IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 3500 of 2010 Date of Decision: 26.2.2010. Krishan Chand --Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. Virender Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) The petitioner is aggrieved of the seniority list of Assistants issued by the respondents as it stood on 1.5.2008 (Annexure P-2). It is admitted case of the petitioner that respondent no.5 belongs to General Category and the petitioner is from Backward Class Category. Petitioner was appointed as Clerk, whereas respondent no.5 was appointed as Steno. Both were in the same pay scale and cadre. In the category of Clerks/Steno typists respondent no.5 was senior to the petitioner. The petitioner being from a reserved category got accelerated promotion to the post of Assistant on 15.3.1991 and his services were also regularized as Assistant w.e.f the said date, whereas, respondent no.5 being a General Category candidate was promoted as Assistant on 1.6.1995. The State has now notified the seniority list of Assistants vide circular dated 1.5.2008, wherein respondent no.5 has been shown senior to the petitioner. As is evident from the seniority list and is otherwise admitted position, respondent no.5 was senior to the petitioner as Clerk/Steno-typist. The grievance of the petitioner is that even though he was appointed earlier as Assistant and respondent no.5 later than him, she has been given seniority over and above the petitioner. CWP. No. 3500 of 2010 -2- The issue is no more res integra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Ajit Singh Januja and others Vs. State of Punjab and others reported as 1996 (2) SCC 715 has finally settled the issue. Wherever a reserved category candidate is promoted on roster points on account of accelerated promotion superseding a General Category candidate and as and when General Category candidate is promoted to the post, he/she is entitled to the restoration of seniority as per position of the feeding channel by applying the catch-up rule. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Ajit Singh Januja and others Vs. State of Punjab and others reported as 1996 (2) SCC 715 (supra) has observed as under:- “ 16. We respectfully concur with the view in Union of India V. Virpal Singh Chauhan that seniority between the reserved category candidates and general candidates in the promoted category shall continue to be governed by their panel position i.e. With reference to their inter se seniority in the lower grade. The rule of reservation gives accelerated promotion, but it does not give the accelerated “consequential seniority”. If a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidate is promoted earlier because of the rule of reservation/roster and his senior belonging to the general category is promoted later to that higher grade the general category candidate shall regain his seniority over such earlier promoted Scheduled Caste/Tribe candidate.” Even after the 85th Constitutional Amendment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding the validity of the 85th Constitutional Amendment in case of M.Nagarajan and others Vs. Union of India and others reported as 2006(9) SC 191 has clearly held that it is for the State to make law to implement the 85th Constitutional Amendment. 85th CWP. No. 3500 of 2010 -3- Constitutional Amendment only enables the State to make law for consequential seniority to a reserved category promotee. Till date no such law has been enacted in the State of Haryana giving the benefit of seniority to the reserved category promotee on getting roster promotion. In view of the above circumstances, no interference is warranted in the impugned seniority position. Petition dismissed. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 26.2.2010. lucky