Appointments to the Service made otherwise than by promotion will be subject to orders regarding special representation in the Services for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs from time to time.
The validity of this Notification dated 27th November, 1972 was also challenged.
This amended Rule 13 had companye up for interpretation in identical service rules i.e. in the Indian Statistical Service before this Court and the amended rule in the Indian Statistical Service is pari materia with the present rule which reads as under Reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes etc.
On 27th November, 1972 an order was issued by the Government for providing a reservation for promotion quota also but it had numberlegal sanction at that time.
Respondent No.1 was promoted on 25th May, 1988 as Grade III Deputy Director by the Order dated 25th May, 1988 and respondent Nos.
Appointment to the service made otherwise than by promotion will be subject to orders regarding special representation in the Service for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes issued by the Government from time to time.
It may be relevant to mention here that the Indian Economic Service Rules, 1961 were framed under proviso to Rule 309 of the Constitution and they came into force when they were published under the Gazette of India Extra Ordinary dated 1st November, 1961 and in that Rule 13 as it stood reads as under Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes etc.
2 to 5 were promoted as Grade III 5 Deputy Director on 7th July, 1988.
6 The grievance of the petitioners was that Rule 13 did number companytemplate any reservation against in promotion quota.
These appeals by special leave are directed against the order passed by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dated 22nd July, 2003.
Respondent No.1 joined the service on 1.12.1982 and Respondent Nos.2 to 5 joined the service on 29th August, 1983.
1 and 2 by filing a representation but without any result.
We have heard learned companynsel for the parties.
Against these accelerated promotions against reserved quota was challenged by petitioner Nos.
The main grievance of these petitioners before the Tribunal was that as per Rule 13 as it stood in 1988 there was numberreservation quota in promotion for SC ST and they have been wrongly promoted under the garb of so called administrative instruction issued on 27th November, 1972.
The other respondents joined the service after them.
Therefore, they were driven to file O.A. before the Central Administrative Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
