S.R. Murthy vs State Of Karnataka And Ors
- SCC(1999) 8 SCC 176
- Neutral1999 INSC 342
- AIRAIR 2000 SC 450
- SCR[1999] Supp (1) SCR 639
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A roster prescribing reserved vacancies cannot be applied to a single post cadre, as such application would result in the total or near-total exclusion of members of the general category and cent percent reservation for backward classes, which is impermissible within the constitutional framework.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
This appeal deals with the promotion given by the first respondent to the respondent No. 3 to the post of Head of Section, Ceramic in a Government Polytechnic. There is no dispute that this is a single post. The first respondent, however, applied the roster relating to reservations to this post. Hence although the appellant was the senior-most person eligible for promotion to that post, he was not appointed. Instead, respondent No.3, who was junior to him, but belonged to the Scheduled Caste category was appointed since on the roster point, the vacancy was reserved for a Scheduled Caste candidate.
The Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in the impugned judgment proceeded on the basis that since this was a promotional post, all promotional vacancies would have to be rotated in accordance with the roster. Hence the promotion of respondent No.3 to the post of Head of Section, Ceramics, was a valid appointment.
The Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh v. Faculty Association and Ors., JT (1998) 3 SC 223 has held, after discussing all decisions on this question, that:
"In a single post cadre, reservation at any point of time on account of rotation or roster is bound to bring about a situation where such single post in the cadre will be kept reserved exclusively for the members of the backward classes and in total exclusion of the general members of the public. Such total exclusion of general members of the public and cent percent reservation for the background classes is not permitted within the constitutional frame work".
In the light of this ratio since the post in question was a single post, the application of the roster for the purpose of promotion was not permissible.
The appeal is allowed and the impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside. The promotion of respondent No.3 on the basis of the roster is set aside. However, the salary already received by the third respondent in the promotional post shall not be recovered.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free