In Brief
The appellant, a Scheduled Caste employee, sought notional promotion to the post of Agricultural Development Officer against a slot reserved for SC category, which was instead filled by a senior General category candidate. The Supreme Court held that the substantive argument—whether a junior SC candidate should be appointed to a reserved slot in preference to a senior General candidate—was not properly argued before the High Court, and not all affected parties were before the Court. Rather than decide on merits, the Court disposed the appeal by granting the appellant liberty to file a representation, which the State would consider within specified timelines after giving all parties a hearing."
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.