MALKHAN SINGH versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

MALKHAN SINGH versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

In the circumstances of the case, in the year 1985, being the third year of carry forward, the reservation for ST candidate could have been exchanged for SC candidate as per rules, and the petitioner was denied the benefit due to an erroneous view taken by the High Court.

Parties
Petitioner: Malkhan Singh; Respondent: Union of India and Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
07 January 1997
Procedural Posture
Special Leave Petition (civil) / Supreme Court Appellate Review Following Dismissal of Writ Petition by Delhi High Court
Outcome
Petition disposed of without order for appointment of petitioner; petitioner's legal contention regarding exchange of reservation vindicated.
Legal Topics
Reservations, Exchange of Reserved Vacancies, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in Services, Judicial Service Recruitment
Service Law Constitutional Law Reservations Exchange of Reserved Vacancies Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in Services Judicial Service Recruitment

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Malkhan Singh

Petitioner

Union of India and Ors.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Special Leave Petition (civil) / Supreme Court Appellate Review Following Dismissal of Writ Petition by Delhi High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether in the third year of carry forward of a reserved vacancy for Scheduled Tribe (ST), the vacancy could be exchanged for a Scheduled Caste (SC) candidate as per Government of India rules and instructions.
  2. 2 Whether the petitioner, being the next eligible Scheduled Caste candidate, should have been appointed in the exchanged vacancy for Additional District & Sessions Judge, Delhi High Judicial Service in 1985.

Ratio Decidendi

In the circumstances of the case, in the year 1985, being the third year of carry forward, the reservation for ST candidate could have been exchanged for SC candidate as per rules, and the petitioner was denied the benefit due to an erroneous view taken by the High Court.

Court Disposition

Petition disposed of without order for appointment of petitioner; petitioner's legal contention regarding exchange of reservation vindicated.

Orders

  • No order as to appointment; special leave petition disposed of.