SUBHASH YADAV Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS O.A. was heard with O.A. No. 322 of 2013. Although relief sought is similar but facts and circumstances and impugned order being distinct and different, the O.As. are being decided separately. Through this Original Application filed under Section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant seeks the following relief(s): -

(2.) THE facts as stated by the applicant is that he was engaged as E.D.M.C/E.D.D.A. Gangaupur (Dubari) Mau vide letter dated 02.05.1994 (Annexure A -2). The order was signed by Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, Mau. The nature of his employment was contractual and was liable to be terminated either by the employer or by the applicant by notifying the other in writing. His services were governed by the P&T ED Agent (Conduct & Service) Rules, 1964 (later replaced by Gramin Dak Sevak (C & E) Rules 2001). The post of G.D.S. B.P.M. Gangaupur (Dubari) fell vacant in the year 2006 on the superannuation of the incumbent. The applicant was given additional charge of the post of G.D.S. B.P.M. by the order dated 29.09.2006 (Annexure A -3) signed by Senior Superintendent of Post Offices. The order reads as follows: -

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the applicant has cited the judgment given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Another v. Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava and Another, : (2002) 1 SCC 188 : 2002 (1) SLJ 107 (SC) in which it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that until there is plurality of posts in a cadre, the question of reservation will not arise because any attempt of reservation by whatever means and even with device of rotation of roster in a single post cadre is bound to create 100% reservation of such post whenever such reservation is to be implemented. He has further cited the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of The Union of India and Ors. v. Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, Chennai, decided on 18th March, 2010 in which Hon'ble High Court has held that in a case where on a date when the notification of a vacancy was made, there was no representation from the Scheduled Caste and therefore, vacancy which was carry forward was sought to be filled up by Scheduled Caste category. It has further been held that even though there may be short fall in the department for SC/ST candidate, the short fall could not be made good by their carry forward vacancy, which was not assigned to a Scheduled Caste candidate. He has also cited the pronouncement of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Chandra Kant Bhardwaj v. State of UP and Another decided in CMWP No. 47015/02 dated 4th August, 2004 in which it has been held as follows: -