Supreme Court of India
ARUNABEN T. BHOJAK versus SECRETARY, AHMEDABAD EDUCATION SOCIETY AND ORS.
- Decided
- 27 January 1995
- Judges listed
- K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Citations
- Official
- [1995] 1 S.C.R. 668 · 1995 INSC 80
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
Leave granted.
p. 668, margin H
This appeal by special leave arises against the order of the Division Bench of th~ High Court of Gujarat in LPA No. 161/87 dated November 22, 1993. The appellant admittedly belongs to Bakshi Panch which is one of the Nomadic Tribes, notified as a Scheduled Tribe in the State of Gujarat. The Gujarat University had published a notification calling for recruitment to the post of Lecturer (Psychology). Initially though the appellant was available, she was not selected. Consequently, the contesting respondent came to be selected and sought to be appointed. The appellant ultimately went to the court. Pending appeal, she was selected and appointed and has now been working as Lecturer (Psychology) in the Gujarat University. The Division Bench of the High Court held that when the selection was made, she was not found to be suitable. The requisite qualifications were not sufficient for appellant's claim to the post.
p. 669
We are unable to appreciate the reasoning of the Division Bench. It is true that initially the respondent did not have the laboratory experience but later on she had acquired that experience. She was also eligible and was accordingly appointed. Admittedly, the post was reserved for the Scheduled Tribes and when a Scheduled Tribe candidate is available, his/her appointment cannot be held per se illegal. Therefore, the High Court was not right in negativing the right of the appellant in this behalf.
p. 669, margin C
The appeal is accordingly allowed. The appointment made to the appellant shall continue as one reserved for Scheduled Tribes. No costs. A.G. Appeal allowed.
p. 669, margin D