Supreme CourtDivision Bench(2000) 10 SC CK 0036

Ambedkar Navyuvak Vikas Samiti vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

Supreme Court Of India · Decided on 19 October 2000 · Citation: (2000) 3 JT 190 Supp : (2001) 1 MhLj 678 : (2001) 2 MLJ 27 : (2001) MPLJ 373 : (2000) 7 SCALE 651 : (2001) 1 SCC 414 : (2000) 5 SCR 99 Supp : (2001) 1 UC 173 : (2001) 1 UJ 317

HON’BLE JUDGES
Shivaraj V. Patil, J · R. C. Lahoti, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition © No: 938 of 1992

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

2 paragraphs · 270 words

R.C. Lahoti and; Shivaraj V. Patil, JJ.-In this petition filed on 22-9-1992, the principal relief sought for was to restrain the respondents from finalising selections held on 8-2-1992 pursuant to the public notice dated 3-10-1990 for recruitments to the post of members of CEGAT. According to the petitioners, Rule 21 of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal Members (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1987 carves out a saving in favour of reservations, relaxation of age limit and other concessions required to be provided for the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, ex-servicemen and other special categories of persons in accordance with the orders issued by the Central Government from time to time in this regard and hence any recruitment without reservation for SC/ST would be invalid. Certain ancillary prayers were also made in the petition.

2.

It is not disputed that the recruitments pursuant to the public notice dated 3-10-1990 were over long back and therefore the principal relief prayed for in the petition has become infructuous with the lapse of time. A period of eight years has elapsed since the date of filing of the petition. In the event of any recruitment being initiated in violation of the reservation policy as canvassed by the petitioners, the same shall be available to be challenged by the petitioners by filing an appropriate petition. Any adjudication of the issue in the present petition would be academic only. We make it clear that we are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the pleas put forth in the pleadings of either side. The petition is dismissed as having been rendered infructuous.