PETITIONER: A. HAMSAVENI Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF T.N. DATE OF JUDGMENT21/07/1994 BENCH: SAHAI, R.M. (J) BENCH: SAHAI, R.M. (J) SINGH N.P. (J) CITATION: 1994 SCC (6) 51 JT 1994 (4) 651 1994 SCALE (3)656 ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT:
ORDER
1.We have today pronounced judgment in Union of India v.
Rajiv Yadav, ‘ASI. The appeal has been allowed, the impugned
judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal has been set
aside and the principles of “cadre allocation” for reserved
candidates have been upheld.
2.This writ petition has been filed by Supriya Sahu who
is a Scheduled Caste candidate. In the counter-affidavit
filed on behalf of Union of India by Mr V.K. Cherian, Under
Secretary, Department of Personnel and Training, it has been
stated as under:
“However, in this writ petition Kumari Supriya
Sahu has claimed allotment to U.P. cadre, her
home State. Even if the provision made in the
principles of cadre allocation for reserved
candidates is upheld by the Supreme Court that
will not automatically entitle Kumari Supriya
Sahu for allotment to U.P. cadre. This is
because there is already a candidate belonging
to reserved category above her in the merit
list hailing from U.P., whose appointment is
pending.”
3.In view of the stand taken by the Union of India no
relief can be given to the petitioner by this Court. We,
however, direct the Union of India to consider the case of
the petitioner in accordance with the principles of cadre
allocation for reserved candidates as upheld by this Court
in Rajiv Yadav case’. The writ petition is disposed of. No
costs.
54