http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: DHANNA RAM

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       18/04/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  JT 1996 (5)    70        1996 SCALE  (4)228

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      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 O.A. No.308  of 1994  on March 21, 1995. Though the Tribunal has dismissed  the O.A.  on the  ground of  delay,  we  have examined the  matter on  merits. It  is now  clear from  the record placed  by  the  respondents  that  as  a  result  of selection,  list   was  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; they were selected on  the general  standard to  the roster  point  as against those  who were  selected in the reserved quota with relaxed standards.  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 would appear that subsequently, they realized 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  existing  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 time, the directions sought for appointment in  the future  vacancies cannot  be given.  But this order  does not  preclude him  from  consideration  for future promotions  in any  of the vacancies that would arise subsequent to the earlier selection.      The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2