http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7  

PETITIONER: SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,PUBLIC HEALTH, U.T. CHANDIGARH & ORS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: KULDEEP SINGH & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       21/01/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD, G.B. PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      This special  leave petition  arises from  the order of the Central  Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, made on 6.9.1996  in OA No. 330/CH/89. Admittedly, the respondent belongs to  Scheduled Castes  and was eligible for promotion as Head-Draftsman.  For the  promotion to the said post, the petitioners appointed  Mr. Ravinder  Kumar Sood on March 30, 1988 and  Mr. Dharam  Nand on March 14, 1989. The respondent had challenged  their promotion and non-consideration of his case claiming  that he  was eligible to be considered in the post as  a reserved  candidate though the post was meant for Scheduled Tribes.  By order  of the Government of India, the posts are  inter-changeable between Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes and if the candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribes is not available, the eligible candidate belonging to Scheduled Castes  is entitled to be considered for promotion to the  post reserved  for Scheduled Tribe Candidates. Since he was  not considered,  the legitimate  right to  promotion given according  to  the  roster  was  denied  to  him.  The Tribunal accepted  the contention  and allowed the petition. In the  meanwhile, pending  his application  he came  to  be promoted on  June 26,  1993. However, direction was given to consider him from the date he was actually due for promotion with consequential  benefits in the place to which R.K. Sood was promoted.      Mr. K.B.  Rohtagi, learned counsel for the petitioners, contends  that   n  respect   of  the   Union  Territory  of Chandiargh, no  Scheduled  Tribes  list  is  available  and, therefore, the  vacancy reserved for Scheduled Tribes cannot be treated  to be  one available to the Scheduled Tribes. We find no  force in  the contention.  The Government of India, Minister of  Home Affairs,  admittedly, by letter dated June 12, 1986  had  given  direction  that  since  in  the  Union Territory of  Chandigarh, the population of Scheduled Tribes is not  available, the  principle of alternative exchange to the Scheduled  Castes should  be adopted. Consequently, when vacancy No.1  in the  roster is  available to  the Scheduled Tribes,  it  requires  to  be  filled  by  considering,  for promotion, the  candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes. It is, therefore,  clear that  though Scheduled Tribe candidate

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7  

was not  available to  fill up  the vacancy  at No.1  in the roster, the  candidate belonging to the Scheduled Castes was required to  be considered  according to the Rules and given promotion on  seniority-cum-fitness basis  which is the rule under which  the candidates  are required  to be considered. Admittedly, as on the time Mr. R.K. Sood was promoted, i.e., March 30,  1988 the respondent was admittedly eligible to be considered bu  he was  not considered on the specious ground that as per the carry forward rule the period of three years had expired.  Therefore, he  was not  eligible at that time. That contention  is also  not acceptable for the reason that in the  brochure for  Scheduled  Castes  and  the  Scheduled Tribes, the  word "subsequent  recruitment  year"  has  been interpreted in Chapter II thereof as under:      "Recruitment  year   shall  mean  a      calendar year  and for  purposes of      three years limit for carry forward      of reserved  vacancies  shall  mean      the year  in which  recruitment  is      actually made."      Thus, it  is clear  that in a calendar year, i.e., from Ist January  to 31st  December of  the calendar year, if the recruitment has  been made  and if  the candidates belong to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are not available, the reserved  vacancies are  required to  be carried forward for  three   recruitment  years.   Take  for  instance,  the recruitment took  place in  the year 1986 and the candidates belonging to  Scheduled Castes  and Scheduled Tribes are not available, the  vacancies are required to be carried forward for three  recruitment years  thereafter. Suppose the second recruitment takes place in 1989, the second recruitment year is 1989  but not  the year 1987, as sought to be interpreted by the  respondent. It is seen and admitted that in the year 1987, the  respondent was  not eligible. Therefore, the post was carried  forward to  the year  1987 and in 1988 the post was filled up without considering the case of the respondent and the  petitioners construed  it to  be three  recruitment years and  thereby it  is said that the period of tree years for the  purpose has elapsed. The construction is fallacious and deliberate  to deny  the benefit  of reservation  in the light  of   the  unequivocal   instructions   as   extracted hereinbefore. Moreover,  no proceedings  for reservation and prior approval  of the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs were  obtained. We are surprised to note, as rightly pointed out  by the  Tribunal, that  the  petitioner,  Union Territory Office,  despite given  repeated opportunities  to produce the  roster, has suppressed production of the roster which they  are enjoined  to maintain.  In the  petition, no explanation has been offered. The duty to implement the rule of reservation  is a  constitutional duty  to  be  performed honestly, sincerely  and in  its true  contents  and  spirit which the petitioner appears to have derelicted.      Article 14  prohibits discrimination  and Article 16(1) accords  equality   of  opportunities   in  the   matter  of appointment to an office or post under the State. Article 38 read with  the Preamble  enjoins the  State to accord socio- economic justice,  the basic  feature in all institutions of national life.  Article 335 of the Constitution enjoins that the claims of the members of the Scheduled Castes and Tribes shall be  taken into  consideration, consistently  with  the maintenance of  efficiency of  administration, in the making of appointments  to service and posts in connection with the affairs of  the Union  or of a State. It is settled law that it  should  be  read  consistent  with  Article  46  of  the Constitution to  take special  care of  the educational  and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7  

economic interests of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes and  to protect  them from injustice and all forms of exploitation. Appointment  to an  office or  post under  the State is one of the policies of the State to accord economic justice  as  part  of  social  justice  for  integration  of Scheduled  Castes   and  Scheduled   Tribes  in  the  social mainstream dignity  of person  and equality  of  status.  It would be an opportunity to improve excellence, a fundamental duty. In  the light  of Article  16 (4A)  introduced by  the Constitution (77th  Amendment) Act,  1995 the  claims of the Scheduled Castes  and the  Scheduled  Tribes  for  promotion shall be  taken into  consideration in making appointment or giving promotion. IT is the constitutional duty coupled with power  of   the  authorities   implementing  the   rules  of recruitment including promotion. In that behalf, this Court. In Comptroller  and Auditor-General  of India, Gian Prakash, New Delhi  and Anr.  V/s. K.S.  Jagannathan & Anr. [(1986) 2 SCC 679 at 693], a three-Judge Bench was to consider whether the appellant-Comptroller  and Auditor-General  of India was under  the  constitutional  obligation  to  fix  the  lesser standard of  examination in  the light  of the  brochure, to inform the  Scheduled Castes  and Scheduled Tribes employees of  the   same  and  to  conduct  refresher  courses  before conducting examination  and whether the failure to discharge the duty  was unconstitutional.  This Court  considered  the constitutional obligation  on the part of the authorities in implementing the  rule of  reservation and  pointed  out  in paras 21, 22 and 23 as under:      "21. It is now necessary to examine      the  nature   of   the   discretion      conferred  by   the   said   Office      Memorandum dated January 21, 1977 -      "Whether  it   is  a  discretionary      power     simpliciter      or     a      discretionary power  coupled with a      duty?" From  the provisions  of the      Constitution referred  to above, it      is transparently clear that it is a      discretion to  be exercised  in the      discharge  of   the  constitutional      duty imposed by Article 335 to take      into consideration  the  claims  of      the members of the Scheduled Castes      and    the     Scheduled    Tribes,      consistently with  the  maintenance      of efficiency of administration, in      the  making   of  appointments   to      services and  posts  in  connection      with the affairs of the Union or of      a  State.   This  duty   is  to  be      exercised  in   keeping  with   the      Directive Principle  laid  down  in      Article 46  to promote with special      care the  educational and  economic      interests of the weaker sections of      the people,  and, in particular, of      the  Scheduled   Castes   and   the      Scheduled Tribes,  and  to  protect      them from  social injustice and all      forms of  exploitation. Article  37      of the  Constitution provides  that      the Directive  Principles of  State      Policy contained  in Part IV of the      Constitution, in  which Article  46      occurs,  are   fundamental  to  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7  

    governance of  the country and that      it is  the duty  of  the  State  to      apply these  principles  in  making      laws. As said by Murtaza Fazal Ali,      J., in  State  of  Kerala  v.  N.M.      Thomas [at page 996 of the Reports:      SCC  p.   379,   para   164]   "the      directive   principles   form   the      fundamental feature  and the social      conscience of  the Constitution and      the Constitution  enjoins upon  the      State to  implement these directive      principles".      22. The  object of  the said Office      Memorandum dated  January 21, 1977,      is   to    provide   an    adequate      opportunity  of  promotion  to  the      members of the Scheduled Castes and      the Scheduled  Tribes. By reason of      the provisions of Article 16 (4) of      the Constitution a treatment to the      members of the Scheduled Castes and      the Scheduled Tribes different from      that given  to  others  in  matters      relating    to     employment    or      appointment to any office under the      State   does    not   violate   the      Fundamental Right  to  equality  of      opportunity  for  all  citizens  in      such matters  guaranteed by Article      16 (1)  of the  Constitution. It is      now well  settled by  decisions  of      this Court  that the reservation in      favour  of   backward  classes   of      citizens, including  the members of      the  Scheduled   Castes   and   the      Scheduled Tribes,  as  contemplated      by Article  16(4) can  be made  not      merely  in   respect   of   initial      recruitment but  also in respect of      posts to which promotions are to be      made: (see,  for instance  State of      Punjab v.  Hiralal  [(1971)  3  SCR      267]  and   Akhil  Bhartiya  Soshit      Karamchari Sangh  v. Union of India      [(1961) 1 SCC 246].      23. The question which now falls to      be  considered  is  the  manner  in      which the  Comptroller and Auditor-      General of  India  is  required  to      exercise the  discretion  conferred      by the said Office Memorandum dated      January 21, 1977, and the manner in      which he  has, in  fact,  exercised      it.  The   said  Office  Memorandum      dated January  21, 1977,  refers to      two other office memoranda, namely,      the   Office    Memorandum    dated      December 23,  1970, and  the Office      Memorandum dated November 27, 1972.      Under the  Office Memorandum  dated      December   23,    1970,   where   a      sufficient  number   of   Scheduled      Castes   and    Scheduled    Tribes      candidates are not available on the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7  

    basis of  the general  standard  to      fill all the vacancies reserved for      them, they  may also  be considered      for promotion provided they are not      found unfit for such promotion, and      to achieve  this, the  said  office      memorandum   directs    that    the      qualifying   standard    in    such      examinations  can   be  relaxed  in      their favour  in keeping  with  the      above   criterion.    The    Office      Memorandum dated November 27, 1972,      fixes the reservation quota for the      members of  the Scheduled Castes at      15% and  the Scheduled  Tribes at 7      1/2%  in   appointments  filled  by      promotion on the basis of seniority      subject to  fitness. Under the said      Office Memorandum dated January 21,      1977,  if   a   sufficient   Tribes      candidates are not available in the      qualifying  examinations   on   the      basis of  general standard  to fill      all the vacancies reserved for them      in the  promotional posts, suitable      relaxation   in    the   qualifying      standard  for   such   examinations      should be  made in  the case of the      Scheduled Castes  and the Scheduled      Tribes candidates  bearing in  mind      all  relevant   factors  including,      namely, (1) the number of vacancies      reserved, (2)  the  performance  of      the  Scheduled   Castes   and   the      Scheduled Tribes candidates in that      examination,   (3)    the   minimum      standard of fitness for appointment      to  the  post,  and  also  (4)  the      overall strength  of the  cadre and      that of  the Scheduled  Castes  and      the Scheduled Tribes in that cadre.      The said  Office  Memorandum  dated      January 21,  1977, thus  postulates      two  qualifying   standards-one,  a      general qualifying standard and the      other,   a    relaxed   or    lower      qualifying standard  for candidates      belonging to  the Scheduled  Castes      and the Scheduled Tribes. Paragraph      4 of  the  said  Office  Memorandum      dated February  8, 1968, reproduced      earlier, shows  that in the case of      direct   recruitment    through   a      qualifying  examination  a  minimum      standard is  generally to  be fixed      and that  in such  cases,  a  lower      minimum qualifying  standard should      be   fixed   for   the   candidates      belonging to  the Scheduled  Castes      and the  Scheduled  Tribes,  taking      into account  the minimum  standard      necessary for  the  maintenance  of      efficiency of  administration,  and      that  if   the  minimum  qualifying      standard for  general candidates is

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7  

    reviewed at a later date, the lower      minimum     qualifying     standard      applicable tot  he Scheduled Castes      and  Scheduled   Tribes  candidates      should also be reviewed. The Office      Memorandum  No.1/1/70-Estt.   (SCT)      dated July  25,  1970  which  deals      with   examination    for    direct      recruitment  also   speaks   of   a      general standard  and  of  a  lower      standard for  candidates  belonging      to the  Scheduled  Castes  and  the      Scheduled  Tribes,   the   standard      being required  to  be  relaxed  in      their   case   to   make   up   the      deficiency in the reservation quota      provided they  are not  found unfit      for such  post or  posts.  As  seen      above, a  similar provision  exists      in the said Office Memorandum dated      December 23,  1970, with respect to      departmental            competitive      examinations for  promotion and  in      departmental           confirmation      examinations."      This  principle   of  power   coupled  with   duty  was succinctly stated  by Earl Cairns L.C. in the House of Lords of Julius  V/s. Lord  Bishop of  Oxford [5  App. Cas. 214 at 222-223] quoted  with approval  therewith by  this Court  in Commissioner  of   Police,  Bombay   V/s  Gordhandas  Bhanji [(1952)] SCR 135 at 147] thus:      "There  may  be  something  in  the      nature of the thing empowered to be      done, something  in the  object for      which it  is to  be done, something      in the conditions under which it is      to be  done, something in the title      of the  person or persons for whose      benefit  the   power   is   to   be      exercised,  which  may  couple  the      power with  a duty, and make it the      duty of  the  person  in  whom  the      power  is  responded,  to  exercise      that power  when called  upon to do      so".      It would  thus be  clear that  the petitioner was under constitutional duty coupled with power. Every public servant is a  trustee of  the society  and in  all facets  of public administration, every public servant has to exhibit honesty, integrity, sincerity  and faithfulness  in implementation of the political,  social, economic and constitutional policies to  integrate   the  nation,   to  achieve   excellence  and efficiency in  the public  administration. A  public servant entrusted with  duty and  power to  implement constitutional policy under  Articles 16(4),  16(4-A), 15(4)  335  and  all inter-related   directive    principles,   should    exhibit transparency in  implementation and  of accountable  for due effectuation of  constitutional goals.  Maintenance  of  the roster and  strict adherence  to it  in accordance  with the brochure issued by the Government of India in that behalf to implement the rule of reservation in promotion is the charge and trust  put on  public  servants.  The  Constitution  has trusted  the  public  servant  as  honest  administrator  to effectuate  public  policy  and  constitutional  goals.  The petitioner herein,  has betrayed  that trust  and tended  to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7  

frustrate the  public policy. It is deducible from the facts that the  petitioner failed  to perform  that constitutional duty. The Administrator of the Union Territory of Chandigarh should look  into and  take appropriate  action against  the concerned erring  officers  and  report  compliance  to  the Registry of this Court within two months.      The Tribunal,  therefore, had  rightly held that in the year 1988,  the vacancy  ought to  have been  filled  up  by promoting the  respondent when  R.K. Sood was considered and vacancy reserved  for Scheduled Tribes was filled up without considering the  case of  the respondent.  Omission  thereof amounted to  violation of  constitutional duty and avoidance of implementation  of the rule of reservation and the roster provided by  the  Government.  The  view  of  the  Tribunal, therefore, is correct in law warranting no interference.      The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.