Government of india Bharat Sarkar Ministry of Welfare Kalyan Mantralaya New Delhi, dated 26.8.86 To The Home Secretary, Chandigarh Administration Home I , Chandigarh.
Appellant does number even suggest that the Government of India instructions are number binding on it.
Under Article 239 of the Constitution of India the administration of the Union Territories is left with the President of India.
In the present case these facts have become relevant for the reason that the Chandigarh Administration issued an advertisement inviting applications for fourteen posts of Assistant Sub Inspectors in the Chandigarh Police.
The Chandigarh Administration was admittedly following the instructions companytained in the Government of India circular dated 26.8.1986.
As a matter of fact the appellant has been following the Government of India instructions issued from time to time.
This letter does number make any reference to the subsequent circular dated 26.8.1986 of the Government of India.
These respondents had caste certificates issued by their respective States i.e. Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh.
Respondents 1 to 5 were applicants for the said posts in pursuance of the advertisement.
Two posts were meant for Scheduled Castes for short SC and four posts for Other Backward Classes for short OBC candidates.
Under Article 239 of the Constitution of India the Union Territories are administered by the President of India acting through an Administrator to be appointed by him.
Chandigarh Administration i.e. appellants herein challenged the said order of the Tribunal by way of a Writ Petition filed in the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
But this does number mean that the Union Territories become merged with the Central Government.
After 7.9.1999 numberappointment against reserved posts have been made to the candidates who are number residents of Chandigarh and are number having valid certificates of caste issue by the DM SDM Chandigarh.
On the basis of the caste certificates held by them the respondents sought the benefit of reservation but the same was denied to them.
Respondents 1 and 2 were SC candidates while respondents 3 to 5 were OBC candidates.
Significance of the date 7.9.1999 appears to be based on this clarification issued by the Home Secretary, Chandigarh Administration to the Inspector General of Police, Union Territory of Chandigarh.
The latest instructions on the subject in issue in this appeal are companytained in the Government of India circular dated 26.8.1986.
A volte face appears to have been taken and the administration has fallen back on the earlier instructions of Government of India companytained in letter dated 22.2.1985.
The present appeal is directed against the said judgment and order of the High Court.
Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh were carved out while Chandigarh became a Union Territory.
BC.12017/9/86 SCBCD.I Ch.
The Chandigarh Administration received the following reply to the said letter from the Government of India, Ministry of Welfare.
The said letter of the Government of India had companyfined the benefit of reservation to persons in their State of origin and number in the State to which they migrate.
They are centrally administered but they retain their independent entity.
A letter dated 8.12.2000 from the Government of India to the Home Secretary, Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh on the subject is only on the issue of challenging the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Punjab Haryana High Court in the present case by way of special leave petition to this Court.
On formation of the Union Territory of Chandigarh, its employees were governed by the rules instructions as applicable to the Central Government employees in view of Service of Union territory Employees Rules 1966.
ARUN KUMAR, J. With the promulgation of the Punjab Re organisation Act 1966 in place of erstwhile State of Punjab, three States viz.
In pursuance of the aforesaid circular of the Government of India, the Home Secretary, Chandigarh Administration vide his letter dated 28th July, 1986 sought clarification from the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs as to whether these instructions are applicable in the Union Territory of Chandigarh.
This led them to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal at Chandigarh.
