# UNION OF INDIA AND ORS v. BRIJ LAL THAKUR

- **Citation:** [1997] 2 S.C.R. 1152
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1997-03-17
- **Bench:** K. Ramaswamy, G.T. Nanavati
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/union-of-india-and-ors-v-brij-lal-thakur-15295
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Service Law.
Reservation-Railway Hospital-f'ost of E.C.G. Technician-To be
C filled by promotion of theatre Assistants-Vacancy reserved for Scheduled
Castes in a cony forward post as per rotation of roster-In the trade test held
Scheduled Caste candidate found suitable a11d promoted to the post-Unsuccessful candidate challe11ged the appointme11t contendi11g that since the post
was a solitary post, reservation as per roster was unconstitutionaf-Tiibunal
D allowed the claim and set aside the appointme11t-Held, appointment by
promotion to the single post of E. C. G. Tech11icia11 applying 40 poillt post and
rnle of rotation, consideration of Scheduled Caste ca11didate to the said
vaca11cy is not violative of Articles 14 and 16( 1) of the Co11stitution-f'romotio11 is legal and valid-Order of the Tribunal is set aside-Constitution of
India-Articles 14 and 16(1).
E
F
G
Union of India & Anr. v. Madhav s/o Gajanan Chaubal & Anr., JT
(1996) 9 SC 320, relied on.
A.R. Choudhury v. U11io11 of India & Ors., [1974] 1 SCC 87; Commissioner of Commercial Taxes v. D. Sethu Madhva Rao, [1996] 7 SCC 512;
Ve11kteswarlu v. Govt. of A.P., [1996] 5 SCC 167 and State of Bihar v.
Bageshwardi Prasad, [1995] Supp. 1 SCC 432, referred to.

## Text

A
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
v.
BRIJ LAL THAKUR
MARCH 17, 1997
B
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.]
Service Law.
Reservation-Railway Hospital-f'ost of E.C.G. Technician-To be
C filled by promotion of theatre Assistants-Vacancy reserved for Scheduled
Castes in a cony forward post as per rotation of roster-In the trade test held
Scheduled Caste candidate found suitable a11d promoted to the post-Unsuccessful candidate challe11ged the appointme11t contendi11g that since the post
was a solitary post, reservation as per roster was unconstitutionaf-Tiibunal
D allowed the claim and set aside the appointme11t-Held, appointment by
promotion to the single post of E. C. G. Tech11icia11 applying 40 poillt post and
rnle of rotation, consideration of Scheduled Caste ca11didate to the said
vaca11cy is not violative of Articles 14 and 16( 1) of the Co11stitution-f'romotio11 is legal and valid-Order of the Tribunal is set aside-Constitution of
India-Articles 14 and 16(1).
E
F
G
Union of India & Anr. v. Madhav s/o Gajanan Chaubal & Anr., JT
(1996) 9 SC 320, relied on.
A.R. Choudhury v. U11io11 of India & Ors., [1974] 1 SCC 87; Commissioner of Commercial Taxes v. D. Sethu Madhva Rao, [1996] 7 SCC 512;
Ve11kteswarlu v. Govt. of A.P., [1996] 5 SCC 167 and State of Bihar v.
Bageshwardi Prasad, [1995] Supp. 1 SCC 432, referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2236 cif
1997.
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.5.96 of the Patna High Court
in L.P.A No. 815 of 1995.
B.B. Singh for the Appellants.
H
S.B. Sanyal and Ranjan Mukherjee for Respondent.
1152
--
U.O.I. v. B.L. THAKUR
1153
The following Order of the Court was deliven;d.
A
Delay condoned. Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
This appeal by special leave arises from the order passed on March B
31, 1995 by CA.T., New Delhi in O.A. No. 1801/94.
The post of E.C.G. Technician in the Grade of Rs. 1200-2040 became
vacant on November 30, 1993 in the Central Hospital, Northern Railway
due to retirement, Mrs. William Chand, a general candidate, holding that
post. For promotion of Theater Assistants to the said post, trade test was
conducted in which Smt. Prakash Kaur belonging to Scheduled Castes and
two others were called. The vacancy to be filled up was reserved for
Scheduled Castes in a carry forward post as per the rotation of the roster.
c
In the trade test held on December 8. 1994, Smt. Prakash Kaur was found
suitable and she was ·~ccordingly promoted as E.C.G. Technician w.e.f. D
December 9, 1994. The respondent an unsuccessful candidate filed O.A.
in the Tribunal contending that since the post of E.C.G. Technician is the
solitary post, reservation as per roster is unconstitutional as it would lead
to 100% reservation. The contention found favour with the Tribunal.
Accordingly, it set aside the appointment by promotion of Smt. Prakash
Kaur and gave direction to treat it as unreserved post and to consider the E
case of the respondent for appointment to the post according to Rules.
The controversy is no longer res illtegra. This Court in Union of India &
A11r. v. Madhav s/o Gaja11a11 Chaubal & Anr., JT (1996) 9 SC 320 by a
Bench of three Judges considered the entire case law following the Constitution Bench judgments in A.R. Choudhury v. U11io11 of India & Ors.,
F
(1974] 1 SCC 87, Comniissioner of Commercial Taxes v. D. Sethu Madhava
Rao, [1996] 7 SCC 512, Venktesltwarlu v. Govt. of A.P., [1996] 5 SCC 167
and State of Bihar v. Bageshwardi Prasad, (1995] Supp. 1 SCC 432. It was
held that "even though there is a single post, if the Government have
applied the rule of rotation and roster point to the vacancies that had
arisen in the single point post and were sought to be filed up by the G
candidate belonging to the reserved categories at the point on which they
were eligible to be considered, such a rule is not violative of Articles 14
and 16(1) of the Constitution", In that case the post of Secretary in the
National Savings Scheme Service was a Single point post to which 40 point
roster was maintained to the vacancy in the said post. When the Scheduled H
-t
1154
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1997) 2 S.C.R.
\
A
Tribes candidate was selected for promotion on the basis the rule of
rotation, it was held by the Tribunal that the promotion was violative of
Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. Reversing that Order it was held
B
c
D
that:
·
'
"Thus, the Government have adhered to the rule of rotation to a
single post and the 40 point roster to the single post was applied
and the vacancy reserved for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes as and when had arisen, was sought to be filled up, when
the candidates were available. Thus, we hold that the roster point
No. 4 in the vacancy of the Secretary reserved for the Scheduled
Tribes was valid and constitutional. When the officer available and
was eligible to be considered, he was entitled to be considered in
accordance with the rules and be promoted .as Secretary. The
Tribunal, therefore, was not right in directing that the rule of
rotation to the single post could not be applied. It is brought to
our notice that the original promotee died pending the proceedings andriherefore. as and when vacancy arises as per rule of
rntation as per roster the same would be filled up in accordance
. with law."
Accordingly, we hold that appointment by promotion to the single
post of E.C.G. Technician applying 40 point post and rule of rotation,
consideration of Smt. Prakash Kaur to the said vacancy is not violative of
Articles 14 and 16(1). of the Constitution. The promotion is legal and valid.
The Tribunal, therefore, was incorrect in setting aside the promotion of
E
Mrs. Prakash Kaur.I
,,
F
The appeal is accordingly allowed. The order of the Administrative
Triburtal stand set aside. The petition stands dismissed. No costs .
......
R.P.-
Appeal itllowed.
/