SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- B.N. Kirpal, M. Jagannadha Rao and A.P. Misra, JJ.

SLPs (C) Nos. 1167-68 of 1999, From the Judgment and Order dated 6-11-1998 in OAs Nos. 499 and 849 of 1998 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi. D/d. 2.12.1999.

Rohtas Bhankhar and others - Petitioners

Versus

Union of India and another - Respondents

For the Petitioner :- Dr. K.S. Chauhan, Chand Kiran and P.K. Yada, Advocates.

For the Respondent :- K.N. Raval, Additional Solicitor General (Ashok Bhan, Ms. Varuna Bhandari Gugnani and D.S. Mahra, Advocates, with him).

Constitution of India, Articles 16(4) and 16(4-A) - Promotion - Reservation - Fixation of lesser qualifying marks for reserved candidates in the matter of promotion - Case on reference from two-Judge Bench coming up before three-Judge Bench - It will be appropriate that this case is heard by a Constitution Bench - Referring the same to Constitution Bench.

[Para 2]

Cases Referred :-

1. Haridas Parsedia v. Urmila Shakya, (2000) 1 SCC 81.

2. Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217

3. Rohtas Bhankhar v. Union of India, (2000) 2 SCC 364.

4. Superintending Engineer, Public Health, U.T. Chandigarh v. kuldeep Singh, (1997) 9 SCC 199

5. Vinod Kumar v. Union of India, (1996) 6 SCC 580 .

ORDER

B.N. Kirpal, J. - In the order dated 8-10-1999, Rohtas Bhankhar v. Union of India, (2000) 2 SCC 364, it was observed that inasmuch as in, Superintending Engineer, Public Health, U.T. Chandigarh v. Kuldeep Singh, (1997) 9 SCC 199, decided by a Bench of three Judges, the observations of the Constitution Bench in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 , and the observations in Vinod Kumar v. Union of India, (1996) 6 SCC 580 , were not noticed, this case should be placed before a Bench of three Judges.

2. The decision in Kuldeep Singh case, Superintending Engineer, Public Health, U.T. Chandigarh v. Kuldeep Singh, (1997) 9 SCC 199, was by a Bench of three Judges which, as already noted, had not referred to the majority decision in Indra Sawhney case, Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 , which was delivered by a Constitution Bench. As the correctness of the decision in Kuldeep Singh case, Superintending Engineer, Public Health, U.T. Chandigarh v. Kuldeep Singh, (1997) 9 SCC 199 is in doubt, it will be appropriate that this case is heard by a Constitution Bench.

3. Our attention has also been drawn to a recent three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Haridas Parsedia v. Urmila Shakya, (2000) 1 SCC 81, wherein it was observed that in the case of departmental promotion examination which is held exclusively for SCs/STs, there could be reduction to the extent of 10 per cent in the passing marks. This decision does not refer to the observations of this Court in Indra Sawhney case, Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 which appears to lay down, in clear terms, that there cannot be dilution of standards in matters of promotion.

4. Papers be placed before Hon?ble the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders.

Court Masters.

.