed to continue for a
period of five years from 16-11-1992. Thereafter, before the expiry
of five years, constitutional provision was incorporated in the form
H
of Clause 4A by making provision for reservation in the matter of
CHAIRMAN & M. D. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA v. CENTRAL BANK OF 545
INDIA SC/STEMP. WELFARE ASSN. [A. K. SIKRl.J.J
promotions as well. These facts are taken note of in first two A
paras of Office Memorandum dated 13-08-1997. Thereafter, in
the 3" para of the said Memorandum, it is provided:
"3. In pursuance of Article 16(4A), it has been decided to
continue the Reservation in promotion as at present, for the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes in the services/ B
posts under the Central Government beyond 15.11.1997 till
such time as the representation of each of the above two
categories in each cadre reaches the prescribed percentages
of reservation whereafter, the reservation in promotion shall
continue to maintain the representation to the extent of the
prescribed percentages for the respective categories."
c
31. What is decided is to continue the reservation in promotion,
which was prevalent at that time, forthe SC/ST employees, which
was to continue in terms of the judgment of this Court in Imlrt1
St1w/mey(supra)till 15-l l-1997,evenbeyond 15-11-1997,tillsuch
time as the representation of each of the above two categories in D
each cadre reaches the prescribed percentages of reservation
whereof. It is, thus, crystal clear from a bare reading of this para
that the existing provision relating to reservation in pro1notion was
allowed to continue beyond 15-11-1997. Thus, this Memorandum
did not make any new provision for reservation in promotion in E
favour of SC/ST employees.
32. We have already noticed above that in matters of promotion
within Group-A posts, which carry an ultimate salary of 5,700/-
per month, there was no provision for any reservation. On a
conjoint reading of these two Office Memorandums, in the absence F
of any other provision or Rule evidencing such a reservation in
the matter of promotions, it cannot be said that there was reservation
in promotion within Group-A posts upto the ultimate salary of
12 5,700/- per month. The High Court in the impugned judgment
has gone by the lofty ideals enshrined in Articles 15 and 16 of the
Constitution as well as the fact that in these Banks there is no G
adequate representation of SC/ST category of officers in Group-
IV and above. That may be so. It can only provide justification
for making a provision of this nature. However, in the absence of
such a provision, same cannot be read by overstretching th~
language of Office Memorandum dated 13-08-1997. It is for the
H
546 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2016] I S.C.R.
A State to take stock of the ground realities and take a decision as
to whether it is necessary to make provision for reservation in
promotions to the aforesaid post as well."
4. As pointed out above, since the main issue that had arisen for
consideration stood answered in favour of the appellant banks, in normal
B course, the appeals should have been allowed reversing the judgment
dated December 09, 2009 rendered by the High Court. However, during
the course of the arguments, the respondent employees had produced
copy of OM dated November 08, 2004 issued by the Department of
Enterprises, as per which the salary limit of 5, 700 mentioned in the OM
dated August 13, 1997, was treated as equivalent to 18,300 on the
c implementation of the Fifth Central Pay Commission Report in respect
of those public sector undertakings which were following the Central
Pay pattern and in the case of public sector undertakings following
Industrial Dearness Allowance (!DA) pattern, monetary ceiling was fixed
as 20,800. On that basis, this Court proceeded further to discuss that
D aspect with the observation that the High Court had failed to consider
the same. Discussing this aspect, this Court held that even when there
was no policy of reservation for the post carrying pay-scale of more
than 5, 700 per month, the reservation was there in respect of the post
carrying basic pay of upto 5, 700 per month and with the iinplementation
of the Fifth Central Pay Commission Repo11, it would follow that such
E reservation was applicable to the post carrying pay-scale of 18,300.
On that basis, it was held that since pay-scale of the posts upto Scale VI
was 18,300, insofar as promotions from Scale I to Scale II, Scale II to
Scale Ill, Scale Ill to Scale IV, Scale IV to Scale V and Scale V to
Scale VI are concerned, reservation is to be provided. It is this direction/
F portion of the judgment in respect of which the instant review petitions
are filed. Thus, it would be apt to reproduce the discussion touching
upon this aspect in the judgment. The same reads as under:
"33. Having said so, one other aspect which has to be necessarily
addressed to at this stage calls for our attention. This aspect,
G which we are going to point out now, has been totally glossed
over by the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of
the High Court in their respective judgments.
34 .. .It is provided in Office Memorandum daied 01-11-1990, and
we'have repeatedly stated above, that !here is no reservation in
promotion by selectioD within o_!!IY..JhQs~ Group_-1\jJosts which
H
CHAIRMAN & M. D. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA v. CENTRAL BANK OF 547
INDIA SC/STEMP. WELFARE ASSN. [A. K. SIKRI. J.]
carry an ultimate salarv of 5,700/- per month. In such cases, it A
is only concession tha!.fil>.pJks. We have accepted the contention
ofthe appellant Banks in this behalf, as per the discussion contained
hereinabove. Significantlv._what follows is that reservation is
provided in promotion bv selection qua those posts which carry
an ultimate salary of less than 5, 700/- per month (pre-revised).
B
35. The Department of Public Enterprises had issued an Office
Memorandum dated 08-11-2004 as to the salary limit of 5,700/-
mentioned for the purposes of reservation as 18,300/-(5"' Central
Pay Commission) and in the case of Public Sector Undertakings
who are following Industrial Dearness Allowance (IDA) pattern,
the monetary ceiling was fixed as 20,800/- (from 01-01-1996, c
i.e. 5'" Central Pay Commission). The said pay ceiling is achieved
in the appellant Banks only when an officer reaches Scale-VII.
As a fortiorari, the policy of no reservation in the matter of
promotion is applicable only from Scale-VII and above. It,
therefore, clearly follows that insofar as promotion from Scale-I D
to Scale-II, Scale-II to Scale-Ill, Scale-Ill to Scale-IV, Scale-IV
to Scale-V, Scale-V to Scale-VI are concerned, reservation is to
be provided. The appellant Banks, therefore, cannot take umbrage
under the aforesaid Memorandum and deny reservation in favour
of SC/ST employees while carrying out promotions upto to Scale-
VI. E
36. Upshotofthe aforesaid discussion would be to allow these
·appeals party. While setting aside the impugned judgment of the
· · . High Court tc) the extent it holds that· Office Memorandun1 dated
I3~08-1997 makes a provision for reservation; it is clarified that at ·
present there is no provision for reservation in promotion by F
selection only in respect of those posts which carry an ultimate
salary of 5, 700/- per month (revised to 18,300/- by 5'" Central
Pay Commission and 20,800/- per month in respect of th,isc ·
Public Sector Undertakings following IDA pattern). Qua appellant
Banks, that would be in respect of Scale-VII and above. G
Therefore, to carry out promotions from Scale-I upwards .upto
Scale-VI, reservation in proruotion in favourofSC/ST employees
has to be given. It would have the effect of allowing the writ
petitions filed by the respondents/unions pa1tly with directions to
the appellant Banks to make provision for reservations while
H
548 SCPREME COURT REPORTS (2016] I S.C.R.
A carrying out promotions from Scale-I to to Scale-II and upward
111°10 Scale-VI.
(emphasis supplied)"
5. Review petitions are filed by the Union of India as well as
certain banks which were parties to the appeals. In these review petitions,
B applications for intervention/impleadment are filed by Indian Banks'
Association suppo1ting the plea taken in the review petitions. On the
other hand, All India Central Bank SC/ST/OBC Employees Association-
Kolkata, Bank of Maharashtra SC/ST & OBC Employees' Association-
Pune and State Bank of Travancore SCs & STs Welfare Association
c have also filed applications for intervention/impleadment with intent to
oppose the review petitions.
6. Notice was issued to the respondent-employees/associations
in these review petitions. They have filed their counter affidavits to the
review petitions. We have heard counsel for all the parties before us. It
D was also pleaded by the counsel on either side that since the issue raised
in the review petitions has bearing on the merits of the case, the issue
raised itself be finally decided.
7. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi. learned Attorney General appearing for
the Union of India. submitted that a fundamental error. which was an
E error apparent on the face of the record, had crept in in paragraph 34 of
the judgment wherein it was observed that reservation is provided in
promotion by selection qua those posts which carry an ultimate salary
of less than 5, 700 (pre-revised). He pointed out that in the earlier
portion of the same paragraph (which is reproduced and highlighted
above), this Court had reiterated, after detailed discussion, that there is
F no reservation in promotion by selection in Group-A posts which carry
an ultimate salary of 5,700 per month and in such cases it is only the
concession that applies. He further submitted that in such a situation,
OM dated November 08, 2005 issued by the Department of Enterprises,
that too at the fag end of the hearing of the appeals, had no relevance at
G all. He further submitted that promotions were only up to Scale VI in
these ban ks as the hierarchical structure wou Id reveal that Scale VII
and above were in fact Board level posts which are filled up by the
Government and not by the Departmental Promotion Committee of the
concerned banks. In this manner, he argued that in spite of deciding the
main issue against the respondents, because of the aforesaid error in the
H
CHAIRMAN & M. D. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA v. CENTRAL BANK OF 549
INDIA SC/STEMP. WELFARE ASSN. [A. K. SIKRI. J.]
judgment, the said benefit was still bestowed by giving reservations to
the officers belonging to SC/ST category from Scale I to Scale VI. He
further demonstrated that in these banks, there were four categories of
employees, namely, sub-staff (Class IV), clerical, officers and Board
level posts. The promotions were provided from sub-staff to clerical as
well as from clerical to junior management grade (Scale-I). However,
B
there was no fu11her promotion from Scale-I upward. The learned
Attorney General further argued that the entire case of the respondent
employees was based on OM dated August 13, 1997 and relying upon
the same, the respondent employees had argued that this OM provides
for reservation. However, this precise contention of the employees was
specifically turned down and repelled by this Court by interpreting the c
said OM to mean that it does not provide for any reservation, but only
gives certain concessions to the employees belonging to SC/ST categories
while considering their cases for promotion. As a consequence, no further
discussion was required.
8. We find adequate force in the aforesaid submission of the D
learned Attorney General. We have already reproduced those paragraphs
of the judgment. i.e. paragraph Nos. 26 to 32, wherein after interpreting
OM dated August 13, 1997, it is categorically held that this OM does not
provide for any reservation. This is so stated in the opening lines of
paragraph 34 as well by emphasizing that there is no reservation in
promotion by selection within Group-A posts, which carry an ultimate E
salary of 5,700 per month and it is only concession that applies. This
conclusion is followed with the observation that contention of the banks
in this behalf has been accepted. In spite thereof, in the very next line of
paragraph 34, it is observed:
"34 ... Significantly, what follows is that reservation is provided in F
promotion by selection qua those posts which carry an ultimate
salary of less than 5. 700 per month (pre-revised)."
9. It is clearly an error on the face of the record inasmuch as no
such consequence follows. In fact, the aforesaid quoted portion is directly
in conflict with not only the earlier portion of paragraph 34. but the entire G
conclusion on the issue on which there is a detailed discussion from
paragraph Nos. 26 to 32 and even in earlier paragraphs of the judgment.
It is this error, which is apparent on the face of the record, viz. the
reservation is provided in promotion by selection respect of posts canying
salary of less than 5, 700 per month, that has led to fu11her error that
H
550 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] I S.C.R.
A such reservation in the matter of promotion is applicable from Scale I
upward up to Scale VI. What constitutes an error apparent on the face
of the record is explained in Stale of Rajast/11111 & A11r. v. S11re1u/ra
Mo/11101 & Ors. 1, with the aid of an earlier judgment, in the following
manner:
B "25. To appreciate what constitutes an error apparent on the
face of the record. the observations of the Cou11 in Satya11araya11
Laxmi11araya11 Hegde v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tiruma/e,
AIR 1960 SC 137, are useful: (AIR p.137)
"An error which has to be established by a long-drawn process of
c reasoning on points where there may concei\'ably be two opinions
can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the
record. Where an alleged error is far from self-evident and if it
can be established, it has to be established. by lengthy and
complicated arguments, such an error cannot be cured by a writ
of certiorari according to the rule governing the powers of the
D superior court to issue such a writ."
26. In the case at hand, as the factual score has uncurtained, the
application for review did not require a long-drawn process of
reasoning. It did not require any advertence on merits which is in
the province of the appellate court. Frankly speaking it was a
E manifest and rnlpable error. A wrong authority which had nothing
to do with the I;, was cited and that was conceded to. An already
existing binding precedent was ignored. At a mere glance it would
have been clear to the Writ Court that the decision was rendered
on the basis of a wrong authority. The error was self-evident.
F When such self-evident errors come to the notice of the Cou11
and they are not rectified in exercise of review jurisdiction or
jurisdiction ofrecall which is a facet ofplena1y jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution, a grave miscarriage of justice
occurs ... "
G IO. The Court also made the following pertinent observations:
"28. We have already stated the legal position witli'regaid
to legal impact as regards the concession pertaining to the
position in law. That apart, we think that an act of the
H '(2014)14SCC77
CHAIRMAN & M. D. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA v. CENTRAL BANK OF 551
IN DIA SC/STEMP. WELFARE ASSN. [A. K. SIKRl.J.]
Court should not prejudice anyone and the maxim actus A
quriae ne111ine111 g;ravabil gets squarely applicable ... ~~
11. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent employees
could not dispute the aforesaid error having been occurred. It is for this
reason, the main argument on the part of the counsel for the respondents
was that insofar as Union oflndia is concerned, review petition was not B
maintainable as it had not challenged the judgment of the High Cou11. It
was also argued that the review petition filed by banks was against the
public policy as there was no adequate representation of SC/ST
employees in the higher posts and by not providing such a reservation,
the Government was failing to subscribe to the Constitutional spirit behind
reservation provisions. Counsel also endeavoured to argue that the c
appeals which were filed against the judgment of the High Court
themselves were not maintainable as a circular was issued by the Union
of India impressing upon the banks to follow the judgment of the High
Court.
12. The aforesaid arguments oflearned counsel for the respondent D
employees fail to cut any ice as there are not germane to the issue with
which the Court is concerned with in these review petitions. Even ifthe
review petition filed by the Union of India is to be discarded, that would
be immaterial inasmuch as the banks, which were the appellants, have
also filed the review petition on the same grounds and, therefore, this E
Court is necessarily called upon to decide the issue at hand. Further,
when an error is pointed out and the Court also finds that there is an
error apparent on the face of the record, it would not shy away from
correcting that error.
13. We would be candid in our remarks that once an error is F
found in the order/judgment, which is apparent on the face ofrecord and
meets the test of review jurisdiction as laid down in Order XLYll Rule
(I) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 read with Order XLVll Rule (I)
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, there is no reason to feel hesitant
in accepting such a mistake and rectify the same. In fact, the reason for
~uch a frank admission ·is to ensure that this kind of patent erro.r from the G
record. is removed'which led to a wrong conclusion and consequently
wrong is also remedied. For adopting such a course of action, the Court
is guided by the doctrine of exdebito justitiae as well as the timdamental
principle of the administration ofjustice that no one should suffer because
H
552 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2016] I S.C.R.
A ofa mistake of the Court. These principles are discussed elaborately,
though in a different context, in A.R. A11tu/ay v. R.S. Nayak'.
14. We would also like to reproduce the following observations in
S. Nagaraj v. State of Kariwtaka':
"18. Justice is a virtue which transcends all barriers. Neither the
B rules of procedure nor technicalities of law can stand in its way.
The order of the Cou1t should not be prejudicial to anyone. Rule
of stare decisis is adhered for consistency but it is not as inflexible
in Administrative Law as in Publi.: Law. Even the law bends
before justice. Entire concept of writ jurisdiction exercised by
c the higher courts is founded on equity and fairness. If the Court
finds that the order was passed under a mistake and it would not
have exercised the jurisdiction but for the erroneous assumption
which in fact did not exist and its perpetration shall result in
miscarriage ofjustice then it cannot on any principle be precluded
from rectifying the error. Mistake is accepted as valid reason to
D recall an order. Difference lies in the nature of mistake and scope
of rectification. depending on if it is of fact or law. But the root
from which the power flows is the anxiety to avoid injustice. It is
either statutory or inherent. The latter is available where the
mistake is of the Court. In Administrative Law the scope is still
E wider. Technicalities apait ifthe Cou1t is satisfied of the injustice
then it is its constitutional and legal obligation to set it right by
recalling its order. Here as explained, the Bench of which one of
us (Sahai, J.) was a member did commit an error in placing all the
stipendiary graduates in the 'cale of First Division Assistants due
to State's failure to bring correct facts on record. But that
F obviously canuot stand in the way of the Court correcting its
mistake. Such inequitable consequences as have surfaced now
due to vague affidavit tiled by the State cannot be permitted to
continue."
15. The argument of public policy pressed by the respondents is
G ofno avail. We are conscious of the fervent plea raised by the respondent
employees that employees belonging to SC/ST category should be made
eligible for promotion by providing the reservation in the promotional
2 (t 988) 2 sec 602
H ' I 993SUPP (,, ) sec 595
CHAIRMAN & M. D. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA v. CENTRAL BANK OF 553
IND IA SC/STEMP. WELFARE ASSN. [A. K. SIKRI, J.]
posts as well, as their representat1un is abysmally mini111al. However, A
whether there is any such justification in the de111and or not is for the
State to consider and 111ake a provision in this behalf. This was so recorded
in the judgment itself in the following manner:
"24. In the first instance, we 111ake it clear that there is no dispute
about the constitutional position envisaged in Articles I 5 and 16, B
insofar as these provisions empower the State to take affirmative
action in favour of SC/ST category persons by making reservations
fo;- them in the employment in the Union or the State (or for that
matter, public sector/authorities which are treated as State under
Article 12 of the Constitution). The laudable objective underlying
these provisions is also to be kept in mind while unde1taking any
c
exercise pertaining to the issues touching upon the reservation of
such SC/ST employees. Further, such a reservation can not only
be made at the entry level but is permissible in the matters of
pro111otions as wells. At the same time, it is also to be borne in
mind that Clauses 4 and 4A ofArticle· 16 of the Constitution are D
only the enabling provisions which permit the State to make
provision for reservation of these category of persons. Insofar as
making of provisions for reservation in mat.ters of promotion to
any class or classes of post is concerned, such a provision can be
111ade in favour of SC/ST category employees if. in the opinion of
the State, they are not adequately represented in services tmder E
the State. Tints. no doubt, power lies with the State to make a
provision, but, at the same time, courts cannot issue any manda111us
to the State to necessarily make such a provision. It is for the
State to act, in a given situation. and to take such an affirmative
action. Of course, whenever there exists such a provision for F
reservation in the matters ofrecruitment or the promotion, it would
bestow an enforceable right in favour of persons belonging to SC/
ST category and on failure on the part of any authority to reserve
the posts, while making selections/promotions, the beneficiaries
of these provisions can approach the Court to get their rights
enforced. What is to be highlighted is that existence of provision G
for reservation in the matter of selection or promotion, as the
case may be, is the sine 'I'"'11011 for seeking mandamus as it is_
only when such a provision is made by the State. a right shall
accrue In favour of SC/ST candidates and not otherwise."
H
554 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2016] I S.C.R.
A 16. Once we find an error apparent on the face of the record and
to correct the said error, wc have to necessarily allow these review
petitions.
17. In view of the foregoing, the review petitions are allowed by
deleting paragraph Nos.33 to 36 of the judgment and the directions
B contained therein, as well as the directions contained in paragraph No.
3 7. Instead, after paragraph No. 32, fol lowing paragraph shal I be inserted
and numbered as 33. and paragraph No.38 should be re-numbered as
34:
"33. Result of the aforesaid discussion would be to allow these
c appeals and set aside the judgment of the High Court. While
doing so, we reiterate that it is for the State to take stock of the
ground realities and take a decision as to whether it is necessary
to make a provision for reservation in promotions from Scale I to
Scale II and upward, and if so, up to which post. The contempt
petition also stands disposed of.
D
34. In the peculiar facts of this case, we leave the pa11ies to bear
their own costs."
18. All the interlocutory applications for impleadment/intervention
also stand disposed of.
E 19. Before we part with. we would like to observe that we have
mention.ed in para 15,. which was. also recorded in the main judgment,
that the grievance of the employees belonging to SC/ST category is that
there is negligible representaiion of employees belonging to their
community in the. officers' category at all lev.els. Keeping iil view the
statistical figures which have been placed on record showing their
F
representation in officers' scales, it would be open to the concern.ed
authority, namely, the State and the Banks to consider whether their
demand is justified and it is feasible to provide reservation to SC/ST
category persons in the matter of promotion in the otlicers' category
and if so, upto which scale/level.
G
Devika Gujral Revie\v Petitions allo\ved.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "reservation"Sign in to search