C.W.P. No.3037 of 1986 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.3037 of 1986 Date of Decision:- 06.02.2008 S.B.Tewari & others ....Petitioner(s) through Mr.G.S.Bajwa, Advocate. vs. State of Punjab, through the Secretary, PWD, B&R, Punjab Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh & ors. ....Respondent(s) through Mr.Palwinder Singh, Sr.DAG, Punjab. *** CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. *** 1) Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? *** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) In this civil writ petition, the petitioners are aggrieved at the grant of promotion to respondents No.3 and 4 as Superintendent Grade-I and have further sought a direction that the said private respondents be not assigned seniority in the aforementioned cadre on the basis of roster points. To be precise, the petitioners belong to the general category whereas respondents No.3 and 4 belong to the reserved category of Scheduled Castes. It is apparent from the dates of their induction in service that one or the other petitioners came to be appointed prior to respondents No.3 and 4 and in the seniority list of Assistants, the petitioners No.1 and C.W.P. No.3037 of 1986 -2- 2 were shown senior to both respondents No. 3 and 4, whereas other petitioners are senior to Respondent No.4 only. The private respondents, thereafter, were granted accelerated promotions against the reserved roster points in terms of the Government policy dated 4.5.1974 (Annexure P-2). It is also apparent that respondents No.3 and 4 were assigned seniority in the promotional cadre of Assistants and Superintendents on the basis of the roster points only. Apprehending that respondents No.3 and 4 may not be further promoted over and above the petitioners who too were working in the same cadre i.e. the Superintendents, this writ petition was filed. The solitary contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that the roster points do not form the basis for preparation of seniority as the same are meant only to secure their strength in a cadre to the extent of the posts reserved for them by providing accelerated promotion to the members of the reserved category. It may be noticed here that at the time when this writ petition was filed, there was a grey area as the view taken by a Division Bench of this Court in Joginder Singh Sethi and others vs. State of Punjab and others, 1982 (2) SLR 307, was under challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Subsequently, a Full Bench of this Court in Jaswant Singh vs. The Secretary to Government Punjab, Education Department and others, 1989(4) SLR 257 over-ruled the Division Bench's judgment in Joginder Singh Sethi's case (supra). Thereafter, the Full Bench Judgment in Jaswant Singh's case C.W.P. No.3037 of 1986 -3- (supra) has also been tested before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the controversy as to whether or not the seniority can be assigned to the members of the reserved category against roster points stands authoritatively resolved in terms of three judgments of the Apex Court rendered in the cases of (i) R.K.Sabharwal and others vs. State of Punjab and others, (1995) 2 Supreme Court Cases 745; (ii) Ajit Singh Januja & others vs. State of Punjab & Ors., JT 1996 (2) S.C. 727, (iii) Ajit Singh and Ors. vs. The State of Punjab and Ors., JT 1999 (7) SC 153. It has been held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that: “The roster point promotees (reserved category) cannot count their seniority in the promoted category from the date of their continuous officiation in the promoted post, -vis-a-vis the general candidates who were senior to them in the lower category and who were later promoted. On the other hand, the senior general candidate at the lower level, if he reaches the promotional level later but before the further promotion of the reserved candidate- he will have to be treated as senior, at the promotional level, to the reserved candidate even if the reserved candidate was earlier promoted to that level.” There can, thus, be no other conclusion but to hold that the inter se placement of the petitioners viz. respondents No.3 and 4 at different levels, is required to be made in terms of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Ajit Singh's case (II) (supra). It may, however, be noticed that since respondents No.3 and 4 were promoted as Superintendent Grade-I even before the filing of the present writ petition in the year 1986, their promotions cannot be affected as held by the Supreme Court in R.K.Sabharwal's and Ajit Singh's-II C.W.P. No.3037 of 1986 -4- cases (supra), while considering the question of retroactive applicability of the law laid down by these judgments. That apart, it also appears that by now the petitioners and the private respondents might have retired from service. For the reasons aforestated, this writ petition is allowed to the extent that the official respondents are directed to re-determine inter se seniority of the petitioners and the private respondents at levels I, II and III, as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajit Singh's-II case and if on the basis of reshuffled/re-determined seniority the petitioners are found entitled to any consequential promotion(s), they shall be granted the same with all consequential benefits. The entire exercise including payment of the monetary benefits, if any, arising out of such retrospective exercise shall be made within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. February 06, 2008 ( SURYA KANT ) poonam JUDGE