K MATHIVANAN ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER DIVISION 6 ELECTRICITY DEPARTMENT PONDICHERRY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will dispose of four writ petitions. They being W.P.Nos.2897 of 1998 and 19310 of 1999, filed by the two petitioners, whose promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer has been ordered to be quashed by the Central Administrative Tribunal ("Tribunal" in short) and W.P.Nos.3086 and 3090 of 1998, filed by the Union of India, through the Chief Secretary to the Union Territory of Pondicherry and there also the Tribunal's order quashing the promotions of the aforementioned two writ petitioners is assailed. The following factual matrix shall be necessary to understand the controversy involved.

(2.) K.Mathivanan, writ petitioner in W.P.No.2897 of 1998 and A.Dhanushkody, writ petitioner in W.P.No.19310 of 1999 were at the relevant time working as Assistant Engineers in the Electricity Department of Union Territory of Pondicherry. Both of them admittedly originated from the State of Tamil Nadu. While Mathivanan belongs to "Parayan" community, Dhanushkody belongs to "Pallan" community. Both these castes are admittedly Scheduled Castes within the meaning of Presidential orders as are applicable to the State of Tamil Nadu. They were registered with the employment exchange in the state of Tamil Nadu. On a request from the Pondicherry Government, their names were forwarded to the Pondicherry Government where the posts of Draughtsmen were available and both of them were appointed in the said posts after the interview and after being selected for the same. They were given promotions as Section Officer, Junior Engineer and ultimately to the post of Assistant Engineer. The Electricity Department had to fill up the further promotional post of Assistant Executive Engineer, which is a Group-A post. In all eight posts were available and out of the eight posts two posts were set apart for the Scheduled Castes. After the interviews, along with the others, the writ petitions also came to be promoted as Assistant Executive Engineers. This promotion, which was finalised by G.O.Ms.No.30, dated 23.8.1996, was challenged separately by one Singaravelu and Jayanama, who filed O.A.Nos.424 and 425 of 1997 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by a common order quashed those appointments on promotion taking the view that the petitioners being the migrants from the State of Tamil Nadu to the Union Territory of Pondicherry could not claim any reservation in the matter of promotion or appointment and could not thus steal a march over the original applicants, viz., Singaravelu and Jayaraman, who were also in the realm of selection owing to their seniority and owing to their being branded as "very good" in the matter of selection like the petitioners. The Tribunal has after quashing the promotions of the petitioners, directed the department to convene a Departmental Promotion Committee for considering the promotions. This is how the petitioners have come before us by way of the present petitions.

(3.) NOW coming back to the question as to whether the petitioners could in reality be said to be entitled to the benefits of reservation and on that basis could be promoted, the whole question will depend upon only on one circumstance as to whether in reality the petitioners are Scheduled Caste person. When we see the judgment of the Tribunal, the learned Members have relied upon the earlier judgment passed by the Tribunal in Sivachanguvelu v. Union of India, O.A.Nos.199 and 214 of 1996, wherein after taking the complete resume of the correspondence, circulars, memos, etc. of the Pondicherry Government as also of the Central Government, the Tribunal has chosen to rely on the two aforementioned judgments of Marri Chandra case,(1990)3 S.C.C. 30 and Action Committee case,(1994)5 S.C.C. 244. It will be, therefore, our endeavour to see as to whether the Tribunal has correctly relied upon that position.