IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(ORDER XVI RULE 4(1)(a))

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION

(Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India)

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. OF 2007

(With Prayer for Interim Relief)

BETWEEN POSITION OF PARTIES

In the High In this Court

Court from
Whose order
the petition
arises

Dr. Jagam, Respondent 5 Petitioner

Joint Director,
Animal Husbandry Dept,
Pondicherry

AND

1) Dr. Padmanabhan, Petitioner Respondent 1

Veterinary Assistant Surgeon,
Animal Husbandry Dept.,
Pondicherry.

2) Union of India, Respondent 1 Respondent 2

rep. by Govt. of Pondicherry,
through the Secretary to
Govt. for Animal Husbandry,
Chief Secretariat,
Pondicherry.

3) The Secretary,
Union Public Service
Commission,
Dholphur House,
New Delhi Respondent 2 Respondent 3

4) Dr. Rajamanickam Respondent 3 Respondent 4

Joint Director,
Animal Husbandry Dept,
Pondicherry

5) Dr. Krishnamoorthy, Respondent 4 Respondent 5

Joint Director,
Animal Husbandry Dept,
Pondicherry

1
6) Dr. Deivasigamani, Respondent 6 Respondent 6
Joint Director,
Animal Husbandry Dept,
Pondicherry

7) Dr. Krishnamohan, Respondent 7 Respondent 7

Joint Director,
Animal Husbandry Dept,
Pondicherry

8) The Registrar, Respondent 8 Respondent 8

Central Administrative
Tribunal,
Madras Bench

To

Hon’ble The Chief Justice of India and his companion Judges of

the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

The humble special leave petition of the petitioner above

named.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. The petitioner above named respectfully submits that

the petition seeking Special Leave to Appeal against the

judgment dated 22.11.2006 passed in W.P. No. 2028 of

2003 by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras. By the said

judgment, the Hon’ble High Court of Madras has literally

allowed a writ petition filed by the 1 s t respondent herein

against the order passed in O.A. No. 364 of 1999 dated

19.4.2001 without any notice to the petitioner herein as

well as respondents 4 to 7 and has further directed the

2 n d respondent herein to consider the 1 s t respondent’s

plea for being appointed as Joint Directed in the S.C.

category from the date on which the petitioner was

promoted.

2
2. Questions of Law:

The following questions of law arise for consideration by

this Hon'ble Court:-

I. Whether the Hon’ble High Court was right in

allowing the plea of the 1 s t respondent for being

promoted along with the petitioner, without even

ordering notice to the petitioner in the writ petition

filed by the 1 s t respondent?

II. Whether the Hon'ble High Court was right in

granting a relief to the detriment of the petitioner

without hearing the petitioner and even before the

service of summons was completed in W.P. No.

2028 of 2003 filed by the 1 s t respondent herein?

III. Whether the Hon'ble High Court was right in

accepting the plea of the 1 s t respondent herein

when the issue pertaining benefit of reservation to

a migrant S.C. candidate has already been

decided by this Hon'ble Court in Union of India Vs.

Doonath Prasad reported in 2001 CTC 480?

IV. Whether the Hon'ble High Court was right in

accepting the plea of the 1 st respondent in

violation of the principles of natural justice?

V. Whether the Hon'ble High Court was right in

directing the 2 n d respondent to consider the plea of

the 1 s t respondent for the S.C. category post on a

post based roster method which was specifically

3
 set aside by this Hon'ble Court in R.K. Sabarwal

Vs. State of Punjab reported in (1995) 2 SCC 745?

VI. Whether the Hon'ble High Court was right in

accepting the plea of the 1 s t respondent and

directing the 2 n d respondent to adopt a yardstick,

which goes against the letter, spirit and objective

of post based roster reservation policy?

VII. Whether the Hon'ble High Court was right in

compelling the 2 n d respondent to perform an act

which is against the Recruitment Rules for the

post of Joint Directors and the 13-point post based

roster programme as contained in G.O. MS No. 44

dated 5.9.97 of Government of Pondicherry which

was based on Government of India instructions,

Department of Personnel and Training O.M. No.

36012/2/96-Estt (Respondent.) dated 2 nd July,

1997, which G.O. was passed based on the rulings

of this Hon'ble Court rendered in R.K. Sabharwal

Vs. State of Punjab and R.C. Mallick Vs. Ministry

of Railways?

VIII. Whether the Hon'ble High Court was right in

entertaining the plea of the 1 s t respondent herein

when the same is admittedly hit by latches as the

petitioner preferred a writ petition challenging the

order passed by the 8 t h respondent herein after a

period of around 2 years?

4
 IX. Whether the Hon'ble High Court was right in

accepting the plea of the 1 s t respondent, who

sought to enlarge the scope of the relief in the

Writ Petition, which is larger than that of the one

claimed in the O.A?

X. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 4(2):

The petitioner states that no other petition seeking special

leave to appeal has been filed by the petitioner against the

impugned judgment and/or order.

3. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 6:

The annexures (P- to P- ) produced along with the Special

Leave Petition are true copies of pleadings/documents,

which are part of the records of the case in the Trial Court

as well as in the High Court, against whose order the

leave to appeal is sought for in this petition.

4. GROUNDS:

Leave to appeal is sought for on the following grounds,

which are taken without prejudice to one another:

G R O U N D S

A. The Hon'ble High Court has committed grave and

serious error in failing to see that the petitioner

herein was never put on notice in respect of the writ

petitioner filed by the 1 s t respondent herein. Any

relief in the absence of the petitioner could not have

been granted in favour of the 1 s t respondent herein.

5
B. The order of the Hon'ble High Court directing the 2 n d

respondent herein to consider the case of the 1 s t

respondent for promotion from 23.3.99 on par with

the petitioner as well as respondents 4 to 7 in the

vacancy reserved for S.C. candidates would have

serious repercussions and will also relegate the

seniority of the petitioner.

C. The sum and substance of the 1 s t respondent’s case

before the Hon'ble High Court was that the 4 t h

respondent being a migrant S.C. candidate was not

entitled to benefit of reservation of the Union

Territory of Pondicherry. The above mentioned legal

proportion in respect of the migrant candidate

seeking the benefit of reservation has been settled

by this Hon'ble Court in the decision reported in 2001

CTC 480. By virtue of the above decision of this

Hon'ble Court, the 4 th respondent herein who

otherwise was qualified as per the service rules was

eligible to be appointed as an Joint Director of the

Animal Husbandry Department. It was only after

considering various legal and factual aspects and the

seniority of the petitioner, he was appointed as the

Joint Director by the 2 n d respondent on the basis of

the recommendation of the 3 r d respondent. The

Hon'ble High Court failed to take into consideration

these vital aspects.

D. The Hon'ble High Court failed to see that the 1 s t

respondent herein joined service on 13.8.87 on an

6
 adhoc basis and his service was regularized on

11.2.91. In any case, he was eligible to be

considered for the post of Joint Director only after

completing 8 years of service. This vital aspect has

not been considered by the Hon'ble High Court and

the impugned order virtually tantamount to redrafting

the seniority as well as the rules of promotion.

E. The Hon'ble High Court has failed to see that the

plea of the 1 s t respondent that he is eligible to be

appointed from 1995 in the feeder category is false

and even as per his own averments he is only eligible

from the month of February 1999.

F. The Hon'ble High Court failed to take into account

that the petitioner herein is a necessary party to lis

and a perusal of the record of proceedings would

reveal no notice in respect of the writ petition filed by

the 1 s t respondent herein was given to petitioner or

respondents 4 to 7. Further what the 1st respondent

in the writ petition challenged the promotion of the

petitioner as well as respondents 4 to 7. Any

decision in this writ petition would have a direct

bearing on the career of the petitioner as well as

other respondents whose appointments are being

challenged. Therefore, the decision of the Hon'ble

High Court accepting the plea of the 1 s t respondent

without even completion of service for other

respondents is violative of principles of natural

justice and therefore liable to be set aside.

7
G. The Hon'ble High Court has failed to consider factual

aspects and this petitioner was not in a position to

canvas the same as no notice was received in the

writ petition filed by the 1 s t respondent herein.

Firstly, the petitioner herein was appointed as

Veterinary Surgeon and he was placed in position

No. 25 of time seniority. The 1 s t respondent was

placed at 54 t h position and the 4 t h respondent was

placed in 29 t h position much less than that of the

petitioner. As the 4 t h respondent herein was a S.C.

candidate, he was promoted earlier than the

petitioner since vacancy based roster was in vogue

to the post of Deputy Director. The post of Deputy

Director was re-designated as Joint Director vide

G.O. MS. No. 10/AH dated 11.3.93 and the seniority

of the 4 t h respondent was fixed and shows as No.7

vide G.O. Rt. No. 20/AH dated 29.9.93. Thereupon,

this Hon'ble Court in the judgment rendered in R.K.

Sabharwal Vs. State of Punjab held that the

reservation of jobs for backward classes,

SCs/STs/OBCs should be applied to the post and not

to vacancy. This Court further held that the vacancy

based roster operate till such time as representation

of persons belonging to reserved categories in a

cadre reaches the prescribed percentage of

reservation. Based on the judgment rendered by this

Hon'ble Court in the above two judgments, the

Government of India issued orders with effect from

2.7.1997, wherein the appointments and promotions

8
 were based on post based rosters and not vacancy

based rosters. The sum and substance of the 1 s t

respondent before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras

was based on 40-point roster which was set aside by

this Hon'ble Court as the petitioner herein was not

provided with an opportunity before the Hon'ble High

Court, the plea of the 1 s t respondent strewn with

illegalities was excerpted on the Hon'ble High Court

on the premise that the appointment/promotions were

governed by the vacancy based roster rather than

post based roster.

H. The Hon'ble High Court erred in giving a positive

direction to the 2 n d respondent for considering the 1 s t

respondent in the S.C. category based on a 200-point

roster. It is with due respect submitted that the 200-

point roster as contained in Government of India

instructions, Department of Personnel and Training

O.M. No. 36012/2/96-Estt.(Respondent.) dated 2 n d

July, 1997 is not applicable to the present cadre and

the same is governed by the 13-point roster. A

perusal of the 13-point roster would reveal that the

model roster for promotion is up to cadre strength of

13 posts and one S.C. candidate is eligible to be

appointed if the cadre strength does not exceed 13

posts. This model roster is applicable to the Joint

Directors’ cadre as the cadre strength is only 11 at

the relevant point of time. The 4 t h respondent herein

by virtue of being a S.C. candidate was appointed as

9
 Deputy Director in 1981 and the cadre was re-

designated as Joint Director in 1993 vide G.O. MS.

No. 10/AH. Therefore, when the roster was prepared

in 1998, the 4 t h respondent being a S.C. candidate

already being appointed as a Joint Director, there

was no scope for the 2 n d respondent herein to

appoint another S.C. candidate in the post of Joint

Director and the remaining 10 posts would not come

under reservation. Certain candidates who were

promoted to the post of Joint Director has expired

and retired because of which the 4 t h respondent

herein moved to the 4 t h position in the cadre level.

Since a S.C. candidate has already been promoted to

the post of Joint Director, the 2 n d respondent thought

it fit to fill in the remaining post from the non-

reservation category, which were also meritorious.

This was done with an obvious intent of following in

letter and spirit the concept of reservation. By virtue

of this present impugned order, the Hon'ble High

Court seeks to upset the cartel and create an

imbalance, which virtually militates against the

cantina of decisions rendered by this Hon'ble Court.

This was one of the reasons for which the 2 n d

respondent herein did not consider the 1 s t respondent

for the post of Joint Director.

I. That the Hon'ble High Court committed a grave error

in not affording opportunity to the petitioner herein to

put forth his case and deciding the writ petition

10
 without even service of summons being complete.

The petitioner herein came to know about the order

only after the same was circulated in the department

by the 1 s t respondent.

5. GROUNDS FOR INTERIM RELIEF:

The petitioner will suffer irreparable loss and injury if

the impugned judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court

on 22.11.2006 in W.P. No. 2028 of 2003 is not stayed,

pending disposal of the appeal.

6. MAIN PRAYER

It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble

Court may be pleased to:

A) grant special leave to appeal against the

final judgment dated 22.11.2006 in W.P. No.

2028 of 2003 by the Hon’ble High Court at

Madras; and

B) pass such other or further orders as this

Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in

the facts and circumstances of the case.

7. PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF:

It is therefore most respectfully prayed before this Hon'ble

Court that it may be pleased to:

a) Grant ad-interim ex-parte stay of the

final judgment dated 22.11.2001 passed

11
 in W.P. No. 2028 of 2003 by the

Hon’ble; and

b) Pass any other or further orders that

this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and

proper in the facts and circumstances of

the case.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER IS

DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY

FILED BY:

ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER

Date of drafting:
Date of filing:

12