tion Criminal No 687 of 1990
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
Mehta Ms Shalini Soni and PH Parekh for the Peti tioner
929 DA Dave A Sachthey CB Nath BK Jad Ashish Verma and MN Shroff for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by K JAYACHANDRA REDDY J
We allowed the Writ Petition vide our Order dated 7890 and released the detenu for the reasons to be given later
We accordingly proceed to give the reasons
The petitioner was detained under Section 31 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act 1985  Act  for short by an Order dated 13390 passed by the Commissioner of Police Ahmedabad City
The grounds were served within time
The said order is challenged in this Writ Petition
It is mainly contended that the detaining authority has not applied his mind in passing the detention order inasmuch as the relevant material has not been taken into account at the time of passing the order
Even other wise according to the learned counsel there are absolutely no grounds which warrant detention
It is also further submitted that the provisions of the Act are not attracted even if all the averments in the grounds are accepted
To appreciate this contention it becomes necessary to refer to the contents of the grounds in brief
The detenu is a resident of Ahmedabad City
There is a reference in the grounds to about three crimes registered in various police stations and they are Crime Nos
12286 7088 and 9690
In all these cases it is alleged that the detenu and his associates armed with deadly weapons like Swords Dhariya and fire arms committed offences punishable under Sections 307 45 1 143 147 148 IPC and Section 251 of the Arms Act
So far as the first two crimes are concerned admittedly the detenu was acquitted
In Crime No 9690 in which investigation is pending bail was granted
Then there is a reference to 8 crimes under the provisions of the Prohibition Act registered in Kagdapith Police Sta tion on the basis whereof he is described as a bootlegger  within the meaning of Section 2b of the Act
Some ended in conviction and some are pending in trial but admittedly the detenu does not figure in any one of these cases
Thereafter it is stated in the grounds in general that the detenu was having dangerous weapons and with the aid of his associates has been subjecting innocent citizens to physical beating causing physical injuries and that he and his associates have been threatening and beating the peace loving citizens and people residing and doing their business in the said area are afraid and an atmosphere of fear danger and terror prevails and 930 that the detenu comes within the meaning of dangerous person  as defined under Section 2c of the Act The detain ing authority has also referred to an earlier detention order dated 20885 passed against the detenu and noted that he was released by the High Court
Then the detaining au thority proceeds to mention that taking action under Section 591 of the Bombay Police Act 1951 is not possible and also is not appropriate under the circumstances
In the concluding paragraph it is particularly mentioned that the detenu was a strong headed dangerous person  and he was using the dangerous weapons creating an atmosphere of ter ror
Towards the end it is specifically mentioned that in respect of Crime No 9690 registered with the Sattelite Police Station
the Chief Judicial Magistrate had remanded him to the judicial custody till 15390 and there are chances of his being released therefore to prevent him from acting prejudicially to the maintenance of public order the detention was ordered
Section 2b of the Act defines bootlegger  which reads thus bootlegger means a person who distills manufactures stores transports imports exports sells or distributes any liquor intoxicating drug or other intoxicant in contra vention of any provision of the Bombay Prohibition Act 1949 Bom
XXV of 1949 and the rules and orders made thereunder or any other law for the time being in force or who knowingly expends or applies any money or supplies any animal vehicle vessel or other conveyance or any recepta cle or any other material whatsoever in furtherance or support of the doing of any of the things described above by or through any other person or who abets in any other manner the doing of any such thing Unless there is material to show that the detenu committed any one of the acts mentioned in the definition he can not come within the meaning of bootlegger 
Though in the grounds there is a reference to 8 crimes under the provi sions of the Prohibition Act the detenu as already men tioned does not figure in any one of these cases
There is no material whatsoever of his involvement in any manner in any of these prohibition cases
Therefore he can not be said to be a bootlegger
Now we shall consider whether he comes within the mean ing of dangerous person  as defined in Section 2c of the Act which reads as under 931 2c dangerous person means a person who either by himself or as a member of or leader of a gang habitually commits or attempts to commit or abets the commission of offences punishable under Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII or Chapter XXII of the Indian Penal Code 45 of 1860 or any of the offences punishable under Chapter V of the 54 of 1959
As per this definition a person who habitually  commits or attempts to commit or abets the commission of offences mentioned therein either by himself or as a member of or leader of a gang is a dangerous person
The expression habitually  is very significant
A person is said to be a habitual criminal who by force of habit or inward disposi tion is accustomed to commit crimes
It implies commission of such crimes repeatedly or persistently and prima facie there should be a continuity in the commission of those offences
In Vijay Narain Singh vs State of Biharand Ors the majority explained the meaning of the word habitually  thus The expression habitually  means repeatedly  or persist ently 
It implies a thread of continuity stringing together similar repetitive acts
Repeated persistent and similar but not isolated
individual and dissimilar acts are neces sary to justify an inference of habit
It connotes frequent commission of acts or commissions of the same kind referred to in each of the said sub clauses or an aggregate of simi lar acts or commissions
Rashidmtva C Chhava Ahmedmiya Shaik vs Police Commission er Ahmedabad and Another 1989 3 SCC 321 is yet another case where the scope of Section 2c of the Act came up for consideration before this Court and it is held that Therefore this solitary incident would hardly be suffi cient to conclude that the detenu was habitually committing or attempting to commit or abetting the commission of of fences
 It is submitted that in the instant case except Crime No 9690 there is no other case pending and the other two crimes which are referred to in the grounds ended in acquit tal and the definition of dangerous person  in Section 2c does not include cases under the Prohibition Act
Therefore the detenu is not a habitual offender so as to come 932 within the meaning of dangerousperson 
We find considera ble force in this submission
We have gone through the entire record
The learned counsel appearing for the State could not place any material from which it can be inferred that the petitioner was a habitual offender
No doubt a lengthy counter is filed in which it is repeatedly averred in general that the detenu was indulging in prejudicial activities but as already mentioned only Crime No 9690 is pending investigation and from this alone we can not infer that the petitioner is a dangerous person  within the mean ing of Section 2c of the Act
To satisfy ourselves we have also carefully perused the FIR in Crime No 9690 and the complaint annexed to the same
The main allegation against the detenu was that he out of sudden excitement fired the revolver and as a result of which one Mehbub Khan received injury on his leg and again he fired a shot into the air and that he and his associates were moving around in a jeep threatening the people in the area
But in the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge on 13390 while releasing the petitioner on bail it is noted that the said Mehbub Khan had no fire arm injury at all and as a matter of fact the public prosecutor conceded the same
The learned Sessions Judge has also noted that no medical evidence is produced to prove that any one was injured during the alleged occur rence
If such is the only crime pending in which the detenu is alleged to have participated in it can by no stretch of imagination be said that he comes within the meaning of dangerous person  and the conclusions drawn by the detain ing authority are bereft of sufficient material as required under Section 2c of the Act
This betrays non application of mind by the detaining authority
Consequently the grounds on which the detention order is passed are irrele vant and non existing
These are the reasons which weighed with us for not upholding the detention
GN Petition allowed


Summary:
The Syndicate Bank Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Employees Associated representing the interests of SCST employees throughout the country and three Assistant Manag ers of the Bank have filed this petition under article 32 of the constitution of India
Their case is as follows That Group A  Officers posts are class I posts with Grade Scale I to Grade Scale VII
Criteria for promotion from Grade I to the next Grade and onwards is regulated by a promotion policy dated 1791985
Being a nationalised Bank all policy decisions are controlled and governed by rules framed by the Central Government from time to time
In order to implement the principles enshrined in the Constitution of granting benefit of members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes the Government has evolved the policy of reservation for them in the ratio of 5 and 7 12 respectively both at the time of initial recruitment as well as at the time of promo tions in all government establishments
Though this policy was extended to the Banking Industry in 1972 it remained restricted to appointments by direct recruitment only
Later the Central Govt
by its DC letter dated 31121977 ad dressed to all the nationalised banks required them to implement the reservation policy to promotional posts also
But the respondent bank did not follow the policy within the Officers cadre on the mistaken impression that the reserva tion in promotional cadres through selection is barred
To this the petitioners submitted that the Home Ministry s OM issued as early as on 2631970 clearly provided 714 reservations for SC  ST Officers  promotion within class I posts including officers drawing a basic pay of Rs2000 per month or less
This was later followed by OM dated 23121974 issued by the department of Personnel and Admin istrative Reforms to all the Ministries on the same lines
However the Ministry of Finance Department of Economic affairs Banking Division issued a circular dated 3051981 to all the nationalised banks that there is no reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in Promotion by Selection  within the officers cadre that the concessions to SC  ST employees mentioned in Home Ministry s OM dated 2631970 would be available to them in  Promotion by Selection  to posts within the officers cadre upto scale III only and all the banks were required to implement instruc tions contained in Home Ministry s OMs
dated 2631970 and 23121974 with such modifications as may be necessary in the light of the circular dated 3051981
The petitioners have contended that the Central Government wrongly and erroneously interpreted these circulars in taking the view that there was no reservation in the promotional posts within the officers cadre
Finally they say that despite the unequivocal directions from the Govt
of India Ministry of Finance contained in its letter dated 28111986 to all the nationalised banks clarifying the position in regard to reservations for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for promotions and the decision of this Court in Bihar State Harijan Kalyan Parishad vs Union of India  Ors which applied in all force to the case of the petitioners the Respondent Bank failed to make reservations within the officers cadre and continues to follow the selection method of promotion which has lead to the filing of this Petition
Allowing the Writ Petition this Court HELD Even though the promotion posts are based on selection method the rule of reservation will supply to posts within group A  and the benefit of reservation policy to members of SC and ST cannot be denied on the ground that promotional posts are to be filled by method of selection
Government of India committed a clear mistake in not apply ing the principle already decided in Bihar State Harijan Kalyan Parishad s case to the Syndicate Bank and in not giving it a clear direction this regard
725G H 726A There can be no manner of doubt that the management of the Syndicate Bank was not at fault as they were bound by the instructions and policy laid down by the government of India and in the absence of a clear direction from the Government it was not possible for them to grant relief to the SCST employees of the bank
726B 715 Though Group A  posts were selection posts still the reservation policy is applicable to such posts and the respondents are directed to compute the backlog of unfilled reserved quota available to SCST officers in the promotion al posts with effect from 111978 the date of introduction of reservation policy in the respondent bank
The respond ents are further directed to grant promotion to the SCST employees of the Syndicate Bank with all consequential benefits of salary and allowances from the respective dates they should have been promoted after applying the roster system in their favour
726D E Bihar State Harijan Kalval Parishad vs Union of India  Ors   followed