SYNDICATE BANK SC ST EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION MADRAS Vs. ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER SYNDICATE BANK MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that arises in the writ appeal is whether there should be reservation as found in Article 335 of the Constitution of India in the Nationalised Bank for the post of special assistants. The learned single Judge who heard the matter along with other three writ petitions dismissed the claim of the reservation made by the appellant/writ-petitioner, and against the said order, the present writ appeal has been preferred.

(2.) We heard Sri Anantharaju, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Sampathkumar, learned counsel for the respondents.

(3.) The submission of Sri Anantharaju, learned counsel for the appellant is that the post of special assistant is a selection post and the reservation under Article 335 of the Constitution of India should be made available for the selection to the post of special assistants. Learned counsel also submitted that a member from the scheduled caste community should also be included in panel for selection. His main submission is that the respondent- bank has failed to follow the rule of reservation. Learned counsel referred to the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and submitted that the Government of India had already issued instructions whereby the reservation is made compulsory and there shall be reservation in the selection of candidates to fill up the posts of special assistants and the selection made without the application of the rule of reservation is unconstitutional. Learned counsel strongly relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Syndicate Bank SC and ST Employees Association v. Union of India, 1990 (Supp) SCC 350 : 1990 2 LLJ 354, and submitted that the benefit of the reservation policy to members of SC and ST cannot be denied on the ground that promotional posts are to be filled by method of selection. Learned counsel also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 477 : 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 and submitted that the reservation for appointment can be made by way of executive order. Learned counsel referred to the concluding paragraph, viz., Para. 700 of the said judgment and submitted that this Court is constitutionally obliged to exercise the power of judicial review and interfere in the matter of selection to the post of special assistants as the reservation policy has not been followed by the respondent-bank. Learned counsel also referred to the Thirty Seventh report of the Committee on the Welfare of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (1982-83) and submitted that though the Committee has recommended in the year 1982-83 that the post of special assistants should be treated as a promotional post and taken out of the clerical cadre, the Government of India has not implemented the recommendation of the said Committee.