Supreme CourtDivision Bench(1995) 01 SC CK 0141

Arunaben T. Bhojak vs Secretary, Ahmedabad Education Society and Others

Supreme Court Of India · Decided on 27 January 1995 · Citation: (1995) 2 GLR 1512 : (1997) 10 JT 547 : (1996) 3 LLJ 330 : (1995) 2 SCALE 10 : (1995) 3 SCC 120 : (1995) 1 SCR 668 : (1995) 1 UJ 801

HON’BLE JUDGES
K. Ramaswamy, J · B. L. Hansaria, J
RESULT
allowed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Appeal No. 3010 of 1995

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

4 paragraphs · 259 words
1.

Leave granted.

2.

This appeal by special leave arises against the order of the Division A Bench of the High Court of Gujarat in LPA No. 161/87 dated November 22, 1993. The appellant admittedly belongs to Bukshi Panch which is one of the Nomadic Tribes, notified as a Scheduled Tribe in the State of Gujarat. The Gujarat University had published a notification calling for recruitment to the post of Lecturer (Psychology). Initially though the appellant was available, she was not selected. Consequently, the contesting respondent came to be selected and sought to be appointed. The appellant ultimately went to the court. Pending appeal, she was selected and appointed and has now been working as Lecturer (Psychology) in the Gujarat University. The Division Bench of the High Court held that when the selection was made, she was not found to be suitable. The requisite qualifications were not sufficient for appellant's claim to the post.

3.

We are unable to appreciate the reasoning of the Division Bench. It is true that initially the respondent did not have the laboratory experience but later on she had acquired that experience. She was also eligible and was accordingly appointed. Admittedly, the post was reserved for the Scheduled Tribes and when a Scheduled Tribe candidate is available, his/her appointment cannot be held per se illegal. Therefore, the High Court was not right in negativing the right of the appellant in this behalf.

4.

The appeal is accordingly allowed. The appointment made to the appellant shall continue as one reserved for Scheduled Tribes. No costs.