E SAYED ALI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was a native of Lakshwadeep and belong to the Scheduled Tribe community. He applied for Veterinary Assistant Surgeon post in Pondicherry and according to him, his selection was against the ST vacancy through UPSC on All India basis in the year 1990. The next avenue for promotion is to the post of Joint Director. According to the petitioner, he was eligible for next promotion as Joint Director in any roster since 1.2.1996 and when vacancies arose to the post of Joint Director, as per 40 point roster, there was a point for ST category and he had represented to the first respondent to consider his case against that point, but the same was denied. In O.A.No.364 of 1999, dated 19.4.2001, the Tribunal had repelled the contention that migrant SC/ST cannot be granted promotion to the post of Joint Director and despite passage of more than 14 years of service, the petitioner continue to remain in the same cadre, having not promoted even once. The next promotional post of Joint Director was created in the year 1993 by enmass upgradation of the post of Deputy Director and there are 11 sanctioned posts in the said cadre and if reservation rule was applicable, point No.7 and 14 of the Communal Roster should have been filled by SC/ST candidates respectively.

(2.) THE further case of the petitioner is that though he was eligible and there were vacancies, during the DPCs conducted on 24.2.1999, 15.2.2000 and on 17.2.2001, his claim was not considered and by the fourth DPC held on 14.8.2002, the names of four officials including that of Dr.P.Padmanabhan/the fourth respondent herein were recommended. Admittedly, the fourth respondent belongs to SC community and by converting the post available for ST community, he was promoted. Hence, the petitioner has challenged the said promotion of the fourth respondent before the Tribunal.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the fourth respondent would justify the finding of the Tribunal, insofar as it rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the ground that he being a migrant ST, is not entitled for reservation in the Union Territory of Pondicherry. He has further contended that the reservation policy of the Central Government will not apply to the Union Territories and therefore, the reservation policy of the Central Government is not binding on the Union Territories. In support of his contentions, he has relied on the following judgments: