UNION OF INDIA Vs. RAJENDRA KUMAR GAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have filed this writ petition challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal'), Jodhpur dated 11.5.2001 passed in O.A. No. 286/98.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that a Notification dated 8.7.1998 was issued by the petitioners (the railway in particular) to fill up one vacancy of Welfare Inspector in the Grade of Rs. 5000 -8000/ -. The vacancy was declared reserved for the Scheduled Caste (for short 'the SC') candidate. Aggrieved against the reservation of the vacancy, non -petitioners No. 1 and 2 submitted Original Application No. 286/98 before the Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur on the ground inter alia that by filling up one vacancy of Welfare Inspector only from among the reserve category candidates, will amount 100% reservation of the post which is impermissible in law and will deprive the applicant from participating in selection for the post. It was further submitted that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of R.K. Sabarwal v. Stale of Punjab, 1995 (2) SCC 754, and in the case of Union of India v. J.C. Malik and Ors., Civil Appeal No. 2017/78, reservation of SC and ST categories cannot exceed 15% and 7.5% respectively, therefore, the Notification issued by the Railway on 8.7.98 for reservation of one vacancy is contrary to law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. It was also submitted that the Department of Personnel and Training (for short 'the DOPT') of the Government of India vide memorandum dated 2,7.1997 issued the model roster for implementation of the directions and instructions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sabharwal's case. According to the aforesaid roster (Annex. A/2) submitted in the original application, in model roster 200 posts, every 7th post/vacancy has been shown reserved for SC candidate and every 14th post vacancy has been shown for reserved for ST candidate for reservation in promotions, keeping in view of prescribed percentage of reservation i.e. 15% and 7.5% for SC/ST candidates respectively. The contention of the applicant was also that with regard to a cadre of 13 posts, a unique vacancy post L -type roster has been introduced for making reservation up to the extent of 15%. This L -type roster has also been challenged by the applicant.

(3.) THE petitioners in the present writ petition, original non - applicants before the Tribunal submitted reply to the O.A. and contended that the Railway Board being a law making authority, has right to issue office memorandum dated 21.8.1997. It is also submitted that model roster issued by DOPT is only a model roster and not final roster. Office memorandum issued by the DOPT itself instructed concerned department to prepare their own roster, therefore, roster issued by the Railway Board is as permitted by the memorandum of DOPT and the roster issued by the Board is not running contrary to the memorandum of DOPT, therefore, it is validly issued by the Board. It was also submitted that the cadre strength of post of Welfare Inspector is two, against which the first vacancy was filled up by Shri Sanjay Gangwal (general category candidate) (unreserved post) and the second post was filled by Shri Tarachand Gehlot (unreserved post). Thereafter when one post of Welfare Inspector became vacant, the first replacement was done by unreserved person and Shri Suryia Prakash was promoted and when another vacancy became available then the second replacement was kept reserved for SC candidates as per L -type roster issued by the Railway Board. It was contended by the petitioner -non -applicants that they have not exceed the percentage of 15% and 7,5% of SC and ST candidates and, therefore, the model L -type roster issued vide office memorandum dated 21.8.1997 by the Railway Board is not in contravention of the law laid down by the Apex Court.