- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Union Of India And Others v. Shantiranjan Sarkar .
Factual and Procedural Background
An advertisement was issued for filling the post of Postman/Mail Guard for extra-departmental candidates in the Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Port Blair. The respondent, whose name appeared at Sl. No. 124 of the seniority list of Dak Sevaks, applied and sat for the examination. The results published on 18-11-1997 stated “none qualified,” and further examinations were held in which the respondent again participated.
The respondent, an acknowledged member of the Scheduled Caste (SC), claimed to have secured more than the 30% qualifying marks applicable to SC/ST candidates and lodged several representations seeking appointment. Receiving no response, he filed Original Application No. — before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Calcutta Bench. On 12-9-2003, CAT dismissed the application on limitation as well as on the ground that he had “not been qualified in the written test as well as in the interview.”
The respondent then instituted WPCT No. 194 of 2003 in the Calcutta High Court, Circuit Bench at Port Blair. The writ petition was first dismissed on 9-7-2004, the Division Bench holding that only limitation barred relief. Upon review, the High Court recalled its earlier order on 30-11-2004 and, by judgment dated 11-4-2005, allowed the writ petition and granted relief to the respondent. The Union of India (appellants) filed the present appeal before the Supreme Court, which granted leave.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the respondent, an SC candidate, was entitled to be considered under the lower qualifying-mark benchmark (30%) despite the advertisement recognising only “Scheduled Tribe” and “OC” categories.
- Whether the respondent’s failure to obtain 45% marks (the benchmark for “OC” candidates) and his participation in subsequent examinations extinguished any enforceable right to appointment.
- Whether delay in approaching the Tribunal and courts barred equitable relief in favour of the respondent.
- Whether the appellants’ suppression of material facts before the Supreme Court should affect the maintainability of the special leave petition.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants’ Arguments
- The respondent failed in the 1997 test and subsequent examinations; hence he acquired no right to appointment, and the High Court could not direct his engagement as Peon/Group D.
- The respondent applied under the “OC” category, not as SC; therefore he needed to secure the 45% qualifying marks, which he did not achieve.
Respondent’s Arguments
- Supported the High Court’s finding that, as an SC candidate, he was entitled to the relaxed 30% cutoff and consequently to appointment.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court noted that the respondent’s Scheduled Caste status was undisputed and, under Article 341 of the Constitution, any SC member in any State is entitled to that status for Central Civil Services. A departmental notification dated 9-6-1989 expressly directed recognition of such status in examinations.
The Court underscored that the appellants never disputed the respondent’s scoring above 30% yet below 45%. Failure to include an SC category in the advertisement could not deprive the respondent of constitutionally guaranteed benefits; the denial resulted solely from the appellants’ administrative error.
Equity favoured overlooking delay because the Union of India, characterized as a “benevolent litigant,” should not benefit from its own wrongs. The Court severely criticised the appellants for suppressing the fact that the High Court had recalled its earlier dismissal; such conduct alone could have warranted dismissal of the appeal.
Accordingly, the Court found no ground to interfere with the High Court’s order granting relief.
Holding and Implications
The appeal is dismissed with costs of Rs 1,00,000; the High Court’s judgment ordering relief to the respondent stands affirmed.
Immediate implication: the respondent is entitled to appointment in the Postman/Mail Guard (Peon/Group D) cadre under the SC quota. Broader implications are limited; the decision reiterates that Scheduled Caste status, once constitutionally recognised, applies uniformly to Central Civil Services and that governmental litigants must act with candour and fairness.
S.B Sinha, J.— Leave granted.
2. The appellants are before us aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 11-4-2005 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta, Circuit Bench at Port Blair whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by the respondent herein was allowed.
3. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute.
An advertisement was issued for filling up the post of Postman/Mail Guard under the quota of extra-departmental candidate at Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Port Blair. The respondent herein pursuant thereto or in furtherance thereof applied for the said post. He appeared at an examination held for the said purpose. On or about 18-11-1997, the purported results of the said examination were published with the remarks “none qualified”. Subsequently, some other examinations were also held in which the respondent participated. Indisputably, he was a member of the Scheduled Caste. He filed several representations before the various authorities concerned contending that his candidature had not been considered despite the fact that he had obtained more than 30% of marks which was the cut-off mark for the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
4. As the said representations were not responded to, the respondent filed an original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, Kolkata. The said original application was dismissed on 12-9-2003 on the ground of limitation as also on merit, stating:
“Considering the respective contentions of the learned counsel for both sides, we find that the applicant having not been qualified in the written test as well as in the interview does not acquire any legal or enforceable right to seek employment for the post. In the result, the application is dismissed without any order as to costs.”
The respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court questioning the legality and/or validity of the said judgment and order which was marked as WPCT No. 194 of 2003.
5. The said writ petition was initially dismissed on 9-7-2004 by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, stating:
“Therefore, although, we do not approve the reason assigned by the Tribunal, we are not inclined to entertain this application as the ultimate conclusion of the Tribunal that the petitioner was not entitled to get any relief was correct. As indicated above, the Tribunal ought to have rejected the application only on the ground of limitation.”
However, a review application filed thereagainst was allowed. By reason of the impugned judgment dated 11-4-2005, the High Court has allowed the said writ application.
6. Mr B. Datta, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the appellants, would contend:
(i) the High Court committed a serious error insofar as it failed to take into consideration that having regard to the fact that the respondent failed to pass the tests held in the year 1997 and furthermore, having appeared in the subsequent examinations, had no right to be appointed and no direction for his appointment in the post of Peon or Group D, thus, could be issued by the High Court.
(ii) The respondent having applied against the vacancy in the “OC” category and not in the category of “Scheduled Caste”, it was obligatory on him to obtain the qualifying marks of 45% which he having failed to obtain, the impugned judgment is wholly unsustainable.
7. Ms Sarada Devi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, however, would support the impugned judgment.
8. Before adverting to the contentions raised before us by the learned counsel for the parties, we may notice that the appellants suppressed a material fact. It appears that the fact that the High Court had recalled its earlier order dated 9-7-2004 by an order dated 30-11-2004 had not been mentioned in the list of dates. This Court, therefore, must have proceeded on the basis that the impugned order was passed on a review application and not in the original writ proceedings. We do not find appropriate words to deprecate such a practice and that too by the Union of India. We should have dismissed the special leave petition on this ground alone. Let us, however, also consider the merit of the matter.
9. The fact that the respondent is a member of Scheduled Caste is not in dispute. His name figured at Sl. No. 124 of the seniority list of Dak Sevakas in A&N Islands Divisions, Port Blair. It has not been denied or disputed before us that in Central Administrative Services, a person belonging to Scheduled Caste in any State would be deemed to be a member of the Scheduled Caste. The respondent, therefore, should have been treated to be a member of “Schedule Caste” for the purpose of consideration of his candidature.
10. The High Court in its impugned order categorically held that the appellants at no point of time denied or disputed that the respondent had obtained marks more than 30% but less than 45%. The High Court furthermore noticed that the Notification dated 9-6-1989 issued by the Director of Postal Services, A&N Islands in categorical terms stated that his status of the Scheduled Castes should be accepted and recognised in the departmental examination. A member of a Scheduled Caste, thus, notified in any of the States within the territories of India, having regard to the provisions contained in Article 341 of the Constitution, was entitled to get the benefit of the said status for the purpose of entering into the Central Civil Services. The High Court furthermore has rightly held that as a member of the Scheduled Caste, the respondent was entitled to the benefit of the lower percentage of marks viz. 30% in the departmental examination for promotion from the post of extra-departmental Mail Guard to the post of Peon or Group D.
11. If, thus, for the reasons known to the respondent that he was entitled to the benefit of the status of the Scheduled Caste in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, irrespective of the fact that the advertisement issued recognised only two categories of reserved categories viz. Scheduled Tribes and “OC”, there was no reason to deprive the respondent from the said benefit. The respondent, therefore, was not appointed because of a mistake committed on the part of the authorities of the appellants. They, thus, cannot be permitted to take advantage of the same.
12. In that view of the matter, the delay in filing the original application should not be held to be a bar in granting him an equitable relief. The Union of India as a benevolent litigant cannot be permitted to take advantage of its own wrong. Furthermore, the appellants are guilty of suppression of material facts before this Court. It, in its list of dates, did not state that the original order of the High Court dated 9-7-2004 had been recalled and reviewed by the Division of the said Court by an order dated 30-10-2004.
13. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment should not be interfered with and is directed accordingly. The appeal is dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee assessed at Rs 1,00,000.
Alert