Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

THE FLAG OFFICER COMMANDING-IN-CHIEF AND ANR. versus MRS. M.A. RAJANI AND ANR.

Decided
17 March 1997
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1997] 2 S.C.R. 1155 · 1997 INSC 279
Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

Cited in 1 other Supreme Court judgment we hold.

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. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

p. 1155, margin G

This appeal arises from the order of the C.A.T. Trivendrum Bench, made on 8.3.1996 in 0.A. No. 1399/95.

p. 1155, margin G

The only controversy is whether the respondent is entitled to appointment by direct recruitment to a reserved vacancy? Admittedly, Rule . . 1155 l(a) of the Ministry of Defence Recruitment of Stenographers, (Grade III) Rules postulates appointment by promotion; failing that, by transfer and failing both, by direct recruitment. In this case, the sources of appointment, viz., by promotion and transfer, were exhausted. Consequently, the appellants resorted to direct recruitment and the respondent was called through the Employment Exchange for selection. Though she was selected, she was not given appointment on the specious ground that by proceedings under Ex. A3 the post was dereserved and that, therefore, she was not eligible for appointment. The TriJ:>unal has not agreed with the contention of the ,appellants and directed them to appoint the respondent in accordance with Rules. Thus this appeal, by special leave.

pp. 1155–1156, margin G

It is seen that Rule l(a) postulates three sources for recruitmentfirst by promotion, second by transfer and on failing both of these methods, by direct recruitment. Admittedly, the post was reserved for Scheduled Castes. Accordingly, the respondent was called for seletion. Wh~n the candidate was available, resort to dereservation is clearly illegal' and, therefore, the Tribunal was right in giving the direction to appoint the respondent who was duly selected by the Committee.

p. 1156, margin C

The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. R.P. Appeal dismissed."

p. 1156, margin D