CWP No. 6497 of 2009 and connected cases. Case: Union of India and another Vs Jarnail Singh and others. High Court of Punjab (India)
| Case Number | CWP No. 6497 of 2009 and connected cases |
| Counsel | Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Vikas Kuthiala, Advocate, Mr. M.K. Tiwari, Advocate, Mr. Deepak Sibal, Advocate, Ms. Renu Bala Sharma, Sr. Panel Counsel, UOI, Mr. A.S. Grewal, Sr. Panel Counsel, Income Tax Department |
| Judges | M.M. Kumar, ACJ and A.N. Jindal, J. |
| Issue | Constitution of India - Articles 16(4A), 16(4B), 335 |
| Judgement Date | September 23, 2011 |
| Court | High Court of Punjab (India) |
Judgment:
M.M. Kumar, ACJ.
-
This order shall dispose of a bunch of petitions*, which have been filed against various orders rendered by the Chandigarh Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (for brevity, ''the Tribunal''), in various Original Applications. In these cases, the Tribunal by almost identical orders has issued directions for consideration of the cases of the Income Tax Inspectors belonging to Scheduled Caste category for promotion to the posts of Income Tax Officer on the basis of their ''own merit'' resulting in consumption of General category posts as against the roster point promotion, relaxed qualification promotion and other concessions. The necessary consequence is shrinking of General category seats for the inspectors belonging to General category and more posts becoming available to Schedule Caste category. The Tribunal has issued directions for consideration of their cases with effect from 11.6.1995 when 85th amendment of the Constitution came into operation.
-
It would be suffice to note that all the issues raised in these petitions and the judgment of the Tribunal dated 11.12.2008 passed in OA No. 519-PB-2007 as well as order dated 7.5.2009 passed in R.A. No. 24 of 2009, have already been gone into by this Court in the case of Lachhmi Narain Gupta and others v. Jarnail Singh and others (CWP No. 13218 of 2009, decided on 15.7.2011). After noticing the factual position and the rival contention of the parties, this Court reached the following conclusion:- "40. When the principles laid down in the case of M. Nagaraj (supra) and Suraj Bhan Meena (supra) are applied to the notifications impugned in the present proceedings, namely, 11.7.2002, 31.1.2005 (R-1 and R-2) and further notification dated 21.1.2009 and 10.8.2010, it becomes clear that no survey has been undertaken to find out inadequacy of representation in respect of members of the SC/ST in the services. The aforesaid fact has been candidly admitted in the written statement filed by respondent Nos. 5 and 6. In the absence of any survey with regard to inadequacy as also concerning the overall requirement of efficiency of the administration where reservation is to be made alongwith backwardness of the class for whom the reservation is required, it is not possible to sustain these notifications. Accordingly, it has to be held that these notifications suffers from violation of the provisions of Articles 16(4A), 16(4B) read with Article 335 of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial