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

PETITIONER: THE FLAG OFFICER COMMANDING - IN CHIEF & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MRS. M.A. RAJANI & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       17/03/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.  We have  heard learned  counsel on both sides.      This  appeal  arises  from  the  order  of  the  C.A.T. Trivendrum Bench, made on 8.3.1996 in O.A. No. 1399/95.      The only  controversy  is  whether  the  respondent  is entitled   to appointment by direct recruitment to a reserve vacancy? Admittedly,  Rule 1  () of  the Ministry of Defence Recruitment of  Stenographer, (Grade  III) Rules  postulates appointment by  promotion; failing  that, by  transfer;  and failing both,  by direct  recruitment.  In  this  case,  the sources of appointment, viz, by promotion and transfer, were exhausted. Consequently,  the appellants  resorted to direct recruitment  and  the  respondent  was  called  through  the Employment Exchange  for selection. Though she was selected, she was not given appointment on the specious ground that by proceedings under  Ex. A3  the post was dereserved and that, therefore,  she   was  not  eligible  for  appointment.  The Tribunal  has   not  agreed   with  the  contention  of  the appellants and  directed them  to appoint  the respondent in accordance with Rules thus this appeal, by special leave.      It is  seen that Rule 1(a) postulates three sources for recruitment -  first by promotion, second by transfer and on failing  both  of  these  methods,  by  direct  recruitment, Admittedly, the  post was  reserved  for  Scheduled  Castes. Accordingly, the  respondent was  called for selection. When the candidate  was available,  resort to  dereservatiion  is clearly illegal  and, therefore,  the Tribunal  was right in giving the  direction to appoint the respondent who was duly selected by the Committee.      The appeal is accordingly dismissed No costs.