ASHA DHIMAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue raised in this petition whether the petitioner who originally belonged to general caste but subsequently married to a scheduled caste was entitled to the benefit of reservation in employment may have required elaborate examination by us but in view of the recent pronouncement of the Apex Court in Mrs. Valsama Paul vs. Cochin University and others, 1996 1 JT 57it is no longer necessary to decide this question afresh. By a detailed judgment the Apex Court held that by marriage a general caste candidate does not become entitled to the benefit of reservation envisaged in Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India even though for other purposes the candidate may be considered as a member of scheduled castes or other reserved categories.

(2.) In view of the above pronouncement of the Supreme Court, we hold that the rejection of the petitioner's claim for grant of benefit of reservation does not suffer from any constitutional or other infirmity requiring interference by this Court. It is held that denial of appointment to the petitioner as Telex Operator-cum Assistant Grade III against reserved category post does not suffer from any illegality.

(3.) For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is dismissed.