Supreme Court Allows Appellant in Promotion Case Due to Inclusion of Upgraded Posts. Upgraded Posts from Grade - III to Grade - II Counted for Reservation Under Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985.

In Favour of Accused
  • 0
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involved an appeal by K. Manickaraj against the Union of India regarding his promotion as Welfare Inspector Grade - II. The appellant, who belonged to the Scheduled Caste, sought promotion based on the availability of posts in the reserved category. He was initially appointed as Assistant Station Master and later promoted to Welfare Inspector Grade - III. The Central Administrative Tribunal had previously ruled that the number of posts in Grade - II remained at 23, despite some posts being upgraded from Grade - III, which the Tribunal deemed temporary and not applicable for reservation calculations. The Supreme Court analyzed whether the upgraded posts should be counted for the purpose of determining the reserved quota for Scheduled Caste individuals. The court found that the upgraded posts had been in effect since 1988 and were not temporary. Therefore, the total cadre strength of Grade - II was determined to be 26, allowing for four reserved posts for Scheduled Caste individuals. Since only three Scheduled Caste individuals were already in Grade - II, the appellant was entitled to promotion against the reserved quota. The Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal's judgment and directed the respondents to consider the appellant's promotion effective from 1993, allowing the appeal without costs.

Headnote

A) Administrative Law - Promotion and Reservation - Count of Upgraded Posts - Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, Section Not Mentioned - The court held that the upgraded posts from Grade - III to Grade - II should be included in the cadre strength for calculating the reserved quota for Scheduled Caste, as the upgradation was permanent and not temporary. The Tribunal's exclusion of these posts was erroneous, leading to the appellant's entitlement to promotion against the reserved quota. (Paras 1-2)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the number of upgraded posts from Grade - III to Grade - II meant for sports personnel can be taken into account for determining the number of reserved posts available for Scheduled Caste in Grade - II.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal's judgment, allowing the appeal and directing the respondents to consider the appellant's promotion to Grade - II effective from 1993.

Law Points

  • Promotion
  • Reservation
  • Scheduled Caste
  • Administrative Tribunal
  • Cadre Strength
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

1997 LawText (SC) (04) 13

OA No. 267 of 1994

1997-04-02

K. Ramaswamy, G.B. Pattanik

K. Manickaraj

Union of India

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal regarding promotion.

Remedy Sought

Promotion as Welfare Inspector Grade - II.

Filing Reason

Claim for promotion based on available posts in the reserved category.

Previous Decisions

Tribunal ruled that the number of posts in Grade - II remained at 23 and excluded upgraded posts from consideration.

Issues

Count of upgraded posts for reservation Entitlement to promotion based on cadre strength

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued for inclusion of upgraded posts in cadre strength for reservation. Respondent contended that upgraded posts were temporary and should not be counted.

Ratio Decidendi

The upgraded posts from Grade - III to Grade - II must be included in the cadre strength for calculating the reserved quota for Scheduled Caste, as they were permanent.

Judgment Excerpts

The upgraded posts which were made as early as in August 1987, as per Memorandum dated 24.08.1987, still continues. The Tribunal was in error in not taking into account the upgraded posts.

Procedural History

The appellant filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which was dismissed, leading to the present appeal.

Acts & Sections

  • Central Administrative Tribunal Act:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Landholders' Appeals in Land Acquisition Compensation Disputes, Setting Uniform Rates and Applying 10% Annual Accretion. Compensation for Taj Sultanpur Lands Directed at Rs.129.95 per sq. ft. to Match Jafrabad, and Rs.195 per sq....
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds State in Prize Competitions Tax Dispute Under Mysore Lotteries and Prize Competitions Control and Tax Act, 1951. Mysore Amendment Act 26 of 1957 Validly Imposed Tax on Prize Competitions Conducted During Stay of Central Act, Not...