Supreme Court of India

DHANNA RAMversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: 1996 INSC 547
Decided: 18 April 1996
Disposal: Dismissed
Bench: K RAMASWAMY

Holding

No appointment can be ordered as there is no vacancy and the merit list has expired; the appeal is dismissed.

Summary

The appellant, a Scheduled Caste candidate, was selected for the post of Goods Clerk/Coaching Clerk under the reserved quota with relaxed standards, but the initial communication erroneously stated he was selected on general standards. The error was later corrected, placing him in the reserved‑quota list; however, no vacancy existed for the reserved quota and the merit list had expired. The appellant sought a direction for his appointment in future vacancies. The Court held that, because there was no vacancy and the list had lapsed, it could not order his appointment, though he may be considered for future promotions. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed without costs.

Issues considered

Whether the appellant can be appointed under the reserved quota despite the absence of a vacancy and the expiry of the merit list.
Whether the tribunal erred in dismissing the original application on the ground of delay.
Whether the court can direct appointment in future vacancies.

Subjects

reservationScheduled Castesappointmentquotacivil serviceCentral Administrative Tribunalmerit listvacancylist expiry

Judgment

A                                    DHANNARAM
                                           v.
                                UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

                                       APRIL 18, 1996

B                    [K. RAJvlASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, J.J.J

                Seivice Law :

               Selection and appointment as Goods Clerks and Coaching C/e1*s from
~       c/ass-fV employee.1--Ceitain posts resc1ved for Scheduled Castes-Some SC
.....
        candidates selected on the general standard 1vhilc so111e others selected in the
        remred quota with relaxed standards-Appellant selected on relaxed stand-
        ards-However, the conununication to hi111 14•rongly n1e11tioncd that he was
        selected on general standards-Subsequently the nJistake •vas con·ected and
        he 1vas put in the order of 1ne1it under rese11•ed quota-Could not be ap-
D       pointed as no vacancy e:xisted under the rese1ved quota-Hence direction
        crmnot be given for his appointment-List e>.pired by efflux of time-Direc-
        tions sought for O]Jpointnient in future vacancies-CG1111ot be given-Re.\·e1va-
        tion for SC/ST in appointment promotion.

                CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7536 of
E
        1996.

              From the Judgment and Order dated 21.3.95 of the Central Ad-
        ministration Tribunal, Chandigarh in 0.A. No. 308-HR of 1994.

F               Prem Malhotra for the Appellant.

             P.P. Rao, Raj Kumar Gupta, Rajesh, H.P. Sharma, A. Bhasme and
        K. Swami for the Respondents.

                The following Order of the Court was delivered :
G               Leave granted. Heard learned counsel on both sides.

              This appeal by special leave arises from the Order of the Central
        Administrative Tribunal at Chandigarh made in 0.A. No. 308 of 1994 on
        March 21,1995. Though the Tribunal has dismissed the 0.A. on the ground
 H      of delay, we have examined the matter on merits. It is now clear from the
                                           564
                          DHANNARAMv. U.0.1.                          565

record placed by the respondents that as a result of selection, list was A
prepared on April 4, 1990 for appointment as Goods Clerks and Coaching
Clerks from among the class IV employees in the order of merit from the
quota reserved for class IV employees. Out of them they also made
reservation to the members of the Scheduled Castes. The appellant belongs
to the Scheduled Castes. Candidates at item Nos. 17 and 32 of the list also
belong to the Scheduled Castes and were superior in the order of merit; B
they were selected on the general standard to the roster point as against
those who were selected in the reserved quota with relaxed staudards. The
appellant stands at No. 2 while one Sarvan Kumar stands at No. 1 of the
list of reserved quota. It is true that in the communication sent to the
appellant it was mentioned that he was selected on general standards. It c
would appear that subsequently, they realised the mistake and corrected
the same and put him in the order of merit as a candidate for the reserved
quota. Since there was no vacancy exi,ting for reserved quota, he could not
be appointed. Under those circumstances, we cannot give any direction for
making his appointment. Since the list has already expired by efflux of D
time, the directions sought for appointment in the future vacancies cannot
be given. But this order does not preclude him from consideration for
future promotion in any of the vacancies that would arise subsequent to
the earlier selection.

        The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.                       E
G .N.                                                    Appeal dismissed.

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "reservation"Sign in to search