{"id":228360,"date":"2011-09-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-09-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/csir-vs-s-c-lali-ors-on-7-september-2011"},"modified":"2018-07-20T20:27:23","modified_gmt":"2018-07-20T14:57:23","slug":"csir-vs-s-c-lali-ors-on-7-september-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/csir-vs-s-c-lali-ors-on-7-september-2011","title":{"rendered":"Csir vs S.C.Lali & Ors. on 7 September, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Csir vs S.C.Lali & Ors. on 7 September, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog<\/div>\n
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI\n\n%                          Judgment Reserved On: 25th July , 2011\n                       Judgment Delivered On: 7th September, 2011\n\n+                            W.P.(C) 8951\/2003\n\n        CSIR                                        ..... Petitioner\n                        Through:   Mr.V.K.Rao, Senior Advocate\n                                   with Mr.Vaibhav Kalra, Advocate\n\n\n                                   versus\n\n        S.C.LALI & ORS.                            .....Respondents\n                   Through:        Mr.D.K.Aggarwal,           Senior\n                                   Advocate     with Mr.Suryakant\n                                   Singla      and        Ms.Shagun\n                                   Bhatnagar, Advocates.\n\n        CORAM:\n        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG\n        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR\n\n     1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed\n        to see the judgment?\n\n     2. To be referred to Reporter or not?\n     3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the\n        Digest?\nPRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.\n<\/pre>\n
1.      Pertaining to relaxing standards in favour of members
\nbelonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in
\nrelation to promotion, Government of India issued OM No.
\n8\/12\/69-Estt. (SCT) dated 23.12.70. It reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
        “Subject :- Relaxation of standards in favour of
\n        Scheduled Castes\/Scheduled Tribes candidates in
\n        departmental   competitive    examinations   for
\n        promotion and in departmental confirmation
\n        examinations.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
W.P.(C) No.8951\/2003                                    Page 1 of 14<\/span><\/p>\n
        Attention of the Ministry of Finance etc. is invited
\n       to Ministry of Home Affairs O.M. No. 1\/1\/70-Est.
\n       (SCT) dated 25th July, 1970, in which it has been
\n       provided that in case of direct recruitment,
\n       whether by examination or otherwise, if sufficient
\n       number of Scheduled Castes\/Scheduled Tribes
\n       candidates are not available on the basis of the
\n       general standard to fill up the vacancies reserved
\n       for them, candidates belonging to these
\n       communities may be selected to fill up the
\n       remaining vacancies reserved for them provided
\n       that they are not found unfit for appointment to
\n       such posts or post. A question has been raised
\n       whether relaxation in the qualifying standards
\n       could be granted to Scheduled Castes\/Scheduled
\n       Tribes candidates on the same basis in promotions
\n       made      through     departmental     competitive
\n       examinations and in departmental confirmation
\n       examinations where such examinations are
\n       prescribed to determine the suitability of
\n       candidates for confirmation. The matter has been
\n       carefully considered and it has been decided that
\n       in promotion\/confirmations made through such
\n       examinations, Scheduled Castes \/Scheduled Tribes
\n       candidates who have not acquired the general
\n       qualifying standards in such examinations could
\n       also be considered for promotions\/confirmations.
\n       In other words the qualifying standards in these
\n       examinations could be relaxed in favour of
\n       Scheduled Castes\/Scheduled Tribes candidates in
\n       keeping with the above criterion.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
2.     A perusal of the Office Memorandum would reveal that
\nin matters of promotion, qualifying standards could be
\nrelaxed by the Departmental Promotion Committees in
\nrelation to members belonging to the Scheduled Castes and
\nScheduled Tribes.\n<\/p>\n
3.     The OM of the year 1970 was clarified, on the subject
\nwhere promotion was based on seniority subject to fitness;
\nand on the issue of fitness qua members belonging to the
\nW.P.(C) No.8951\/2003                               Page 2 of 14<\/span>
\n Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, by an Office
\nMemorandum No.30021\/10\/76-Estt.(SCT) dated 21.1.1977.
\nIt reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n
       “Subject:-     Relaxation of standards in the
\n       case of Scheduled Castes\/Tribe candidates in
\n       qualifying examinations for promotion to the
\n       higher grade on the basis of seniority subject to
\n       fitness.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       The undersigned is directed to refer to this
\n       Department’s Office Memorandum No. 8\/12\/69-
\n       Estt. (SCT) dated, the 23rd December, 1970 in
\n       which it has been provided that in promotions
\n       made      through     departmental      competitive
\n       examinations and in departmental confirmation
\n       examinations, if sufficient number of Scheduled
\n       Caste\/Scheduled Tribe candidates are not available
\n       on the basis of the general standard to fill the
\n       vacancies reserved, for them Candidates belonging
\n       to these communities who have not acquired the
\n       general qualifying standard should also be
\n       considered for promotion \/ confirmation provided
\n       they     are    not    found    unfit    for   such
\n       promotion\/confirmation. A question has been
\n       raised whether relaxation in qualifying standards
\n       should be granted to Scheduled Castes and
\n       Scheduled Tribes candidates on the same basis, in
\n       promotions on, the basis of seniority subject to
\n       fitness, where fitness is decided on the basis of
\n       qualifying examination. The matter has been
\n       carefully considered and it has now been decided
\n       that in promotions made on the basis of seniority
\n       subject to fitness in which there is reservation for
\n       Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in
\n       accordance     with    this  Department’s     Office
\n       Memorandum No. 27\/2\/71- Estt. (SCT), dated the
\n       27th November, 1972 and where a qualifying
\n       examination is held to determine the fitness of
\n       candidates for such promotion, suitable relaxation
\n       in the qualifying standard in such examinations
\n       should be made in the case of Scheduled
\n       Caste\/Scheduled Tribe candidates. The extent of
\n       relaxation should, however, be decided on each
\nW.P.(C) No.8951\/2003                              Page 3 of 14<\/span>
\n        occasion whenever such an examination is held
\n       taking into account all relevant factors including (i)
\n       the number of vacancies reserved, (ii) the
\n       performance of Scheduled Caste\/Scheduled Tribe
\n       candidates as well as general candidates in that
\n       examination, (iii) the minimum standard of fitness
\n       for appointment to the post, and also (iv) the
\n       overall strength of the cadre and that of Scheduled
\n       Castes and Scheduled Tribes in that cadre.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
4.     The Constitutional validity of the Office Memorandums
\nabove-noted       was challenged, on the ground          that the
\nConstitution of India empowered the Legislature to make
\nLaws and in the absence of a legislation, the Executive to
\nmake reservations, for members of the Scheduled Castes and
\nScheduled Tribes, but did not empower the Executive to
\nrelax, in favour of members of the Scheduled Castes and
\nScheduled Tribes, the qualifying norms to be attained for
\npromotion.\n<\/p>\n
5.     The challenge succeeded and the decision is reported
\nas 1996 (8) JT (SC) 643 S.Vinod Kumar vs. UOI.\n<\/p>\n
6.     In view of OM dated 23.12.1970 and OM dated
\n21.1.1977 being held to be ultra-vires the Constitution, the
\nGovernment of India issued Office Memorandum dated
\n22.07.1997, which reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n
         “Subject: Reservation       in     promotion-
\n         Prescription of lower qualifying marks\/ lesser
\n         standard of evaluation.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         The undersigned is directed to say that in
\n         terms of instructions noted in the margin,
\n         certain   relaxations\/concessions   in    the
\n         matter of qualifying marks\/standards of
\n         evaluation of performance are to be made in
\n         favour of candidates belonging to the
\n         Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled     Tribes
\nW.P.(C) No.8951\/2003                                Page 4 of 14<\/span>
\n          while considering them for promotion.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         2. The validity of such lower qualifying
\n         marks\/lesser standards of       evaluation was
\n         called into question in Courts in the context
\n         of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the
\n         case of     Indira Sawhney     Vs   Union    of
\n         India. The Supreme Court, in the case of
\n         S.Vinod Kumar Vs. Union of India (JT 1996 (8)
\n         S.C.643) has held that the provision for lower
\n         qualifying marks\/lesser level of evaluation, in
\n         the matter of promotion, provided for
\n         candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes
\n         and       the      Scheduled Tribes      under
\n         Government\u201fs instructions, is not permissible
\n         under Article 16(4) in view of the command
\n         contained      in   Article    335    of   the
\n         Constitution. The Court has further observed
\n         that even if it is assumed for the sake of
\n         argument that reservation is permitted by
\n         Article 16(4) in the matter of promotion, a
\n         provision for lower qualifying marks or lesser
\n         level of evaluation is not permissible in the
\n         matter of promotion, by virtue of Article\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         335. The Court also held that the protection
\n         for reservation in promotion for five years,
\n         given by the Supreme Court, vide para      829
\n         of the judgement in Indira Swahney\u201fs case, did
\n         not save the provisions for lower qualifying
\n         marks\/lesser level of evaluation.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         3. It has accordingly been decided to withdraw
\n         the instructions contained in this Department\u201fs
\n         O.M. No.8\/12\/69-Estt. (SCT) dated 23\/12\/70
\n         and O.M. No. 36021\/10\/76-Estt. (SCT) dated
\n         21.1.1977, so far as these provide for lower
\n         qualifying         marks for          Scheduled
\n         Castes\/Scheduled      Tribes    candidates    in
\n         departmental              qualifying\/competitive
\n         examinations for promotion. Similarly, the
\n         relevant portions of para 6.3.2 of the DPC
\n         guidelines           circulated            vide
\n         this     Department\u201fs O.M. No.22011\/5\/86-
\n         Estt.(D) dated 10.4.1989, to the extent that<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.8951\/2003                               Page 5 of 14<\/span>
\n          they    provide    for     consideration  of
\n         Scheduled           Castes\/        Scheduled
\n         Tribes candidates without reference to merit
\n         and the prescribed “bench mark”, are hereby
\n         rescinded.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         4. It is clarified that the effect of these
\n         instructions is that henceforth there shall be
\n         no separate standards of evaluation for
\n         candidates of the Scheduled Castes\/Scheduled
\n         Tribes for promotion and assessment of all
\n         candidates for this purpose will be with
\n         reference to uniform standards. Any other
\n         instructions of the Government, which provide
\n         for lower qualifying marks\/lesser standards
\n         of evaluation in matters of promotion for
\n         candidates belonging to the Scheduled
\n         Castes\/Scheduled Tribes, may also be treated
\n         as having been modified to this extent.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         5. These instructions take immediate effect.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         6.   All   Ministries\/Departments    are   also
\n         requested to bring these instructions to the
\n         notice of their Attached\/Subordinate Offices
\n         and      Autonomous     Bodies\/Public    Sector
\n         Undertakings     under    their   control   for
\n         compliance.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
7.     It be highlighted that vide OM dated 22.7.1997, OMs
\ndated 23.12.1970 and 21.1.1977 were expressly withdrawn.\n<\/p>\n
8.     The Constitution 82nd Amendment Act 2000 amended
\nArticle 335 of the Constitution of India by adding a proviso
\nthereto, which reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n
       “Provided that nothing in this Article shall prevent
\n       in making of any Provision in favour of the
\n       members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
\n       Tribes for relaxation in qualifying marks in an
\n       Examination or lowering the standards of
\n       evaluation, for reservation in matters of promotion
\n       to any class or classes of services or posts in<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.8951\/2003                              Page 6 of 14<\/span>
\n        connection with the affairs of the Union or of a
\n       State.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
9.     Having empowered itself under the Constitution to relax
\nqualifying marks or to lower the standards of evaluation for
\npurposes of induction as also promotion in favour of
\nmembers belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
\nTribes, on 3.10.2000 the Government of India issued an
\nOffice Memorandum which reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n
        “Subject: Reservation in promotion — Prescription
\n       of lower qualifying marks\/lesser standard of
\n       evaluation.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        The undersigned is directed to refer to
\n       Department of Personnel & Training’s OM No.
\n       36012\/23\/96-Estt. (Res) dated 22nd July, 1997 vide
\n       which various instructions of the Government
\n       providing for lower qualifying marks\/lesser
\n       standards of evaluation in matters of promotion
\n       for candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes
\n       and Scheduled Tribes had been withdrawn, on the
\n       basis of Supreme Court’s judgement in the case of
\n       S. Vinod Kumar Vs. Union of India.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       2. The undersigned is further directed to say that
\n       the matter has been reviewed, consequent to
\n       which the following proviso to Article 335 has
\n       been incorporated in Constitution by the
\n       Constitution,  (Eighty-Second Amendment) Act,
\n       2000:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       “Provided that nothing in this Article shall prevent
\n       in making of any Provision in favour of the
\n       members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
\n       Tribes for relaxation in qualifying marks in an
\n       Examination or lowering the standards of
\n       evaluation, for reservation in matters of promotion
\n       to any class or classes of services or posts in
\n       connection with the affairs of the Union or of a
\n       State.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
W.P.(C) No.8951\/2003                               Page 7 of 14<\/span><\/p>\n
        3. In pursuance of the enabling proviso of Article
\n       335 of the Constitution, it has now been decided
\n       to restore, with immediate effect, the relaxations\/
\n       concessions in matters of promotion for
\n       candidates belonging to SCs\/STs by way of lower
\n       way of lower qualifying marks, lesser standards of
\n       evaluation that existed prior 22.7.1997 and as
\n       contained in the instructions issued by the
\n       Department of Personnel and Training from time
\n       to time including OM No. 8\/12\/69-Estt. (SCT) dated
\n       23.12.1970, No. 36021\/10\/76-Estt. (SCT) dated
\n       21.1.1977 and para 6.3.2 of the DPC guidelines
\n       contained in Department of Personnel and
\n       Training’s OM No. 22011\/5\/86- Estt.(D) dated
\n       10.4.1989. In other words, the effect of these
\n       instructions would be that the Department of
\n       Personnel and Training’s OM No. 36012\/23\/96-
\n       Estt.(Res) dated 22nd July, 1997 becomes
\n       inoperative from the date of issue of this OM.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      4.    These orders shall take effect in respect of
\n      selections to be made on or after the date of issue
\n      of this OM and selections finalised earlier shall not
\n      be disturbed.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        5. All Ministries\/Departments are requested to
\n       bring these instructions also to the notice of their
\n       Attached\/Subordinate Offices and Autonomous
\n       Bodies\/ Public Sector Undertakings tinder their
\n       control for compliance.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
10.    A perusal of the Office Memorandum dated 3.10.2000
\nwould reveal that in view of the enabling proviso i.e. the
\nproviso to Article 335 of the Constitution, the Government of
\nIndia reintroduced the relaxation in favour of members
\nbelonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
\npertaining to promotions and, by way of incorporation by way
\nof reference, the policy restored was as per the OMs dated
\n23.12.1970 and 21.1.1977 which were expressly withdrawn
\nvide OM dated 22.7.1997.\n<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.8951\/2003                               Page 8 of 14<\/span><\/p>\n
 11.    The petitioner, issued a Circular Letter No.17\/66\/94-PPS
\ndated 08.12.2000, which reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n
        “Sub:-Relaxation in threshold marks for normal
\n       assessment for SC\/ST employees under para 2.4
\n       of revised MANAS<\/p>\n
       I am directed to state that as per the decision of
\n       the Government of India notified vide DoPT
\n       O.M.No.36012\/23\/96-Estt(Res.)-Vol.II        dated
\n       3.10.2000 to restore with immediate effect, the
\n       relaxation\/concessions in matter of promotion for
\n       candidates belonging to SCs\/STs by way of lower
\n       qualifying marks, lesser standard of evaluation
\n       that existed prior to 22.7.97, the instructions
\n       contained in DoPT OM No. 36012\/23\/96-Estt.(Res.)
\n       dated 22.7.1997 for withdrawing instructions for
\n       lower qualifying marks\/ lesser standard of
\n       evaluation for promotion for candidates belonging
\n       to SCs\/STs, become in operative from the date of
\n       issue of above Govt. of India, DoPT, OM dated
\n       3.10.2000.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       In the light of the above decision of the Govt. of
\n       India, the provisions made under the assessment
\n       scheme made applicable to S&T employees of
\n       CSIR for less threshold marks for assessment of
\n       SC\/ST candidates was also required to be
\n       restored.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       The matter has been considered by the competent
\n       authority and has approved restoration of the
\n       provision of relaxation in the prescribed threshold
\n       marks for normal assessment of SC\/ST candidates
\n       as contained under para 2.4 of revised MANAS,
\n       which was subsequently modified to 10 marks
\n       uniformly vide CSIR circular No.17\/66\/94-PPS,
\n       dated 28.1.97, for the assessments under Revised
\n       MANAS as well as erstwhile Bye-law 71 (b) scheme
\n       falling due on or after 3.10.2000.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       It is requested that the above decision may kindly
\n       be brought to the notice of all concerned in your
\n       Lab.\/Instt. for their information, guidance and
\n       necessary action.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
W.P.(C) No.8951\/2003                              Page 9 of 14<\/span><\/p>\n
 12.    It is apparent that petitioner\u201fs circular dated 8.12.2000
\nwas notifying the applicability and the requirement to
\nimplement the Government of India\u201fs OM dated 3.10.2000.\n<\/p>\n
13.    Pertaining to the respondent, the relevant facts are that
\nhis entitlement to be assessed to be promoted in the next
\nhigher grade became due on 9.10.1999.              The assessment
\nwas not done and the year 2001 was reached. An appraisal
\nSelf Assessment Report was rejected by the Competent
\nAuthority and the result thereof was petitioner\u201fs appraisal
\nbeing downgraded and this was conveyed to the petitioner on
\n12.7.2001      granting    him   4   weeks\u201f    time    to      submit      a
\nrepresentation if he so desired.      Before the 4 weeks expired
\nthe    Appraisal       Assessment    Committee        on      16.7.2001.
\nRespondent and others were appraised. All were appraised
\non the same criteria and it be                highlighted       that the
\nrespondent is a member of a Scheduled Caste.                        In the
\nappraisal, 30% weightage had to be accorded to the
\nappraisal reports of the candidates, and needless to state,
\nthe respondent was affected by his Self Appraisal Report
\nbeing downgraded.\n<\/p>\n
14.    Not being placed in the higher scale, the respondent
\nfiled an Original Application before the Central Administrative
\nTribunal and urged therein 2 grounds: (i) that he was
\nadversely affected by the assessment committee having met
\non 16.7.2001 inasmuch as his representation against the
\nlowering of his self assessment as per the appraisal was still
\npending; and (ii) since by the date the appraisal committee
\nmet, the Government of India OM dated 3.10.2000 was in
\nforce, there was no need to apply the same prospectively and<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.8951\/2003                                       Page 10 of 14<\/span>
\n ought to have been applied retrospectively i.e. for members
\nbelonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes a lower
\nqualifying eligibility norm had to be prescribed.\n<\/p>\n
15.     On the matter of self-assessment report, the Tribunal
\nheld: “… on communication of APAR grading on 12.07.2001,
\nholding of assessment on 16.07.2001 deprives the applicant
\na     reasonable        opportunity       and         as      such           the
\nselection\/promotion in violation of the rules vitiates it.”\n<\/p>\n
16.     On the claim for relaxed standards, the Tribunal held:
\n“…if the selection is held after 03.10.2000 relaxed standards
\nare to be accorded. As such the decision of the respondents
\ntaken on 08.10.2000 where as per para 2.4 of the revised
\nMANAS are applicable to the assessment falling due after
\n03.10.2000 cannot be sustained. In the present case, as the
\nassessment relates to 1999, but the assessment has taken
\nplace    only    on    16.07.2001,    i.e.,   after    the       OM    dated
\n03.10.2000, the selection which is not yet finalised even for
\nthe year 1999, relaxed standards are to be applied.
\nAccordingly, the decision of the respondents not to extend
\nrelaxed standard and marks as envisaged in para 2.4 of the
\nScheme is unsustainable in law.”\n<\/p>\n
17.     Accordingly, the Tribunal directed petitioner to reassess
\nthe respondent by relaxing the standards in his favour.\n<\/p>\n
18.     As regards the fault found by the Tribunal of the
\nAppraisal Committee making assessment as on 16.7.2001 in
\nthe teeth of the respondent being afforded an opportunity on
\n12.7.2001 to make a representation against his self appraisal
\nbeing     downgraded,     learned     counsel    for       the   petitioner
\nconceded that the view taken by the Tribunal was correct but
\nin respect of the direction issued by the Tribunal wanted this
\nW.P.(C) No.8951\/2003                                         Page 11 of 14<\/span>
\n Court to record a fact; that the representation made by the
\nrespondent had been rejected on 27.12.2001 and thus if any
\nre-assessment had to be done, it had to be with respect to
\nthe downgraded appraisal of the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
19.    Indeed, the fault found by the Tribunal on the first count
\nis correct, but we would have expected the Tribunal to have
\nnoted the fact that in view of respondent\u201fs representation
\nbeing rejected, it would be useless to direct that the
\nreassessment would be necessitated on account of the taint.
\nIt is settled law that a wrong which results in no meaningful
\neffect, has to be ignored.\n<\/p>\n
20.    The second finding of the Tribunal, unfortunately for us,
\nis without any reasoning from the Tribunal. A finding by way
\nof conclusion has been stated sans any reason.\n<\/p>\n
21.    The second issue raises the question as to what was the
\neffect of the decision of the Supreme Court in S.Vinod
\nKumar\u201fs case (supra) on the 2 OMs dated 23.12.1970 and
\n21.1.1977 in light of the Constitution 82 nd Amendment
\nempowering         the   lowering   of   standards   and    relaxing
\nqualifying marks in matters of promotion of members
\nbelonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.\n<\/p>\n
22.    The Doctrine of Eclipse in relation to enactments or
\nexecutive instructions held to be ultra vires the Constitution,
\nafter the cause of unconstitutionality is removed, guides us
\nthat, being on the Statute Book, the enactment held
\nunconstitutional will operate \u201eproprio vigore\u201f when the
\nConstitutional bar is removed i.e. there is no need for a fresh
\nlegislation to give effect thereto. We may only highlight one
\ndecision of the Supreme Court on the subject AIR 1958 SC
\n468 MPV Sundaramier vs. State of A.P.\n<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.8951\/2003                                 Page 12 of 14<\/span><\/p>\n
 23.    Can    it   be    said    that   after   the   Constitution     82 nd
\nAmendment the OMs dated 23.12.1970 and 21.1.1977
\nbecome operative proprio vigore i.e. on their own strength?\n<\/p>\n
24.    They would have, but for the fact that on 22.7.1997,
\nboth Office Memorandums were expressly withdrawn. This is
\nevident from paragraph 3 of the OM dated 22.7.1997 which
\nuses the expression that the instructions contained in the 2
\nOMs are withdrawn.              Para 4 makes it further clear that
\nhenceforth uniform standards of evaluation would have to be
\nfollowed      while      assessing      unreserved     candidates          and
\nmembers of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
\nThus, it cannot be said, in the facts of the instant case that
\nafter the Constitutional bar was overcome, the 2 Office
\nMemorandums became operative on their own strength
\ninasmuch as the Constitutional Amendment came in the year
\n2000 and 3 years prior thereto in the year 1997, the 2 Office
\nMemorandums were expressly withdrawn.                   It was only on
\n3.10.2000 that the Government reintroduced the relaxed
\nnorms for members belonging to the Scheduled Castes and
\nScheduled Tribes and merely because, by way of reference,
\nthe policy laid down in the Office Memorandums dated
\n23.12.1970 and 21.1.1977 was incorporated in the OM dated
\n3.10.2000 would not make the said 2 OMs operative between
\nthe time they were expressly withdrawn i.e. 22.7.1997 and
\ntill the OM dated 3.10.2000 was issued.\n<\/p>\n
25.    Now,     no      conscious    decision    was    taken     by       the
\nGovernment to make applicable the relaxed norms from a
\nretrospective date and none can be inferred by implication
\nbased on the strength of the decision reported as (2006) 6
\nSCC 289 Vijay vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. for the reason
\nW.P.(C) No.8951\/2003                                       Page 13 of 14<\/span>
\n a conscious decision was taken to make the OM applicable
\nprospectively and law being that where a Departmental
\nPromotion Committee or an Appraisal Committee meets
\nbelatedly and considers matters as of an anterior date, Rules
\nand Law as applicable on the date as of which assessments
\nhave to be made would govern the procedures to be followed
\nand norms to be adopted as existing for the date on which
\nappraisals have to be done, unless a conscious decision is
\ntaken by the Government to retrospectively change the rules
\nof the game, and finding no such conscious decision taken
\nand on the contrary the conscious decision being to apply the
\nlaw prospectively, the inevitable conclusion has to be that
\nthe direction issued by the Tribunal is contrary to law and
\nthus we dispose of the writ petition setting aside the
\nimpugned judgment and order dated 10.9.2003.              The writ
\npetition is allowed and OA No.2949\/2002 filed by the
\nrespondent is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
26.    There shall be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                   PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.\n<\/p>\n
                                   SUNIL GAUR, J.\n<\/p>\n
SEPTEMBER 07, 2011
\ndk<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.8951\/2003                                Page 14 of 14<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Csir vs S.C.Lali & Ors. on 7 September, 2011 Author: Pradeep Nandrajog * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved On: 25th July , 2011 Judgment Delivered On: 7th September, 2011 + W.P.(C) 8951\/2003 CSIR ….. Petitioner Through: Mr.V.K.Rao, Senior Advocate with Mr.Vaibhav Kalra, Advocate versus S.C.LALI […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-228360","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nCsir vs S.C.Lali & Ors. on 7 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/csir-vs-s-c-lali-ors-on-7-september-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Csir vs S.C.Lali & Ors. on 7 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/csir-vs-s-c-lali-ors-on-7-september-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-09-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-07-20T14:57:23+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/csir-vs-s-c-lali-ors-on-7-september-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/csir-vs-s-c-lali-ors-on-7-september-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Csir vs S.C.Lali & Ors. on 7 September, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-20T14:57:23+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/csir-vs-s-c-lali-ors-on-7-september-2011\"},\"wordCount\":3472,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/csir-vs-s-c-lali-ors-on-7-september-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/csir-vs-s-c-lali-ors-on-7-september-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/csir-vs-s-c-lali-ors-on-7-september-2011\",\"name\":\"Csir vs S.C.Lali & Ors. on 7 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-20T14:57:23+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/csir-vs-s-c-lali-ors-on-7-september-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/csir-vs-s-c-lali-ors-on-7-september-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/csir-vs-s-c-lali-ors-on-7-september-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Csir vs S.C.Lali & Ors. on 7 September, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Csir vs S.C.Lali & Ors. on 7 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/csir-vs-s-c-lali-ors-on-7-september-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Csir vs S.C.Lali & Ors. on 7 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/csir-vs-s-c-lali-ors-on-7-september-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-09-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-07-20T14:57:23+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/csir-vs-s-c-lali-ors-on-7-september-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/csir-vs-s-c-lali-ors-on-7-september-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Csir vs S.C.Lali & Ors. on 7 September, 2011","datePublished":"2011-09-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-20T14:57:23+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/csir-vs-s-c-lali-ors-on-7-september-2011"},"wordCount":3472,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/csir-vs-s-c-lali-ors-on-7-september-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/csir-vs-s-c-lali-ors-on-7-september-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/csir-vs-s-c-lali-ors-on-7-september-2011","name":"Csir vs S.C.Lali & Ors. on 7 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-09-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-20T14:57:23+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/csir-vs-s-c-lali-ors-on-7-september-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/csir-vs-s-c-lali-ors-on-7-september-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/csir-vs-s-c-lali-ors-on-7-september-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Csir vs S.C.Lali & Ors. on 7 September, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/228360","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=228360"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/228360\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=228360"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=228360"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=228360"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}