THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY VS RANGACHARI : CASE SUMMARY

The Supreme Court in the General Manager, Southern Railway Vs Rangachari (1962) AIR 36   held that reservation in promotion is permissible under Article 16 (4) of the Constitution.  Subsequently the Supreme Court in Indra Sawney overruled this decision of the Supreme Court wherein it was held that reservation in promotion is not permissible.

FACTS OF THE CASE

In the Railways there used to four grades of Court Inspectors in class III – (i) Court Inspector on Rs.  200 – 300 (ii) Court Inspectors on Rs. 260- 350 (iii) Chief Court Inspectors on Rs. 300-400 and (iv) Chief Court Inspectors on Rs. 360 -500.   In the first grade, recruitment was made partly through direct recruitment and partly by selection. In the remaining three grades appointment was being made through selection only and they were classified as selection posts.

The Respondent was interviewed by Selection Board for promotion and his promotion to higher grade i.e. Rs. 260- 350 was regularized and an order was passed on June 30, 1959.

In the meantime, Railway Board issued two circulars providing for reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in selection posts.  On the basis of the same,  the Selection Committee decided to consider case of Hiriyanna, a member of Scheduled Tribes, for promotion.

The Respondent filed Writ Petition before High Court claiming that the two circulars were ultra virus which was allowed by High Court.

FINDINGS OF THE SUPREME COURT

The Supreme Court observed that in deciding scope and ambit of Fundamental Rights of equality and opportunity, a technical and pedantic approach must be avoided. Matters related with employment must include all matters in relation to employment both prior, and subsequent to the employment which are incidental to the employment and form part of terms and conditions of such employment.  Promotion to selection post is covered under Article 16 (1) and (2).

The main issue before the Court was whether promotion to selection post is covered under Article 16 (4) ?

Article 16 (4) provided that nothing in this Article shall prevent the State from making any provision for reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which in opinion of state is not adequately represented in the services in the State.

The Supreme Court was of the opinion that it would be unreasonable to treat the word “post” as a term of art and to clothe it inexorably with the meaning of ex-cadre posts.

The opinion formed by State that the representation available to the backward classes of citizens in any of the services is inadequate is a condition precedent for the exercise of  power conferred by Article 16 (4). The key clause of Art. 16 (4) which prescribes a condition precedent for invoking the power conferred by it itself unambiguously indicates that the word “posts” cannot mean ex-cadre post.

The Supreme Court was of the view that power of reservation which is conferred on State under Article 16 (4) can be exercised by the State in a proper case not only by providing for reservation of appointments but also by providing for reservation of selection posts.

The Supreme Court observed that while providing for reservation of appointments or posts under Article 16 (4) the State has to take into consideration the claims of members of the backwards classes consistently with efficiency of administration. Efficiency of administration is of such paramount importance that it would be unwise and impermissible to make any reservation at the cost of efficiency of administration. Reservation which can be made under Article 16 (4) is intended to merely give adequate representation to backward communities. It cannot be used for creating monopolies or unduly or illegitimately disturbing the legitimate interests of other employees.

In exercising the powers under Article 16 (4) the problem of adequate representation of the backward class of citizens must be fairly and objectively considered and an attempt must always be made to strike a reasonable balance between the claims of backward classes and the claims of other employees as well as the important consideration of the efficiency administration.

The Supreme Court concluded that circulars are not unconstitutional and reversed the findings of the High Court.

______________________________________