BIHAR STATE HARIJAN KALYAN PARISHAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Special leave granted.

(2.) The Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Bureau of Public Enterprises, issued a directive to the Chief Executives of all Public Sector Enterprises on the subject of reservation for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes in appointments in public enterprises. While 15% and 71/2 per cent of posts are generally to be reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes respectively, in the case of promotion of members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to posts promotion to which are by the selection method, a special procedure is devised by Para 9 of the directive. In the case of promotions within Group'A', it is laid down :

(3.) It is at once seen that the two letters are contrary to paragraph 9 of the Presidential Directive on which they purport to place reliance. Paragraph 9 of the Presidential Directive nowhere says that the rule of reservation does not apply to promotion by selection to posts within Group A which carry an ultimate salary of Rs. 2250/- per month or less. On the other hand paragraph 9 of the Presidential Directive proceeds on the basic assumption that the rule of reservation does apply but prescribes a certain procedure to be followed, a procedure different from the usual procedure adopted in filling up posts reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. It is indeed a matter of surprise to us that the Ministry of Steel and Mines has chosen to place such an interpretation on paragraph 9 of the Presidential Directive. The stand taken by them in the letter dated April 8, 1984 is reiterated in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Union of India. No explanation has been given in the counter affidavit for what appears to us to be a plain volte face. We have no option, but to quash the letters dated April 8, 1982 and August 19, 1982 above extracted by us and to direct the respondents to give effect to paragraph 9 of the Presidential Directive with effect from the date of the Directive. We have set out our interpretation of the Presidential Directive and effect will be given to the Presidential Directive in the manner interpreted by us. We also wish to make it clear that the classification of posts will be on the same lines as mentioned in paragraph 2 of the Presidential Directive. The writ petition is allowed with costs.