- (1.) This special leave petition arises from the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, made on 6-9-1996 in OA No. 330/CH/89. Admittedly, the respondent belongs to Scheduled Castes and was eligible for promotion as Head-Draftsman. For the promotion to the said post, the petitioners appointed Mr. Ravinder Kumar Sood on March 30, 1988 and Mr. Dharam Nand on March 14, 1989. The respondent had challenged their promotion and non-consideration of his case claiming that he was eligible to be considered in the post as a reserved candidate though the post was meant for Scheduled Tribes. By order of the Government of India, the posts are inter-changeable between Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes and if the candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribes is not available, the eligible candidate belonging to Scheduled Castes in entitled to be considered for promotion to the post reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidates. Since he was not considered, the legitimate right to promotion given according to the roster was denied to him. The Tribunal accepted the contention and allowed the petition. In the meanwhile, pending his application he came to be promoted on June 26, 1993. However, direction was given to consider him from the date he was actually due for promotion with consequential benefits in the place to which R. K. Sood was promoted.
(2.) Mr. K. B. Rohtagi, learned counsel for the petitioners, contends that in respect of the Union Territory of Chandigarh, no Scheduled Tribes list is available and, therefore, the vacancy reserved for Scheduled Tribes cannot be treated to be one available to the Scheduled Tribes. We find no force in the contention. The Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, admittedly, by letter dated June 12, 1986 had given direction that since in the Union. Territory of Chandigarh, the population of Scheduled Tribes is not available, the principle of alternative exchange to the Scheduled Castes should be adopted. Consequently, when vacancy No. 1 in the roster is available to the Scheduled Tribes, it requires to be filled by considering, for promotion, the candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes. It is, there-fore, clear that though Scheduled Tribe candidate was not available to fill up the vacancy at No. 1 in the roster, the candidate belonging to the Scheduled Castes was required to be considered according to the Rules and given promotion on seniority-cum-fitness basis which is the rule under which the candidates are required to be considered. Admittedly, as on the time Mr. R. K. Sood was promoted, i.e., March 30, 1988 the respondent was admittedly eligible o be considered but he was not considered on the specious ground that as per the carry forward rule the period of three years had expired. Therefore, he was not eligible at that time. That contention is also not acceptable for the reason that in the brochure for Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, the word "subsequent recruitment year" has been interpreted in Chapter II thereof as under: "Recruitment year shall mean a calendar year and for purposes of three years limit for carry forward of reserved vacancies shall mean the year in which recruitment is actually made."
(3.) Thus, it is clear that in a calendar year, i.e., from 1st January to 31st December of the calendar year, if the recruitment has been made and if the candidates belong to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are not available, the reserved vacancies are required to be carried forward for three recruitment years. Take for instance, the recruitment took place in the year 1986 and the candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are not available, the vacancies are required to be carried forward for three recruitment years thereafter. Suppose the second recruitment takes place in 1989, the second recruitment year is 1989 but not the year 1987, as sought to be interpreted by the respondent. It is seen and admitted that in the year 1987, the respondent was not eligible. Therefore, the post was carried forward to the year 1987 and in 1988 the post was filled up without considering the case of the respondent and the petitioners construed it to be three recruitment years and thereby it is said that the period of three years for the purpose has elapsed. The construction is fallacious and deliberate to deny the benefit of reservation in the light of the unequivocal instructions as extracted hereinbefore. Moreover, no proceedings for reservation and prior approval of the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs were obtained. We are surprised to note, as rightly pointed out by the Tribunal, that the petitioner, Union Territory Office, despite given repeated opportunities to produce the roster, has suppressed production of the roster which they are enjoined to maintain. In the petition, no explanation has been offered. The duty to implement the rule of reservation is a constitutional duty to be performed honestly, sincerely and in its true contents and spirit which the petitioner appears to have derelicted.;