S.N. Aggarwal vs Union Of India And Ors.
1991 Latest Caselaw 501 Del

JUDGMENT

B.N. Kirpal, J.

(1) The applicant Shri S.N. Aggarwal seeks a review of our judgment dated April 19, 1991 to the limited extent that in so far as while disposing of his writ petition. We directed that be can be appointed only against the vacancy of Point No. 17 of the Roster but that being a reserved vacancy, only after de-reservation by the Central Government in terms of the instructions contained in the Brochure, including the Order issued on April 25, 1989. The High Court was accordingly directed to make a reference for de-reservation in terms of the said circular of the Central Government dated 25th April, 1989.

(2) The applicant now states in this application for review, that a working of the roster reveals that the vacancy created by the retirement of Shri G.S. Dakha is a general category, vacancy, even though Shri Dakha belonged to Scheduled Caste category. The observation made by us in our judgment in respect to this vacancy, likely to occur on the retirement of Shri G.S. Dakha in May, 1991, was on the understanding that he being a Scheduled Caste candicate, the vacancy to be created by his retirement was bound to be a vacancy reserved for a Scheduled Caste candidate. This mis-conception occurred because during the final hearing of the arguments, there was no representation from the High Court of Delhi and all the parties before us proceeded on this assumption that the vacancy which shall occur on the retirement of Shri Dakha will have to be treated as a vacancy reserved for a candidate, belonging to the Scheduled Castes.

(3) In reply to the notice of this review application, the High Court has now filed a counter-affidavit giving a complete working .of the roster till date and it is stated that after taking into account the two posts given to the two Scheduled Caste candidates viz., Shri Prithvi Raj and G.S. Jugti, the vacancy that occurred in May, 1991 on the retirement of Shri Dakha, shall fall against Point No. 22 of the roster, and that is a general category vacancy. The de reservation is required only in respect to the vacancy against Point No. 17, which Is meant for Scheduled Tribe candidate.

(4) The position which thus emerge is that this factual error crept in, because of the lack of clarification from the side of the High Court and assumptions being raised because of Shri G.S. Dakha being a Scheduled Caste candidate. It now becomes clear beyond any doubt, pursuant to the counter affidavit filed by the High Court, that the vacancy occurring on the retirement of Shri G.S. Dakha is to be filed in as a general vacancy against Point No. 22 of the roster. The result is that now these are two vacancies of unreserved category and these are at Points 21 and 22, and the third can be filled up only after getting dereservation from the Central Government, against the vacancy of Point No. 17. In so far as the two other reserved vacancies are concerned which are of Points 8 and 20 of the roster, they have already been ordered to be given to the two Scheduled Caste candidates who were respondents 6 and 7 in the writ petition.

(5) Accordingly, two candidates of general category can now be adjusted against vacancies of unreserved category of Point No. 21 and 22. We are given to understand that the applicant Sbri S.N. Aggarwal was at No. 2 in the panel. No. I being Mrs. Reva Khetrapal.

(6) In view of the clarification given by the High Court today, the review application is to be allowed because there was certainly some error as to the factual position in respect to the number of general category vacancies available. We now direct that the candidates at No. I and No. 2 of the panel formed as a result of the interviews held in October, 1988 viz., Mrs. Reva Khetrapal and Shri SN. Aggarwal be appointed against unreserved vacancies of Point No. 21 and 22. In so far as the third candidate in the panel Shri P.K. Bhasin is concerned, the directions given in our judgment dated 19th April, 1991 in respect to Sbri S.N. Aggarwal shall mutates mutants apply to Shri PK. Bhasin and the High Court shall act accordingly in respect to Shri P.K. Bhasin instead of Shri S.N. Aggarwal.

(7) The review application is allowed accordingly in the above terms.

(8) In view of the fact that the vacancies are in existence since a number of years and both the petitioners as well as respondents 6 and 7 were selected as far back as in 1989 and 1990, we direct that the High Court should take necessary steps for appointment of the candidates, who can be fitted clearly against the reserved vacancies viz., respondents 6, 7 and also those who can be fitted against the unreserved vacancies in terms of the order being passed today viz., Mrs. Reva Khetrapal and Shri S.N. Aggarwal within six weeks from today and similarly steps for making a reference to Central Government for dereservation of the vacancy of Point No. 17 against which Shri P.K. Bhasin can be appointed in view of our judgment and this order, should also be taken within six weeks.