Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, K. Shyamsundar, an IRS officer belonging to the Scheduled Caste, applied for the post of Member (Technical) in the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) pursuant to a notification dated 17.8.2009. The notification did not indicate any reservation for SC/ST candidates. The petitioner claimed that the rules of reservation under Articles 16(4) and 335 of the Constitution should apply. The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) rejected his claim, and he filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that appointments to tribunals like CESTAT are governed by specific statutory provisions under the Customs Act, 1962 and Central Excise Act, 1944, and the CESTAT Members (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1987, which do not provide for reservation. The court reasoned that the constitutional provisions on reservation apply only to civil posts under the State, not to quasi-judicial bodies. The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Reservation in Appointments - Applicability to Tribunals - Articles 16(4) and 335 of the Constitution of India - The court held that the rules of reservation under Articles 16(4) and 335 do not apply to appointments to tribunals like CESTAT, as such appointments are governed by specific statutory provisions and rules framed thereunder, not by general rules of reservation applicable to civil posts under the State. (Paras 1-16)
B) Service Law - CESTAT - Appointment of Members (Technical) - Section 129 of the Customs Act, 1962 and Section 35D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - The court held that the appointment of Members (Technical) to CESTAT is governed by the CESTAT Members (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1987, which do not provide for reservation. The notification inviting applications did not indicate any reservation, and the petitioner's claim that reservation should be applied was rejected. (Paras 3-16)
C) Administrative Law - Tribunal Appointments - No Reservation - The court held that the principle of reservation under the Constitution applies only to appointments in the services under the State, not to appointments to tribunals which are quasi-judicial bodies. The petitioner, a Scheduled Caste candidate, could not claim reservation for the post of Member (Technical) in CESTAT. (Paras 10-16)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the rules of reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes under Articles 16(4) and 335 of the Constitution of India apply to appointments to the post of Member (Technical) in the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the rules of reservation under Articles 16(4) and 335 of the Constitution do not apply to appointments to the post of Member (Technical) in CESTAT. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Reservation not applicable to tribunal appointments
- Articles 16(4) and 335 of Constitution
- Section 129 of Customs Act 1962
- Section 35D of Central Excise Act 1944
- CESTAT Members (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules 1987
Case Details
2014 LawText (BOM) (04) 59
Writ Petition No.5548 of 2012
Anoop V. Mohta, M.S. Sonak
Mr.G.K. Masand i/b Mr. A.A. Manwani for Petitioner; Mr. Ashok Shetty a/w. Mr. A.M. Sethna, Mr. A. R. Varma i/b Mr. H.P Chaturvedi for the Union of India-Respondents
Union of India through Secretary (Revenue), Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance; The Secretary, Department of Personnel and Training and Public Grievance; Cabinet Secretary
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the order of Central Administrative Tribunal rejecting claim for reservation in appointment to the post of Member (Technical) in CESTAT.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of CAT order and direction to apply rules of reservation for SC/ST in the appointment process.
Filing Reason
Petitioner, a Scheduled Caste candidate, applied for the post of Member (Technical) in CESTAT but the notification did not indicate any reservation; his claim for reservation was rejected by CAT.
Previous Decisions
Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) by order dated 26.4.2012 in O.A. No.36 of 2011 rejected the petitioner's claim.
Issues
Whether the rules of reservation under Articles 16(4) and 335 of the Constitution apply to appointments to the post of Member (Technical) in CESTAT.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that reservation for SC/ST should apply to all appointments under the State, including tribunals.
Respondents argued that appointments to CESTAT are governed by specific statutory rules which do not provide for reservation, and constitutional reservation provisions do not apply to quasi-judicial bodies.
Ratio Decidendi
Appointments to tribunals like CESTAT are governed by specific statutory provisions and rules framed thereunder, not by general constitutional provisions on reservation. The CESTAT Members (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1987 do not provide for reservation, and the notification did not indicate any reservation. Therefore, the petitioner's claim for reservation was rightly rejected.
Judgment Excerpts
This petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 26.4.2012 in O.A. No.36 of 2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) rejecting the Petitioner's claim that the rules of reservation be applied for appointments to the post of Member (Technical) in Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).
The court held that the rules of reservation under Articles 16(4) and 335 of the Constitution do not apply to appointments to tribunals like CESTAT, as such appointments are governed by specific statutory provisions and rules framed thereunder.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed O.A. No.36 of 2011 before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) seeking application of reservation rules for SC/ST in the appointment of Member (Technical) in CESTAT. CAT rejected the claim on 26.4.2012. The petitioner then filed Writ Petition No.5548 of 2012 before the Bombay High Court, which was dismissed on 21.4.2014.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Articles 16(4), 335
- Customs Act, 1962: Section 129
- Central Excise Act, 1944: Section 35D
- CESTAT Members (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1987:
