Gujarat High Court

V.Venkatraman & 6 vs Union Of India Thr'Its General Manager & ... on 8 November, 2016

Bench:
S.R.Brahmbhatt
,
A.G.Uraizee

C/SCA/20936/2006 CAV JUDGMENT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION  NO. 20936 of 2006
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20938 of 2006
TO
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20943 of 2006
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4068 of 2007

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT

and

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.G.URAIZEE

======================================

1      Whether   Reporters   of   Local   Papers   may   be   allowed   to   see   the
judgment ?

2      To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

3      Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?

4      Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the

interpretation   of   the   Constitution   of   India   or   any   order   made
thereunder ?

======================================
V.VENKATRAMAN  &  6....Petitioners
Versus
UNION OF INDIA THR'ITS GENERAL MANAGER  &  12....Respondents
======================================
Appearance:

MR MS RAO, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner Nos. 1 ­ 7

APPEARANCE DELETED for the Respondent No. 6

DELETED for the Respondent Nos. 8, 12

MRS VASAVDATTA BHATT, ADVOCATE for the Respondent No. 2

NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent No. 6

RULE SERVED for the Respondent Nos. 1, 3

SUNITA S CHATURVEDI, ADVOCATE for the Respondent Nos. 4 ­ 5, 7, 9 ­ 11, 13
======================================

Page 1 of 62

HC-NIC Page 1 of 62 Created On Wed Nov 09 00:19:03 IST 2016

C/SCA/20936/2006 CAV JUDGMENT

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.G.URAIZEE

Date : 08/11/2016

COMMON CAV JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT)

1. As all these matters pertaining to the similar question, and
parties   are   same   in   respect  of  the   orders   in   question,  they   are   heard
together and are being decided by this common CAV judgment.

2. The petitioner has approached this Court by way of these
petitions with prayers set­out there under.  But, as the prayers are same
in all these matters, except the prayers in S.C.A. No.4068 of 2007, for
the sake of convenience and brevity, the prayers of S.C.A. No.20936 of
2006 and S.C.A. No.4068 of 2007 are reproduced as under :­

Prayers of S.C.A. No.20936 of 2006

"A. call   for   the   records   &   proceedings   in   the
Original Application No.268 of 2006 and Review
No.8 of 2006 on the file of the Learned Central
Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, and
on a perusal of the documents on record thereof,
be   further   graciously   pleased   to   quash   and   set
aside the impugned Final Order dated 2.3.2006 in
OA No.268 of 2005 (at Annexure - A hereto) and
also the Final Common Order dt.6.9.2006 in the
petitioners' Review Application No.8 of 2006 (at
Annexure­B   hereto)   both   passed   by   the   Learned
Central   Administrative   Tribunal,   Ahmedabad

Page 2 of 62

HC-NIC Page 2 of 62 Created On Wed Nov 09 00:19:03 IST 2016

C/SCA/20936/2006 CAV JUDGMENT

Bench.

B. be   further   pleased   to   reject   the   Original
Application No.268 of 2005 holding the same to
be devoid of any merit or substance.

C. pending   the   admission   hearing   and   final
disposal   of   this   writ   petition,   your   Lordships   be
further graciously pleased to direct the respondents
No.1   to   3,   herein   to   restrain   themselves,   their
agents,   officers,   representatives   from   proceeding
any   further   in   furtherance   of   the   final   order
dt.2.3.2006 passed by the Learned Tribunal in OA
No.286 of 2005 and the subsequent common order
dt.6.9.2005   passed   by   the   Learned   Tribunal   in
R.A. No.8 of 2006;

D. grant ex parte ad interim relief in terms of
the clause C hereinabove;

E. grant such other and further reliefs as may
be   deemed   fit   and   proper   in   the   facts   and
circumstances of the case."

Prayers of S.C.A. No.4068 of 2007

"(A) Your Lordship may be pleased to admit and
allow this Special Civil Application.

(B) Your Lordship may be pleased to issue an
appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and

Page 3 of 62

HC-NIC Page 3 of 62 Created On Wed Nov 09 00:19:03 IST 2016

C/SCA/20936/2006 CAV JUDGMENT

set aside the order passed in Original Application
No.286   of   2005   and   Common   Order   passed   in
Review   Application   No.8   of   2006   and   Review
Application No.11 of 2006.

(C) Pending   admission,   hearing   and   final
disposal   of   the   present   petition,   the
implementation,   execution   and   operation   of   the
order   passed   in   Original   Application   No.286   of
2005 and Common Order in Review Application
No.8   of   2006   and   Review   Application   No.11   of
2006 may kindly be stayed.

(D) Any   other   and   further   relief(s)   as   this
Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the
facts and circumstances be granted."

Thus,   what   is   essentially   under   challenge   is   the   orders
passed   by   the   Central   Administrative   Tribunal,   Ahmedabad   Bench,
wherein  the  Tribunal quashed the  impugned notification  and rejected
the Review Application of the petitioners by confirming the quashing of
the impugned notification.

3. The facts in brief as could be culled­out from the memo of
the petition, and as the same are similar, they are deserve to be set­out
as under :­

4. That   all   the   petitioners   and   respondent   nos.4   to   11   are
railway servants serving in the Western Railway at its Vadodara Division.
In   the   August   2004,   the   petitioners   and   the   respondent   nos.4   to   13
herein were serving as Senior Goods Loco Pilots in the Mechanical and

Page 4 of 62

HC-NIC Page 4 of 62 Created On Wed Nov 09 00:19:03 IST 2016

C/SCA/20936/2006 CAV JUDGMENT

Electrical Department of the Baroda Yard of the Western Railway.  The
respondent   no.2,   at   that   time   came­out   with   a   Notification   dated   4 th
August 2004 to hold a selection to draw a panel of suitable employees
for promotion  to the  24  vacant  posts  of  Passenger  Driver  on the   pay
scale of Rs.5500­9000/­ in the Mechanical Department, Baroda Division,
Western Railway.   It is  stated in the  Notification  that out of total 24
vacant   posts,   10   posts   have   been   reserved   for   the   Scheduled   Caste
Category   and   thus   while   drawing   the   list   of   candidates   eligible   to
participate in the selection process, the names of the present petitioners
have also been included in the List­A.  In that list the present petitioners
and respondent nos.4 to 13 were declared to be eligible to appear in the
written test.  Pursuant to the said Notification, the written test was held
on 26th October 2004 and present petitioners as well as respondent nos.4
to 13 were appeared in the written test.   The respondent nos.4 to 13
were   belong   to   the   General   Category   and   they   did   not   have   any
grievance whatsoever with regard to the earmarking of 10 vacancies for
SC category.

5.    However in the year 2004, after appearing in the written
test,   the   respondent   nos.4   to   13   had   grievances   with   regard   to   the
written   test.     Hence,   they   taken­up   the   matter   with   the   railway
authorities   through   Employees'   Union,   Vadodara   by   letter   dated   1st
November   2004.     Even   this   point   of   time,   they   did   not   have   any
grievance whatsoever with regard to the earmarking of 10 vacancies for
SC category out of 24 vacancies.   The competent authority, considered
the grievance of the respondent nos.4 to 13 in a meeting called PNM
held   on   30th  December   2004   and   accordingly   the   Western   Railway
Employees Union came to be advised in writing.   After having realized
that they cannot succeed in the matter of stalling the selection process,
they raised the point that in the notification dated 4th  September 2004

Page 5 of 62

HC-NIC Page 5 of 62 Created On Wed Nov 09 00:19:03 IST 2016

C/SCA/20936/2006 CAV JUDGMENT

for   24   posts,   10   posts   were   for   SC/ST.     The   main   grievance   of   the
respondent nos.4 to 13 in the said OA was that in the cadre of Passenger
Drivers   there   is   already   representation   of   SC/ST   and   that   the   said
reservation of 10 vacancies against the total 24 vacant posts cannot be
provided, on the basis that against a sanctioned strength of 89 posts, 74
persons are in position and that 15 posts are vacant.  Thereafter, in the
year 2005, though participated in the selection process in the year 2004,
the respondent nos.4 to 13 had approached the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Ahmedabad with OA No.286 of 2005 praying for the quashing
and setting aside the Notification dated 4th  August 2005.   The tribunal
was   pleased  to   grant   ad  interim  ex  parte  order  to   the   effect  that   the
railway administration shall restrain itself from declaring the result of
the   test   till   filing   of   the   reply   and   the   matter   was   adjourned.     The
Railway administration filed its written statement to the said O.A. and
also moved M.A. No.329 of 2005 praying for vacating the interim relief.
The Railway administration had also filed M.A. no.330 of 2005 praying
for direction to the original applicants to place on record the original
documents of their annexures, as according to it such documents were
never issued by the railway administration.  The railway administration
had   also   filed   further   M.A.   No.454   of   2005   praying   for   vacating   of
interim relief.   After hearing of all the  applications,  the  Tribunal had
disposed   of   all   the   applications.     While   disposing   of   the   railway
administration's M.A. No.454 of 2005, the Tribunal expressed its  prima
facie  opinion that the question of there being an excess of quota in SC
category   is   not   well   founded   and   not   supported   by   any   cogent
documentary evidence, was pleased to modify its earlier interim order
and permitted the railways to proceed further with the selection subject
to the outcome of the O.A.  Further the tribunal was pleased to direct the
respondent nos.4 to 13 herein to produce on record of O.A. The original
document of their Annexure­A/2.   But, till the date of final disposal of

Page 6 of 62

HC-NIC Page 6 of 62 Created On Wed Nov 09 00:19:03 IST 2016

C/SCA/20936/2006 CAV JUDGMENT

the main O.A., the respondent nos.4 to 13 did not bother to place on
record the documents.

6. The   railway   administration   declared   the   result   of   the
written test and had published a provisional select panel for the post of
Passenger Driver containing in all 21 successful candidates in the order
of   seniority   vide   Memorandum   dated   11th  August   2005,   wherein   the
present petitioners find their place.   The respondent nos.5, 6, 7, 8 and
10 had also found their place in the provisional select panel while rest of
the respondent i.e. nos.4, 9, 11, 12 and 13 herein did not succeed in the
said   examination.     The   Railway   administration   vide   its   subsequent
memorandum   dated   16th  August   2006   had   issued   promotion   orders
promoting all the aforesaid 21 persons.  The said memorandum was not
made available to the petitioners.  The petitioners were not at all aware
of the fact that in 2006 an application  being O.A. No.286 of 2005 is
pending   before   the   Ahmedabad   Bench   of   the   Central   Administrative
Tribunal challenging the very notification dated 4th August 2004, which
is the root of the selection process culminating into the promotion of the
petitioners against the reserved category.   That out of ten respondents,
five respondents, who were promoted along with the petitioners by the
memorandum dated 16th August 2006 and have assumed the charge of
the   promotional   post   ought   to   have   moved   the   tribunal   for   leave   to
withdraw the O.A. So far as it relates to them.   Nor the rest of the 10
original applicants have moved the tribunal with appropriate application
in O.A. Praying for leave to amend the pending O.A. so as not only to
challenge the aforesaid two memorandum dated 11th  August 2006 and
16th  August 2006 but also to implead the petitioners herein who have
been promoted against the reserved category.  With the issuance of the
aforesaid two memorandum, the O.A. filed by the respondent nos.4 to
13 had become infructuous.  Even the railway administration did not file

Page 7 of 62

HC-NIC Page 7 of 62 Created On Wed Nov 09 00:19:03 IST 2016

C/SCA/20936/2006 CAV JUDGMENT

any   additional   affidavit   placing   on   record   the   aforesaid   two
memorandum   and   raising   a   preliminary   plea   that   in   the   absence   of
impleadment   of   the   petitioners   in   the   main   O.A.,   the   said   O.A.   is
required to be dismissed on the ground of non­joinder of necessary and
proper parties.

7. On 2nd  March 2006, the Tribunal was pleased to allow the
O.A.   No.286   of   2005   and   quashed   and  set   aside  the   said   notification
dated 4th  August 2004.   The petitioners  were not aware of either the
pendency of the said O.A. No.286 of 2005 nor the passing of the final
order dated 2nd  March 2006 by the tribunal.   The petitioners came to
know about the representation dated 13th March 2006 addressed by one
of  the  respondent nos.4 to 13 to the  railway authorities  calling  upon
them to implement the directions of the aforesaid order.  The petitioners
were   not   given   opportunity   of   being   heard.     Thereafter,   they   filed   a
review application praying for recall of the order dated 2nd March 2006
passed in O.A. No.286 of 2005, and restoration of said O.A. etc.   They
also   approached   the   C.A.T.,   Ahmedabad   Bench   with   joint   review
application   in   the   year   2006   and   has   also   filed   M.A.   praying   for
appropriate   directions   to   the   railway   administration   to   restrain
themselves from proceeding any further in final order dated 2nd  March
2006.   The railway administration on being aggrieved by the aforesaid
final   order   dated   2nd  March   2006   filed   Review   Application   being   RA
No.11 of 2006 for review and recalling of the said order.  After hearing
learned advocates  for the parties, the tribunal vide  its  common order
dismissed the review applications by holding that there is no merit in the
said review applications.

8. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid orders of
the   Central   Administrative   Tribunal,   Ahmedabad   the   petitioners   have

Page 8 of 62

HC-NIC Page 8 of 62 Created On Wed Nov 09 00:19:03 IST 2016

C/SCA/20936/2006 CAV JUDGMENT

approached   this   Court   challenging   the   legality   and   validity   of   the
aforesaid orders.

9. Mr.Rao, learned advocate for the petitioners, submitted that
the orders passed by the tribunal suffers from various errors of law and
facts   which   are   apparent   on   the   face   of   the   record   and   the   same   be
quashed   and  set   aside.     The   tribunal   ought   to   have   enquired   and
appreciated the subsequent events, which took place.  The memorandum
dated   11th  August   2005   and   16th  August   2005   issued   by   the   railway
administration   were   not   brought   on   record   of   the   main   O.A.     The
tribunal failed to appreciate that even though the respondent nos.4 to 13
directed to produce on record the original of the Annexure­A/2, they did
not produce the same till the final hearing of the O.A.   In the written
statement filed by the respondent nos.4 to 13 also, it is admitted that the
originals of the said annexures are not available with them.

10. He further submitted that the learned tribunal committed a
gross error of law in not appreciating the fact that the present petitioners
were necessary and proper parties in the O.A. No.286 of 2005.   As the
petitioners were not made party in the said O.A., an important point of
law could not be brought to the notice of the learned tribunal that any
person having participated in the selection process cannot challenge the
same   on   any   ground   whatsoever   including   the   issue   pertaining   to
reservation.

11. Learned   advocate   for   the   petitioners   contended   that   the
learned tribunal failed to appreciate that the earmarking of 10 posts of
Passenger Drivers out of the total vacant posts of 24 in the said cadre for
the members of the Scheduled Caste Category is legal, valid and proper
and   no   statutory   violation   whatsoever   has   occurred   in   doing   so.     He

Page 9 of 62

HC-NIC Page 9 of 62 Created On Wed Nov 09 00:19:03 IST 2016

C/SCA/20936/2006 CAV JUDGMENT

further  submitted  that  it  is  not  true  that  as  per   Annexure­A/2  to the
O.A.,   against   the   sanctioned   strength   of   89   posts,   74   persons   are   in
position and that 15 posts are vacant.  In support of this submission, the
present   petitioners   had   placed   on   record   a   documentary   evidence   to
show conclusively that after restructuring w.e.f. 1st  November 2003 the
total cadre strength of Passenger Drivers is 65 and not 89 as claimed by
the respondents.   The railway administration ought to have placed on
record the document in support of its contention that the cadre strength
of Passenger Driver is 65.

12. Learned   advocate   for   the   petitioners   contended   that   the
learned tribunal committed an error of law and fact in not appreciating
that in the past the railway administration while filling up the post of
Passenger Drivers through selection against promotion quota has never
filled up the slot meant for the scheduled caste category on the roster
point.     He   further   contended   that   the   learned   tribunal   also   failed   to
appreciate   that   the   instructions   contained   in   the   Railway   Board's
Circular letter dated 20th June 2003, which demonstrates that in the past
all these SC candidates having been found to be suitable on their own
merit for their  promotion  to the post of Passenger Driver came to be
granted promotion against the vacancies falling in the general category.
Learned tribunal also erred in law in placing reliance on certain rulings
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which in the most humble submission of
the petitioners herein, do not apply to the facts of the present case.

13. Learned advocate for the petitioners in S.C.A. No.4068 of
2007,   submitted   that   the   said   order   is   passed   without   application   of
mind on the facts and circumstances of the case because said order does
not take into consideration the equity that have been created in favour
of   promoted   Passenger   Loco   Drivers   though   the   same   was   subject   to

Page 10 of 62

HC-NIC Page 10 of 62 Created On Wed Nov 09 00:19:03 IST 2016

C/SCA/20936/2006 CAV JUDGMENT

outcome of the original application, because the promotion once granted
and thereafter to be taken back would tantamount to derogation  and
punitive in nature in respect of those passenger loco drivers for no fault
of theirs.   He further submitted that this order does not considers the
fact that the reservation is post based and not on the percentage basis
and the fact that the candidates belonging to SC/ST category have been
promoted on their general merits and not against the reserved points
keeping in view on the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

14. Learned advocate for the petitioners further contended that
the tribunal has failed to appreciate the fact that under the notification
dated 2nd  September 2003, the railway administration has filled up 20
vacant   posts   of   passenger   drivers   entirely   from   the   general   category
without earmarking any posts for the SC category.  At that point of time,
the respondents had never raised any objection in respect of such filling
up of the posts, thus, the respondents herein could not have raised any
objection   in   respect   of   reservation   made   by   the   petitioners   in   a   total
cadre of 65 wherein it was clearly stated that the SC/ST candidate who
have   filled   up   vacancy   earlier   on   the   basis   of   their   own   merit   and
seniority  and not on the   basis  of reservation.     Therefore, the  learned
tribunal ought to have appreciated the fact that earmarking of 10 posts
for the SC category against the total vacant posts of 24 in a cadre of 65
is perfectly legal and proper.

15. He   further   submitted   that   the   learned   tribunal   has   not
appreciated   the   ratio   of   various   case   laws   cited   before   it   more
particularly the case of Ajitsingh and R.K.Sabharwal and thus, the order
passed by the learned tribunal is bad in eyes of law.

16. To  support   his   contentions,   Mr.Rao,   learned   advocate   for

Page 11 of 62

HC-NIC Page 11 of 62 Created On Wed Nov 09 00:19:03 IST 2016

C/SCA/20936/2006 CAV JUDGMENT

the petitioners relied on the following decisions.

(1) In   case   of   Om   Prakash   Shukla,   Appellant
V/s. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla and others reported
in A.I.R. 1986 SC 1043.

(2) In   case   of   Vijendra   Kumar   Verma   V/s.

Public   Service   Commission,   Uttarakhand   and
others, reported in (2011) 1 Supreme Court Cases

150.

(3) In case of Madras Institute of Development
Studies   V/s.   K.   Sivasubramaniyan,   reported   in
2015­SCC­1­454.

(4) Judgment   of   this   Court   passed   in   S.C.A.
No.6173   of   2008   with   allied   matter   on   13th
January   2015,   in   case   of   Khimjibhai   Jasabhai
Makwana   &   3   others   V/s.   Union   of   India   &   6
others.

(5) In case of Madras Institute of Development
Studies and another V/s. Dr.K.Sivasubramaniyan
and others, Supreme Court judgment.

(6) In   case   of   A.K.Gautam   V/s.   UOI   &   Ors.

Judgment of High Court of New Delhi.

17. As against this, the respondents have filed their affidavit­in­

Page 12 of 62

HC-NIC Page 12 of 62 Created On Wed Nov 09 00:19:03 IST 2016

C/SCA/20936/2006 CAV JUDGMENT

reply and submitted as under :­

18. Learned   advocate   for   the   respondents,   submitted   that
though the trade union Western Railway Employees' Union ('WREU' for
short) has raised the issue that the question paper was not balanced, but
originally, the question paper was balanced.   It is not fully correct that
the petitioner was aware about the pendency of O.A. No.286 of 2005.  It
is submitted that the railway has clearly mentioned that the result of
examination (panel) notified on 11th August 2005 as well as promotion
order were issued.

19. Learned advocate for the respondents contended that it is
correct that the trade union WREU has raised the issue that the question
paper was not balanced but it is not correct that the above said objection
was   raised   by   the   respondent   no.4   to   11,   because   except   respondent
nos.4 and 8, all were working in A.C. Traction.   Moreover, respondent
no.8 was also found suitable and placed on the panel.

20. Learned   advocate   for   the   respondents   further   contended
that there is no such representation made and or letter was received by
the respondents.  Learned advocate further submitted that the applicants
were aware of the pendency of O.A. No.286 of 2005.   The railway has
clearly   mentioned   about   this   in   the   result   of   examination   (panel)
notified   on   11th  August   2005   as   well   as   in   the   promotion   orders.
Learned advocate also submitted that memorandum of 11th August 2005
and   16th  August   2005   were   not   brought   on   record   of   the   main   O.A.
No.286 of 2005 as these orders were issued as per the interim direction
of the Hon'ble Court and the same facts were brought in notice in the
Hon'ble   Court  during   the   course  of  arguments   and  also  in  written  in
review application.

Page 13 of 62

HC-NIC Page 13 of 62 Created On Wed Nov 09 00:19:03 IST 2016

C/SCA/20936/2006 CAV JUDGMENT

21. Learned   advocate   for   the   respondents   submitted   that
railway has regularly pointed out before the Hon'ble Court during the
course   of   argument   as   well   as   in   review   application   by   making
annexures that the cadre of Passenger Driver is 65 and not 89.

22. Learned   advocate   for   the   respondents   by   way   of   further
affidavit submitted that reservation in the instant case is post based and
the SC/ST candidates are considered only against reserved post.   The
SC/ST   candidates,   who   fulfill   the   eligibility   conditions   as   general
candidates   and   are   coming   within   the   zone   of   consideration   are
considered against non­reserved posts even if there are no reserved posts
earmarked for them.  It is submitted that whenever any post falls vacant
due   to   retirement/   higher   grade   promotion,   the   same   will   be   filled
accordingly and in case if the post is of unreserved category and any
SC/ST candidate is falling within the zone of consideration he will have
to be considered even though the post is of unreserved category.

23. It   is   submitted   on   behalf   of   the   respondents   that   the
seniority list as produced by the petitioners do not bear any particular
date or year of issue.  The said seniority list is prior to restructuring of
cadre   in   2003   and   therefore   it   was   an   attempt   made   by   the   original
applicant to mislead the learned tribunal.  A candidate even if is placed
in   place   of   general   candidate,   he   continues   to   remain   a   reserved
category candidate and accordingly he is shown as SC/ST candidate.  It
is a case that such a candidate has been adjusted against an unreserved
post and not against a reserved post and such candidates are promoted
on   their   own   merit   and   not   owing   to   reservation   or   relaxation   of
qualification will be adjusted against unreserved post only.  It is further
submitted that if any unreserved vacancy arises in a cadre and there is
availability of SC/ST candidate within the zone of consideration in the

Page 14 of 62

HC-NIC Page 14 of 62 Created On Wed Nov 09 00:19:03 IST 2016

C/SCA/20936/2006 CAV JUDGMENT

feeder  grade   then   such  a  candidate  will   be   considered   for   promotion
along   with   other   candidates   as   if   he   belongs   to   general   category.
Learned advocate for the respondents produced the list at Annexure­M
showing   the   candidates,   who   were   though   belonging   to   reserved
category have been promoted and adjusted against unreserved category.
It is submitted that the employees appearing at Sr. No.01 to 08 (in the
list at Annexure­M) and having Seniority Nos.81, 83, 86, 89, 90, 96, 97
and 98 are belonging to reserved category but have got selected against
unreserved category whereas the employees appearing at Sr. No.9 to 13
above   and   having   Seniority  No.103   to   107   are  belonging  to   reserved
category   and   have   got   selected   against   reserved   category.   It   is   also
submitted that although there was no requirement of SC community as
per Annexure W, there are reserved employees who have qualified on
general merit & hence considered against unreserved category.   As per
Annexure W, requirement of 6 reserved employees can be seen against
which 5 reserved employees have qualified and due to this 8 reserved
employees who have come against unreserved category, 5 more reserved
employees have been empanelled against reserved point as per extent
rule.   It is submitted that due to the aforesaid position though  prima
facie it appears that there is availability of SC candidates as per seniority
list still there were no SC candidates available who could be adjusted
against reserved post and those available against general merit cannot
be adjusted or computed against reserved post.

24. In   support   of   the   contentions,   learned   advocate   for   the
respondents relied on the following decisions.

(1) In   case   of   K.   Manorama   V/s.   Union   of
India, reported in (2010) 10 SCC 323.

Page 15 of 62

HC-NIC Page 15 of 62 Created On Wed Nov 09 00:19:03 IST 2016

C/SCA/20936/2006 CAV JUDGMENT

(2) Judgment of Supreme Court in case of U. P.

Power   Corporation   Ltd.,   V/s.   Rajesh   Kumar   &
Ors.,

25. This  Court has  heard learned counsel  for  the  parties  and
perused   the   documents   on   record.     Before   adverting   to   the   same,   it
would   be   most   appropriate   for   this   Court   to   set­out   hereinbelow   the
legal   aspects   touching   upon   the   point   of   controversy   and   thereafter
examine the controversy in light thereof.

26. The judgments cited at the bar by both the sides extensively
deal with the aspects of reservation in favour of the members of the S.C.
and S.T. candidates, the benefit of reservation to the members of S.C.
and   S.T.   in   the   promotion   and   the   aspect   of   the   seniority   in   the
promotional   cadre,   as   well   as,   the   counting   of   the   reserve   category
meritorious candidates against the post of open category.

27. The   relevant   extracts   from   the   decision   of   the   Supreme
Court, which contains extensive excerpt of the earlier judgment of the
Supreme   Court   deserve   to   be   reproduced   hereinbelow   for   succinctly
reproducing the provision of law and advertence thereto.  In case of U.P.
Power   Corporation   V/s.   Rajeshkumar  and   others   decided   on   27th  April
2012 in the matter arising from the High Court of Allahabad in which
two different benches of the said Court has ruled differently, which was
subject matter of examination by the Supreme Court in respect of the
rules as made applicable by the State of U.P. in respect of the promotion
and   the   benefit   of   reservation   and   seniority   to   the   candidates   and
members of S.C. and S.T. and other communities.

16. Prior to the advertence in aforesaid regard, it

Page 16 of 62

HC-NIC Page 16 of 62 Created On Wed Nov 09 00:19:03 IST 2016

C/SCA/20936/2006 CAV JUDGMENT

is   necessary   to  have   a   certain   survey   pertaining   to
reservation in promotional matters. The question of
reservation and the associated promotion with it has
been a matter of debate in various decisions of this
Court. After  independence,  there were various  areas
in   respect   of   which   decisions   were   pronounced.
Eventually, in the case of
Indra Sawhney and another
v.  Union of India and others

(supra) the nine­Judge

Bench,   while  dealing   with   the   question   whether
clause (4) of
Article 16
of the Constitution provides
for   reservation   only   in   the   matter   of   initial
appointment,   direct   recruitment   or   does   it
contemplate and provide for reservations being made
in   the   matter   of   promotion   as   well,   recorded   the
submissions   of   the   petitioners   in   paragraph   819
which reads as follows: ­
"The   petitioners'   submission   is   that   the
reservation   of   appointments   or   posts
contemplated by clause (4) is only at the
stage   of  entry   into   State   service,   i.e.,
direct   recruitment.  It   is   submitted   that
providing   for   reservation  thereafter   in
the   matter   of   promotion   amounts   to   a
double   reservation   and   if   such   a
provision   is   made   at   each   successive
stage of promotion it would be a case of
reservation   being   provided   that   many
times."

It   is   also   submitted   that   by   providing
reservation in the matter of promotion, the member
of a reserved category is enabled to leap­frog over his
compatriots,   which   is   bound   to  generate   acute
heartburning   and   may   well   lead   to  inefficiency   in
administration. The members of the open competition
category would come to think that whatever be their
record   and  performance,   the   members   of   reserved
categories  would   steal   a   march   over   them,
irrespective   of   their   performance   and   competence.
Examples are give how two persons (A) and (B), one
belonging to O.C. Category and the other belonging
to   reserved   category,   having   been   appointed   at   the
same time, the member of the reserved category gets
promoted   earlier   and   how   even   in   the   promoted
category   he   jumps   over   the   members   of   the   O.C.
Category   already   there   and   gains   a   further
promotion   and   so   on.   This   would   generate,   it   is

Page 17 of 62

HC-NIC Page 17 of 62 Created On Wed Nov 09 00:19:03 IST 2016

C/SCA/20936/2006 CAV JUDGMENT

submitted, a feeling of  disheartening which kills the
spirit   of   competition  and   develops   a   sense   of
disinterestedness   among   the   members   of   O.C.
Category. It is pointed out that once persons coming
from different sources join a category or class, they
must   be   treated   alike   thereafter   in   all   matters
including  promotions   and   that   no   distinction   is
permissible  on  the  basis  of their  "birth­mark".  It is
also pointed out that even the Constituent Assembly
debates on draft
Article 10(3)
do not indicate in any
manner   that   it   was   supported   to   extend   to
promotions   as   well.   It   is   further   submitted   that   if

Article 16(4)
is construed as warranting  reservation
even in the matter of promotion it would be contrary
to the  mandate  of
Article  335
viz.,  maintenance  of
efficiency in administration. It is submitted that such
a   provision   would  amount   to   putting   a   premium
upon   inefficiency.
The   members   of   the   reserved
category would not work hard since they do not have
to compete with all their colleagues but only within
the   reserved   category   and   further   because   they   are
assured   of   promotion   whether   they   work   hard   and
efficiently or not. Such a course would also militate
against the goal of excellence referred to in clause (j)
of   Article   51­A   (Fundamental   Duties)."  Thereafter,
the   Bench   referred   to   the   decisions   in  General
Manager, S. Rly.  v.
Rangachari5, State of Punjab  v.
Hira Lal6
,
Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh
v.  Union   of   India7
and
Comptroller   and   Auditor
General v. K.S. Jagannathan8
and did not agree with
the view stated in
Rangachari
(supra), despite noting
the   fact   that  Rangachari  has   been   a   law   for   more
than thirty years and that attempt to reopen the issue
was   repelled  in
Akhil   Bharatiya   Soshit   Karamchari
Sangh
(supra). Thereafter, their Lordships addressed
to   the   concept   of   promotion   and,   eventuall,y   after
adverting to certain legal principles, stated thus: ­

"831. We must also make it clear that
it  would  not  be  impermissible  for  the
State   to  extend   concessions   and
relaxations   to   members   of   reserved
categories  in the matter  of promotion
without compromising the efficiency of
the   administration.

The   relaxation
concerned   in
State   of   Kerala  v.  N.M.

Page 18 of 62

HC-NIC Page
18 of 62 Created On Wed Nov 09 00:19:03 IST 2016

C/SCA/20936/2006 CAV JUDGMENT

Thomas  [(1976) 2 SCC 310] and the
concessions   namely   carrying   forward
of   vacancies   and   provisions   for   in­
service   coaching/training   in
Karamchari   Sangh  are   instances   of
such   concessions   and   relaxations.

However,   it   would   not   be   permissible
to prescribe  lower qualifying marks or
a   lesser   level   of   evaluation   for   the
members   of   reserved   categories   since
that   would   compromise   the   efficiency
of   administration.   We   reiterate   that
while it may be permissible to prescribe
a reasonably lesser qualifying marks or
evaluation for the OBCs, Scs and Sts -

consistent   with   the   efficiency   of
administration   and   the   nature   of
duties attaching to the office concerned

- in the  matter  of direct recruitment,
such a course would not be permissible
in   the   matter   of   promotions   for   the
reasons   recorded   hereinabove."    In
paragraph 859, while summarising the
said aspect, it has been ruled thus: ­
"859. We may summarise our answers
to the various questions dealt with and
answered hereinabove:

.......... .............. ...........

(7)
Article   16(4)
does   not   permit
provision for reservations in the matter
of promotion. This rule shall, however,
have   only   prospective   operation   and
shall not affect the promotions already
made, whether  made on regular basis
or on any other  basis. We direct that
our   decision   on   this  question   shall
operate   only   prospectively   and   shall
not   affect   promotions   already  made,
whether   on   temporary,   officiating   or
regular/permanent  basis.  It is  further
directed that wherever reservations are
already   provided   in   the   matter   of
promotion   be   it   Central   Services   or
State   Services,   or  for   that   matter
services   under   any  Corporation,
authority   or   body   falling   under  the

Page 19 of 62

HC-NIC Page 19 of 62 Created On Wed Nov 09 00:19:03 IST 2016

C/SCA/20936/2006 CAV JUDGMENT

definition of 'State' in
Article 12 -
such
reservations may continue in operation
for a period of five years from this day.
Within this period, it would be open to
the  appropriate   authorities   to   revise,
modify or re­issue the relevant rules to
ensure the achievement of the objective
of
Article   16(4).
If   any   authority
thinks   that   for   ensuring   adequate
representation   of   'backward   class  of
citizens'   in   any   service,   class   or
category, it is necessary to provide for
direct  recruitment   therein,   it   shall   be
open   to   it   to  do   so   (Ahmadi,   J
expresses  no  opinion  on  this  question
upholding the preliminary  objection of
Union   of   India).   It   would   not   be
impermissible   for   the   State   to   extend
concessions   and   relaxations   to
members  of  reserved  categories  in the
matter   of  promotion  without
compromising   the   efficiency   of   the
administration."

17. After
the   said   decision
,   another   decision,
namely,
Union  of  India   and   others  v.  Virpal  Singh
Chauhan and others
[9] came to the field. In the said
case,   the   two­Judge   Bench   was   concerned   with   the
nature   of   rule   and   reservation   in   promotions
obtaining   in   the   railway   service   and   the   rule
concerning   the   determination   of   seniority   between
general   candidates   and   candidates   belonging   to
reserved   classes   in   the   promotional   category.
The
Bench referred to the decision in  R.K. Sabharwal  v.

State   of   Punjab   [10],   various   paragraphs   of   the
Indian   Railways  Establishment   Manual   and
paragraphs   692   and   693   of   the
Indra   Sawhney

(supra) and opined that the roster would only ensure
the   prescribed   percentage   of   reservation   but   would
not affect the seniority. It has been stated that while
the   reserved  candidates   are   entitled   to   accelerated
promotion,   they   would   not  be   entitled   to
consequential seniority.

18. Thereafter, in
Ajit Singh Januja and others  v.
State   of   Punjab   and   others
[11],   the   three­Judge

Page 20 of 62

HC-NIC Page 20 of 62 Created On Wed Nov 09 00:19:03 IST 2016

C/SCA/20936/2006 CAV JUDGMENT

Bench posed the question in the following terms: ­

"The controversy which has been raised in the present
appeals is: whether, after the members of Scheduled
Castes/Tribes or Backward Classes for whom specific
percentage of posts have been reserved and roster has
been   provided   having   been   promoted   against   those
posts on the basis of "accelerated promotion" because
of reservation of posts and applicability of the roster
system, can claim promotion against general category
posts   in   still   higher   grade   on   the   basis   of   their
seniority   which   itself   is   the   result   of   accelerated
promotion   on   the   basis   of   reservation   and   roster?"

The  Bench  referred  to the  decisions  in
Virpal Singh
Chauhan
(supra),
R.K. Sabharwal
(supra) and
Indra
Sawhney
(supra) and ultimately concurred with the
view expressed in Virpal Singh Chauhan by stating as
follows: ­
"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. As already pointed out above
that   when   a   Scheduled   Caste/   Tribe
candidate   is   promoted   earlier   by
applying   the   rule   of   reservation/roster
against   a   post   reserved   for   such
Scheduled Caste/Tribe  candidate, in this
process he does not supersede his seniors
belonging to the general category. In this
process there was no occasion to examine

Page 21 of 62

HC-NIC Page 21 of 62 Created On Wed Nov 09 00:19:03 IST 2016

C/SCA/20936/2006 CAV JUDGMENT

the merit of such Scheduled Caste/Tribe
candidate  vis­a­vis his seniors  belonging
to the general category. As such it will be
only   rational,   just   and   proper   to   hold
that when the general category candidate
is promoted later from the lower grade to
the   higher   grade,   he   will  be   considered
senior   to   a   candidate   belonging   to   the
Scheduled   Caste/Tribe   who   had   been
given accelerated  promotion  against the
post   reserved   for   him.   Whenever   a
question   arises   for   filling   up   a   post
reserved   for   Scheduled   Caste/Tribe
candidate   in   a   still   higher   grade   then
such   candidate   belonging   to   Scheduled
Caste/Tribe   shall   be   promoted   first   but
when   the  consideration   is   in   respect   of
promotion   against  the   general   category
post   in   a   still   higher   grade   then   the
general category candidate who has been
promoted later shall be considered senior
and his case shall be considered first for
promotion   applying   either   principle   of
seniority­cum­merit   or   merit­cum­
seniority.   If   this   rule  and   procedure   is
not   applied   then   result   will   be  that
majority of the posts in the higher grade
shall be held at one stage by persons who
have not only entered service on the basis
of  reservation   and   roster   but   have
excluded the general category candidates
from   being   promoted  to   the   posts
reserved for general category candidates
merely   on   the   ground   of   their   initial
accelerated promotions. This will not be
consistent   with   the   requirement   or   the
spirit of
Article  16(4)
or
Article  335
of
the Constitution."

19.
In
Jagdish Lal and others v. State of Haryana

and   others12,   a   three­Judge   Bench   opined   that
seniority   granted   to   the   Scheduled   Caste   and
Scheduled Tribe candidates over a general candidate
due   to   his   accelerated   promotion   does   not   in   all
events   get   wiped   out   on   promotion   of   general
candidate.

The  Bench explained  the decisions in
Vir
Pal   Singh   Chauhan
(supra)   and  Ajit   Singh   Januja

Page 22 of 62

HC-NIC Page 22 of 62 Created On Wed Nov 09 00:19:03 IST 2016

C/SCA/20936/2006 CAV JUDGMENT

(supra).

20.
In Ajit Singh and others (II) v. State of Punjab
and others13, the Constitution Bench was concerned
with the issue whether the decisions in
Vir Pal Singh
Chauhan
(supra)   and
Ajit   Singh   Januja
(supra)
which   were   earlier   decided   to   the   effect   that   the
seniority of general candidates is to be confirmed or
whether   the   later   deviation   made   in
Jagdish   Lal

(supra)   against   the   general   candidates   is   to   be
accepted. The Constitution Bench referred to
Articles
16(1)
,   16(4)
and
16(4A)
of   the   Constitution   and
discussed at length the concept of promotion based on
equal opportunity and seniority and treated  them to
be facets of Fundamental Right under
Article 16(1)
of
the Constitution. The Bench posed a question whether

Articles   16(4)
and
16(4A)
guarantee   any
Fundamental Right to reservation.  Regard being had
to   the   nature   of   language   employed   in   both   the
Articles,   they   were   to   be   treated   in   the   nature   of
enabling   provisions.   The   Constitution  Bench   opined
that
Article 16(1)
deals with the Fundamental Right
and
Articles   16(4)
and
16(4A)
are   the   enabling
provisions.

After so stating, they proceeded to analyse
the ratio in
Indra Sawhney
(supra),
Akhil Bharatiya
Soshit Karamchari Sangh
(supra) and certain other
authorities in the field and, eventually, opined that it
is   axiomatic   in   service   jurisprudence   that   any
promotions made wrongly in excess of any quota are
to be treated  as ad hoc.  This applies  to reservation
quota   as   much   as   it   applies   to   direct   recruits   and
promotee cases. If a court decides that in order only
to remove  hardship such roster­point promotees  are
not to face reversions, ­ then it would, in our opinion
be,   necessary   to   hold   -   consistent   with   our
interpretation  of
Articles  14
and
16(1)  -
that such
promotees cannot plead for grant of any additional
benefit of seniority flowing from a wrong application
of   the   roster.   While   courts   can   relieve   immediate
hardship arising out of a past illegality, courts cannot
grant additional benefits like seniority which have no
element   of   immediate   hardship.   Ultimately   while
dealing   with   the   promotions   already   given   before
10.2.1995 the Bench directed as follows: ­
"Thus,   while   promotions   in   excess   of
roster   made  before   10­2­1995   are

Page 23 of 62

HC-NIC Page 23 of 62 Created On Wed Nov 09 00:19:03 IST 2016

C/SCA/20936/2006 CAV JUDGMENT

protected,   such   promotees   cannot   claim
seniority.   Seniority   in   the  promotional
cadre   of   such   excess   roster­point
promotees shall have to be reviewed after
10­2­ 1995 and will count only from the
date on which they would have otherwise
got   normal   promotion   in   any   future
vacancy   arising   in   a   post   previously
occupied   by   a   reserved   candidate.   That
disposes   of   the   "prospectivity"   point   in
relation to Sabharwal."

21. At   this   juncture,   it   is   condign   to   note   that

Article 16(4A)
and
Article 16 (4B)
were inserted in
the   Constitution   to   confer   promotion   with
consequential seniority and introduced the concept of
carrying   forward   vacancies   treating   the   vacancies
meant for reserved category candidates as a separate
class of vacancies. The said Articles as amended from
time to time read as follows: ­

"16(4A)   Nothing   in   this   Article   shall
prevent   the   State   from   making   any
provision   for  reservation   in   matters   of
promotion, with consequential seniority,
to   any   class   or   classes   of   posts   in   the
services under the State in favour of the
Scheduled   Castes   and   the   Scheduled
Tribes which, in the opinion of the State,
are   not  adequately   represented   in   the
services under the State.

16(4B)   Nothing   in   this   article   shall
prevent   the  State   from   considering   any
unfilled   vacancies   of   a   year   which   are
reserved for being filled up in that year
in   accordance   with   any   provision   for
reservation   made   under   clause   (4)   or
(4A) as a separate class of vacancies to
be   filled   up   in   any   succeeding   year   or
years   and   such   class   of   vacancies   shall
not   be   considered   together   with   the
vacancies  of the year  in which they are
being filled up for determining the ceiling
of   fifty   per   cent   reservation   on   total

Page 24 of 62

HC-NIC Page 24 of 62 Created On Wed Nov 09 00:19:03 IST 2016

C/SCA/20936/2006 CAV JUDGMENT

number of that year."

22. The   validity   of   the   said   Articles   were
challenged   under
Article   32
of   the   Constitution   of
India before this Court and the Constitution Bench in

M.   Nagraj
(supra)   upheld   the   validity   of   the   said
Articles   with   certain   qualifiers/riders   by   taking
recourse   to   the   process   of   interpretation.   As   the
controversy rests mainly on
the said decision
, we will
advert to it in detail at a later stage."

Thus, the aforesaid observation of the Supreme Court and
recital by the Supreme Court of the earlier pronouncement of the subject
would   leave   no   room   of   doubt   in   respect   of   the   fact   that   in   the
promotion also, the reservation is applicable and if the said is applied,
the same will have to answer the overall limit of not exceeding 50%.

28. The another decision  of the Supreme Court in case of  K.
Manorma V/s. Union of India (UOI) rep. by General Manager, Southern
Railway and Ors., reported in (2010) 10 SCC 323 deserve to be referred to
and the relevant paragraphs therefrom have to be extracted in order to
appreciate the proposition of law.

"2. Short   facts   leading   to   this   appeal   are   as
follows :­ At the relevant time in November 1994, the
appellant   was   working   as   a   Chief   Law   Assistant
which was a Group­'C' post in the Southern Railways.
The post higher to this post is that of the Assistant
Law Officer which is a Group­'B' post. At the relevant
time the total cadre strength of Assistant Law Officers
in   Southern   Railway   was   three.   Initially   when
'Assistant Law Officer' was a single post cadre, in the
year   1991,   it   was   filled   by   an   open   category
candidate. Subsequently, when two more posts were
created in the year 1994, reservation was applicable.
The posts were to be filled on the basis of seniority­
cum­suitability. A notification holding 10 senior most
candidates  eligible  for  being   considered   for   the  two
posts   was   issued   on   10.11.1994.  (The   second

Page 25 of 62

HC-NIC Page 25 of 62 Created On Wed Nov 09 00:19:03 IST 2016

C/SCA/20936/2006 CAV JUDGMENT

respondent   herein   is   the   Chief   Personal   Officer   of
Southern Railways). To determine their suitability, a
written examination was held.   Eight Law Assistants
obtained   qualifying   marks   and   became   eligible   for
being called for the interview (one out of them opted
out).   The   concerned   committee   recommended
Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 for those two posts. Out of
them,   Respondent   No.   3   is   a   Scheduled   Caste
candidate. Accordingly, the promotion order for both
of them was issued on 26.5.1995.

3. The   appellant   also   belongs   to   a   Scheduled
Caste and was of the view that the Respondent No. 3
(Mr.   M.   Siddiah),   was   promoted   to   the   post   of
Assistant Law Officer on his merit and not because he
was   a   Scheduled  2  Caste   candidate.   It   was   her
contention that instead of Respondent No. 4 (Mr. K.
Rajagopalan   Nair)   belonging   to   the   open   category,
she   should   have   been   promoted   to   the   post   of
Assistant Law Officer on the basis of her status as a
Scheduled   Caste   candidate.   She,   therefore,
represented to the Chairman of the Railway Board on
14.2.1996 but there was no response.  She, therefore,
filed   the   above   referred   O.A.   In   the   Central
Administrative  Tribunal   (hereinafter   referred   to   as
Tribunal) at Chennai. The respondents Nos. 1 and 2
filed   their   reply   statement   before   the   Tribunal   and
pointed out that as per the Railway Board's decision
dated 29.7.1993 in small cadres having less than 4
posts, reservation  had to be provided as per the 40
point roster when no SC/ST candidate was available
in the Cadre. As per model 40 point roster the first
point   will   have   to   be   filled   by   a   Scheduled   Caste
candidate, and the next two points were to be treated
as   unreserved.   In   para   1   &   2   of   their   reply   the
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 stated as follows:­
"In this selection, the roster points to be filled up for
the two vacancies were point Nos. 2 and 3. Both the
points  are UR (I.e  Un­Reserved)  points.  As  the first
point which was a SC point was filled up by an UR
candidate,   being   a   single   vacancy,   out   of   the   two
vacancies for which notification was issued, one post
was treated as SC."

4. The appellant submitted before the C.A.T. That
if a Scheduled  Caste  candidate  competes  for a non­

Page 26 of 62

HC-NIC Page 26 of 62 Created On Wed Nov 09 00:19:03 IST 2016

C/SCA/20936/2006 CAV JUDGMENT

reserved   post   and   is   selected,   he   should   not   be
counted   against   the   quota   reserved   for   Scheduled
Castes. According to the appellant, if the senior most
among   eligible   candidates   belongs   to   a   Scheduled
Caste, on being promoted, he should be treated as an
open  category candidate  and should  not be counted
against the quota for Scheduled Castes. The judgment
of   a   Constitution   Bench   of   this   Court   in
R.K.
Sabharwal   and   Ors.   vs.   State   of   Punjab   and   Ors.

[1995 (2) SCC 745] was relied upon in support.

5. The  Central Administrative  Tribunal accepted
this submission and noted that the preposition in the
R.K. Sabharwal and Ors. (supra) had been reiterated
in para 11 of
Ajit Singh Januja and Ors. vs. State of
Punjab and Ors.
[1996 (2) SCC 715], wherein after
referring to the judgment in
R.K. Sabharwal
(supra)
a bench of 3 Judges had observed that if a Scheduled
Caste  candidate  has been  appointed  / promoted  on
his   own   merit,   than   such   candidate   shall   not   be
counted  towards  the percentage  of reservation  fixed
for them as stated in R.K. Sabharwal's case.

8. The   main­stay   of   the   argument   of   the
appellant   was,   as   stated   earlier,   that   since
Respondent   No.   3   had   been   selected   on   merits   he
should   not   be  considered  as   occupying  a  Scheduled
Caste   seat.   The   Scheduled   Caste   vacancy   must
therefore go to the next Scheduled Caste candidate as
per  the  order  of merit,  and  the  appellant  was  that
next   candidate.  Respondent   No.   4   (Mr.   K.
Rajagopalan   Nair)   should   not   have   been   therefore
promoted   as   an   open   category   candidate   and   that
post should have been allotted to the appellant. The
appellant relied upon the Railway Board order dated
29.7.1993   in   this   behalf,   which   was   issued   to
implement   a   full­bench   decision   of   the   Tribunal   at
Hyderabad,   which   states   that   where   ST/SC
candidates were promoted on their own merit, their
seniority   should   not   be   counted   as   reserved
candidates. The relevant part of the Railway Board's
letter   dated   29.7.1993   clarifies   as   follows   in   para
(VI):­

"(VI) Whether a person belonging to SC/ST promoted

Page 27 of 62

HC-NIC Page 27 of 62 Created On Wed Nov 09 00:19:03 IST 2016

C/SCA/20936/2006 CAV JUDGMENT

on his  own merit and seniority should be treated as
reserved   candidate   for   counting   available   SC/ST
candidates­  As   per   judgment   of   the   Full   Bench   of
Central   Administrative  Tribunal/Hyderabad,   the
SC/ST candidates who have been promoted on their
own   merit   and   seniority   should   not   be   counted   as
reserved candidates. It has further been
laid down in

Board's   letter   dated   16.06.1992   that   SC/ST
candidate can be placed on the panel/select list even
in excess of the reserved quota in case such candidates
qualify   against   general   posts   on   merit/seniority.
These   SC/ST   candidate   should   be   excluded   for   the
purpose of counting  the available SC/ST candidates
while computing the reserved quota."

9. Now,   as   far   as   this   aspect   is   concerned,
Respondent   Nos.   1   and   2   had   made   it   clear   that
where the posts were less than 4, the 40 point roster
was expected to be applied. As per that roster the first
point was meant for a Scheduled Caste candidate and
second  and   third  points  were   meant   for  candidates
from unreserved category. There is a note below this
model roster which reads as follows:­
"Note--If there are only two vacancies to be filled in
a particular year, not more than one may be treated
as reserved and if there is only one vacancy, it should
be   treated   as   unreserved.   If   on   this   account,   a
reserved   point   is   treated   as   unreserved,   the
reservation may be carried forward to the subsequent
three recruitment years."

14. As   can   be   seen   from   this   chart   it   was
Respondent   No.   4   who  had   obtained   the   highest
marks  I.e.   128.   Mr.   V.  Subramanian   and  Mr.  T.P.
Bhaskar  are  next  to him  with 127  and  125  marks
respectively.   Thereafter,  there   are   other   candidates
I.e.   Mr.   Siddaiah,   Mr.   Abdul   Khader   and
Mr.Muthusamy who all get 124 marks. Mr. Siddaiah
has been selected out of  them, essentially because it
was   a   Scheduled   Caste   vacancy   which   came   to  be
allotted  to him keeping  aside other  candidates.  Not
only   that,   but   he   was  placed   at   number   one   and
respondent No. 4 (having higher marks) was placed
at number two. The Tribunal held that if Respondent
No. 3 got marks lesser than that of Respondent No. 4,

Page 28 of 62

HC-NIC Page 28 of 62 Created On Wed Nov 09 00:19:03 IST 2016

C/SCA/20936/2006 CAV JUDGMENT

only   then   he   can   be   said   to   be   selected   against
Scheduled Caste point. The Tribunal did not realize
that the third Respondent had in fact got marks lesser
than   the   fourth   Respondent,   and   his   selection   was
basically   because   he   was   a   Scheduled   Caste
candidate.   In   view   of   this   position,   there   is   no
occasion   to   apply   the   instruction   contained   in
Railway   Board's   letter   dated   29.7.1993   nor   the
propositions in R.K. Sabharwal's judgment (supra) to
the   present   case.  Even  otherwise,  the  principle  that
when a member belonging to a Scheduled Caste gets
selected in the open competition field on the basis of
his   own   merit,   he   will   not   be   counted   against   the
quota   reserved   for   Scheduled   Castes,   but   will   be
treated as open candidate, will apply only in regard
to  recruitment  by  open  competition   and   not  to   the
promotions   effected   on   the   basis   of   seniority­cum­
suitability.

15. The   appellant   had   argued   before   the   High
Court that the candidates who obtained 80% marks
or above are to be placed at the top indicating that
they are to be selected irrespective of the community
factor.    In   appellant's   submission   Mr.   M.   Siddiah,
had to be considered as one such candidate. Now the
two relevant rules 204.8 and 204.9 read as follows:­
"204.8 The successful candidates shall be arranged as
follows:

(1) Those securing 80% marks and above graded
as 'Outstanding'.

(2) Those securing between 60% marks and 79%
marks graded as 'Good'.

204.9 The panel should consist of employees who had
qualified   in   the   selection,   corresponding   to   the
number of vacancies for which the selection was held.
Employees  securing  the gradation  'Outstanding'  will
be   placed   on   top   followed   by   those   securing   the
gradation 'Good' interse seniority within each group
being maintained.'
It is to be noted, as seen from the marks which have
been  referred to earlier, that none of the candidates
obtained more than 80% marks, and therefore, could
not   be   considered   as   outstanding   to   be   eligible   on
that   footing.   On   this   count   also   Mr.   M.   Siddiah's
selection cannot be considered as one only on merit

Page 29 of 62

HC-NIC Page 29 of 62 Created On Wed Nov 09 00:19:03 IST 2016

C/SCA/20936/2006 CAV JUDGMENT

irrespective of the community factor.

16. In the circumstances, there is no error in the
judgment and order rendered by the High Court. The
appeal is, therefore, dismissed.  Original Application,
filed by the first respondent before the Administrative
Tribunal, shall stand dismissed."

29. The Delhi High Court in case of  A.K.Gautam V/s. Union of
India and others  in Writ Petition (C) No.3646 of 1999 decided on 14th
May 2012, has made following observations :­

"5. Primarily,   the   following   two   issues   arise   for
our consideration in this writ petition:­

a) Whether SC/ST officers „promoted to a higher
post   on   their   own   merit‟  are   to   be   adjusted
against general category posts or against reserved
posts, in cases where the promotions are made on
the basis of seniority­cum­merit, or is this benefit
available only in the case of direct recruitments ?

b)   Whether   SC/ST   candidates,   having   merit
equal   to   the   general   category   candidates   and
possessing  the  prescribed  benchmark  of „Good‟,
can be said to have been promoted on the basis of
their own merit, in a selection based on the norm
of „seniority­cum­merit ?

6. It   was   contended   by   the   learned   Senior
Counsel   for   the   petitioner   that   since   no   element   of
merit   is   involved   in   promotion   on   the   basis   of
seniority­cum­merit/seniority­cum­fitness/seniority­
cum­suitability which according to him are  identical
terms, the principle of "promotion on his own merit"

does   not   apply   to  such   promotions.   His   contention
was that this principle, would apply only in cases of
promotion on the basis of merit, where comparative
merit   of   the   candidates   coming   in   the   zone   of
consideration are evaluated and possibly in the cases
of promotions on the basis of Limited Departmental
Examination.
In   support   of   his   contention   he   has

Page 30 of 62

HC-NIC Page 30 of 62 Created On Wed Nov 09 00:19:03 IST 2016

C/SCA/20936/2006 CAV JUDGMENT

relied primarily upon
Ajit Singh Januja and Others v.
State of Punjab and Others
(1996) 2 SCC 715 and
K.Manorama v. Union of India 2010(10) Scale 304.

7.
In
R.K. Sabharwal
(supra), reservation policy
of   Punjab   Government   was   challenged   on   two
grounds.   The   first   contention   of   the   petitioner   was
that   for  working   out  the   percentage  of  reservation,
the promotees/appointees belonging to the Scheduled
Castes   and   Backward   Classes,   whether   appointed
against   the   general   category   posts   or   against   the
reserved   posts   are   to   be   counted,   meaning   thereby
that if the  reservation  is 14%  for  Scheduled  Castes
candidates   and   more   than   14%   of   such   candidates
are   appointed/promoted   in   a   cadre   on   their   own
merit/seniority   by   competing   with   the   general
category candidates, then the purpose of reservation
in   the   said   cadre   having   been   achieved,   the
Government   instructions   providing   reservations
would become inoperative. The second contention of
the petitioners was that once the posts earmarked for
Scheduled Castes/Tribes and Backward Classes on the
roster are filled, the reservation is complete and the
roster cannot operate any further. Any posts falling
vacant in a cadre thereafter, are to be filled from the
categories,  „reserved‟  or   general,   due   to   retirement
etc. of whose member the post fell vacant. Repelling
the   first   contention,   the   Supreme   Court   inter­alia
held as under:­

"When   a   percentage   of   reservation   is
fixed in respect of a particular cadre and
the roster indicates the reserve points, it
has to be taken that the posts shown at
the   reserve   points   are   to   be   filled   from
amongst   the   members   of   reserve
categories  and  the  candidates  belonging
to the general category are not entitled to
be   considered   for   the   reserve   posts.   On
the   other   hand   the   reserve   category
candidates   can   compete   for   the   non­
reserve   posts   and   in   the   event   of   their
appointment   to   the   said   posts   their
number cannot be added and taken into
consideration   for   working   out   the
percentage   of   reservation.   When   the

Page 31 of 62

HC-NIC Page 31 of 62 Created On Wed Nov 09 00:19:03 IST 2016

C/SCA/20936/2006 CAV JUDGMENT

State   Government   after   doing   the
necessary exercise makes the reservation
and provides the extent of percentage of
posts   to   be   reserved   for   the   said
backward  class  then  the  percentage  has
to   be   followed   strictly.   The   prescribed
percentage  cannot  be   varied  or   charged
simply because  some  of the members  of
the   backward   class   have   already   been
appointed/promoted  against the general
seats.   As   mentioned   above   the   roster
point  which   is  reserved  for  a  backward
class   has   to   be   filled   by   way   of
appointment/promotion   of   the   member
of   the   said   class.   No   general   category
candidate can be appointed against a slot
in   the   roster   which   is   reserved   for   the
backward   class.   The   fact   that
considerable   number   of   members   of   a
backward   class   have   been
appointed/promoted   against   general
seats   in   the   State   Services   may   be   a
relevant factor for the State Government
to   review   the   question   of   continuing
Reservation for the said class but so long
as   the   instructions/Rules   providing
certain percentage of reservations for the
backward classes are operative the same
have to be followed. Despite any number
of appointees/promotes belonging to the
backward   classes   against   the   general
category   posts  the  given  percentage  has
to be provided in addition........."

(emphasis   supplied)   The   view   taken   on
the   second   contention   of   the   petitioner
before Supreme Court is not relevant for
our purpose.

In
Union of India v. Virpal Singh Chauhan
: (1995) 6
SCC 684, the Supreme Court was concerned with the
nature of rule of reservation in promotions obtaining
in the  Railway  Service  and  the  rule  concerning  the
determination   of   seniority   between   general
candidates   and   the   candidates   belonging   to   the
reserved classes in the promoted category.

Page 32 of 62

HC-NIC Page 32 of 62 Created On Wed Nov 09 00:19:03 IST 2016

C/SCA/20936/2006 CAV JUDGMENT

In para 29 of the judgment, the Supreme Court iner­
alia observed as under:­

"Be   that   as   it   may,   as   a   result   of   the
decision   in  R.K.   Sabharwal   and   the
views/findings   recorded   by   us
hereinabove,   the   following   position
emerges:

(i) Once   the   number   of   posts
reserved   for   being   filled   by   reserved
category candidates in a cadre, category
or grade (unit for application of rule of
reservation)   are   filled  by  the   operation
of roster, the object of rule of reservation
should be deemed to have been achieved
and   thereafter   the   roster   cannot   be
followed except to the extent indicated in
Para   5   of  R.K.   Sabharwal.   While
determining   the   said   number,   the
candidates   belonging   to   the   reserved
category but selected/promoted on their
own merit (and not by virtue of rule of
reservation)   shall   not   be   counted   as
reserved   category  candidates."

(emphasis supplied)

8. The   use   of   the   expression
"appointed/promoted"  in para 4 of the
judgment   in
R.K.Sabharwal
(supra),
coupled with the fact that the case before
the   Supreme   Court   was   a   case   of
reservation   in   promotions,   in   Punjab
Service  of Engineers  (Class­1),  we have
no   hesitation   in   holding   that   the
decision   of   the   Supreme   Court   in   this
case   applies   not   only   to   direct
recruitments   but   also   to   the
appointments by way of promotion.

This
view   gets   support   from   the   use   of   the
expression  "promoted/appointed"  in

Veer Pal Singh Chauhan
(supra) as well
as in
Ajit Singh Januja
(supra).

In any
case, even the expression „appointment‟,
in the absence  of any indication  to the

Page 33 of 62

HC-NIC Page 33 of 62 Created On Wed Nov 09 00:19:03 IST 2016

C/SCA/20936/2006 CAV JUDGMENT

contrary,   includes   appointment   by
promotion,   as   rightly   held  by   the
Tribunal relying upon the decision of 09
members‟  Bench  of the  Supreme  Court
in
Indra   Sawhney   v.   Union   of   India
:

(1992) Supp (3) SCC 217.

9. By the OM No. 36012/2/96­Estt.(Res.) dated
2.7.1997, DoP&T, inter alia, stated as under:

"The undersigned is directed to say that
under the existing instructions, vacancy­
based   rosters   have   been  prescribed   in
order   to   implement   the   Government‟s
policy relating to reservation of jobs for
the   Scheduled   Castes,   the   Scheduled
Tribes   and   the   other   backward   classes.
The   application   of   reservation   on   the
basis   of   these   rosters   was   called   into
question before Courts. The Constitution
Bench   of   the   Supreme   Court   in  case   of

R.K.   Sabharwal   vs.   State   of   Punjab
as
well   as
J.C.   Mallick   Vs.   Ministry   of
Railways
has held that the reservation of
jobs   for   backward   classes   SC/ST/OBC
should   apply   to   posts   and   not   to
vacancies. The court further held that the
vacancy   based   rosters   can   operate   only
till   such   time   as   the   representation   of
person   belonging   to   the   reserved
categories,   in   a   cadre   reaches   the
prescribed   percentages   of   reservations.
Thereafter,   the   rosters   cannot   operate
and   vacancies   released   by   retirement,
resignation, promotion etc. of the person
belonging to the general and the reserved
categories are to be filled by appointment
of persons from the respective category so
that   the   prescribed   percentage   of
reservation   is   maintained.   With   a   view
to   bringing   the   policy   of   reservation   in
line   with   the   law
laid   down   by
the
Supreme Court, it has been decided that
the   existing   200   point,   40   point   and
120­point vacancy­based rosters shall be
replaced   by   post   based   rosters.   All

Page 34 of 62

HC-NIC Page 34 of 62 Created On Wed Nov 09 00:19:03 IST 2016

C/SCA/20936/2006 CAV JUDGMENT

Ministries/Departments   and   concerned
Authorities are requested to prepare the
respective rosters based on the principles
elaborated in the explanatory notes given
in   Annexure­1   to   this   O.M.   And
illustrated in the model Rosters annexed
to this O.M. As Annexure­II, III and IV.
Similarly, the concerned authorities may
prepare   rosters   to   replace   the   existing
100­point   rosters   in   respect   of   local
recruitment to group C & D posts on the
basis of the same principles.

x x x x At the stage of initial operation of
a roster, it will be necessary to adjust the
existing appointments in the roster. This
will   also   help   in   identifying   the
excesses/shortage,   if   any,   in   the
respective   categories   in   the   cadre.   This
may   be   done   starting   from   the   earliest
appointment and making an appropriate
remark­"utilized  by   SC/ST/OBC/GEN"

as the case may be against each point in
the   rosters   as   explained   in   the
explanatory notes appended to the model
rosters.   In   making   these   adjustment,
appointment  of candidates  belonging  to
SC/ST/OBCs which were made on merit
(and not due to reservation)  are not to
be counted towards reservation so far as
direct recruitment is concerned. In other
words, they are to be treated as general
category appointments."   (emphasis supplied)

Vide   OM   No.   36038/17/2001­Estt.(Res.)   dated
11.7.2002, DoP&T issued the following clarifications
regarding   its   earlier   OM   dated   2.7.1997,   which   it
had   issued   in   implementation   of   the   decision   of
Supreme Court in
R.K.Sabharwal
(supra). The OM,
to the extent it is relevant, reads as under:

"Subject:   Reservation   in   promotion  -
Treatment   of   SC/ST   candidates
promoted   on   their   own   merit   The
undersigned   is directed  to  say  that  this

Page 35 of 62

HC-NIC Page 35 of 62 Created On Wed Nov 09 00:19:03 IST 2016

C/SCA/20936/2006 CAV JUDGMENT

Department has been receiving references
from   various   Ministries   etc.   regarding
adjustment   of   SC/ST   candidates
promoted   on   their   own   merit   in   the
reservation   rosters   introduced  vide
DoPT‟s OM No. 36012/2/96­Estt.(Res.)
dated   2.7.1997.   While   it   is   clear   from
the   OM   dated   2.7.1997   that   the
SC/ST/OBC   candidates   appointed   by
direct   recruitment   on   their   own   merit
and   not   owing   to   reservation   will   be
adjusted against unreserved points of the
reservation   roster,   doubts   have   been
raised about SC/ST candidates promoted
on their own merit. It is hereby clarified
that:­

(i) The   SC/ST   candidates
appointed   by   promotion   on   their   own
merit   and   not   owing   to   reservation   or
relaxation   of   qualifications   will   not   be
adjusted   against   the   reserved   points   of
the   reservation   roster.   They   will   be
adjusted against unreserved points.

(ii) If an unreserved vacancy arises
in a cadre and there is any SC/ST grade,
such SC/ST candidate cannot  be denied
promotion   on   the   plea   that   the   post   is
not   reserved.   Such   a   candidate   will   be
considered   for   promotion   along   with
other   candidates   treating   him   as   if   he
belongs to general category. In case he is
selected he will be appointed to the post
and   will   be   adjusted   against   the
unreserved point.

(iii) SC/ST candidates appointed on
their own merit (by direct recruitment or
promotion)   and   adjusted   against
unreserved points will retain their status
of   SC/ST   and   will   be   eligible   to   get
benefit   of   reservation   in   future/further
promotions, if any."

Page 36 of 62

HC-NIC Page 36 of 62 Created On Wed Nov 09 00:19:03 IST 2016

C/SCA/20936/2006 CAV JUDGMENT

By   the   OM   No.   36028/17/2001­Estt.(Res.)   dated
31.1.2005   DoP&T   clarified   that   since   in   case   of
promotions   by   non­selection,   promotions   are   made
on the basis of seniority­cum­fitness and the concept
of   merit   is   not   involved,   the   OM   dated   11.7.2002
does   not   apply   to   the   promotions   made   by   non­
selection   method.   However,   vide   OM   No.
36012/45/2005­Estt.   (Res.)   dated   10.8.2010,
DoP&T after examining the matter in the light of the
decision of Madras High Court in
Union of India v.
S.Kalugasalamoorthy  WP No.15926/2007
withdrew
the   OM   No.36028/17/201­Estt.   (Res.)   dated
31.1.2005   and   clarified   that   SC/ST   candidates
appointed   by   promotion   on   their   own   merit   and
seniority and not owing to reservation or relaxation
of qualifications will be adjusted against unreserved
points   of   reservation   roster,   irrespective   of   the   fact
that   whether   the   promotion   is   made   by   selection
method   or   non­selection   method.   These   instructions
took   effect   from   2.7.1997,   the   date   on   which   post
based reservation was introduced.

(emphasis supplied)

10. From a combined reading of the aforesaid Oms
it   becomes   evident   that   the   OM   dated   2.7.1997,
issued   towards   implementation   of   the   decision   of
Supreme   Court   in
R.K.Sabharwal
(supra)   for   not
counting appointments made on the basis of merit, in
the quota meant for reserved categories, applies not
only to direct appointments but also to promotions,
including   the   promotions   on   the   basis   of   seniority­
cum­merit   (non­selection   method).   The   OM   dated
31.1.2005   having   been   set   aside   by   the   Madras
Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No.
900/2005,   the   order   of   the   Tribunal   having   been
upheld by the Madras High Court and the decision of
the High Court having been accepted by Government
of India, no reliance can be placed by the petitioner
on the said OM dated 31.1.2005, to interpret the OM
dated  2.7.1997  issued  by DoP&T  since  the OM No.
36012/45/2005­Estt.   (Res.)   dated   10.8.2010   is
clarificatory   in   nature   and   not   in   its
modification/supersession.
It is a settled proposition
of law that an explanation  or a clarification  has a
retrospective   effect   (see  S.B.   Chattarjee   v.   S.D.
Majumdar   &   Ors,  (2007)   10   SCC   513  and  Ashok

Page 37 of 62

HC-NIC Page 37 of 62 Created On Wed Nov 09 00:19:03 IST 2016

C/SCA/20936/2006 CAV JUDGMENT

Lenka v. Rishi Dikshit and Ors. (2006) 9 SCC

90).   It   would   mean   that   on   issue   of   OM   dated
2.7.1997,   the   principle   of   not   counting   of   SC/ST
candidates promoted/appointed "on their own merit"

against reserved vacancies had become applicable to
all promotions, including the promotions on the basis
of seniority­cum­merit (non selection method).

Even  otherwise,  the  Supreme  Court did not  use the
expression   "comparative  merit"   or  "superior  merit",
but used the expression "on their own merit".

11. We also note that vide OM No. 36011/1/98­
Estt. (Res.) dated 1.7.1998 DoP&T clarified that only
such SC/ST/OBC candidates who are selected on the
same   standards   as   is   applied   to   general   categories
shall   not   be   adjusted   against   reserved   vacancies.   It
was  further  stated  that when a relaxed  standard  is
applied   in   selecting   an   SC/ST/OBC   candidate,   for
example   in   the   age   limit,   experience,   qualification,
permitted number of chances in written examination,
extended  zone  of   consideration   larger  than  what  is
provided   for   general   category   candidates   etc.   the
SC/ST/OBC   candidates   are   to   be   counted   against
reserved   vacancies.   The   benefit   of   the   relaxed
standard   should   have   been   taken   by   the   reserved
category candidate, in promotion, if his promotion is
to be counted against reserved vacancy. We also take
note of the fact that this OM was issued by way of
clarification   of   instructions   contained   in   the   OM
dated 2.7.1997 which provided that the SC/ST/OBC
candidates   selected   on   their   own   merit   will   be
adjusted against reserved vacancies. This OM clearly
indicates that while issuing the OM dated 2.7.1997
Government   of   India   was   of   the   view   that   if   the
standard   applied   in   selection   of   SC/ST/OBC
candidate is equal to the standard applied in selection
of   general   category   candidates,   the   appointment   of
reserved   category   candidates   would   not   be   counted
against reserved vacancies.

In   the   case   before   us,   admittedly,   general   category
candidates   as   well   as   reserved   category   candidates

Page 38 of 62

HC-NIC Page 38 of 62 Created On Wed Nov 09 00:19:03 IST 2016

C/SCA/20936/2006 CAV JUDGMENT

were subjected to the same standard for promotion to
the   post   of   Superintendent   (Group  „B‟)   in   Central
Excise   and   Customs.   This   is   not   the   case   of   the
petitioner before us that while making promotions to
the   post   of   Superintendent   (Group  „B‟)   amongst
reserved   category   candidates,   any   relaxation   was
granted in age, experience, qualification etc. or that
any   extended   zone   of   consideration   was   applied   in
promotion of those, whom the Tribunal has directed
to   be   considered   for   appointment   against   general
vacancies.   As   noted   earlier   by   us,   the   OM   dated
2.7.1997 in view of subsequent clarification issued by
DoP&T  applied  not only to direct appointments  but
also to promotions,  including  promotion  by way  of
seniority­cum­fitness,   as   is   evident   from   the
clarification   dated   10.8.2010   issued   by   DoP&T.
Therefore,   in   our   opinion,   Oms   issued   by   DoP&T
envisaged   that   the   SC/ST   candidates,   promoted   on
the  basis of standards  equal  to those  prescribed  for
general   category   candidates   will   be   considered   to
have been promoted on their own merit and seniority
and not owing to reservation.

12. The issue involved in this petition also came up
for   consideration   before   another   Division   Bench   of
this Court in WP(C) No. 11371­73/2005 decided on
15.2.2008.   That   was   a   case   of   promotion   of
Inspectors   of   Central   Excise   to   the   post   of
Superintendent Grade „B‟. The Recruitment Rules for
the promotional post provided that an Inspector with
8 years‟  service on regular basis would be eligible for
consideration   for   promotion   to   the   next   grade   of
Superintendent Grade B which was a selection post.
There were a total of 282 vacancies in the cadre of
Superintendent   Grade   B,   out   of   which   39   were
reserved for SC candidates, 24 for ST candidates, the
remaining   219   vacancies   being   unreserved.   While
making promotions some of the persons belonging to
SC/ST   categories   were   adjusted   against   unreserved
posts meant for general category candidates. This was
challenged   before   the   Tribunal   which   directed   the
respondents in the OA to apply the principles, which
it  had  evolved  in  its  earlier  decision   in  the  case  of
B.C.K.Ralu  v.  Chief  Commissioner  of  Central  Excise
Andhra   Pradesh   Zone   and   Anr.   (decided   by
Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal dated 31.7.2003).
The   order   of   the   Tribunal   was   challenged   by   the

Page 39 of 62

HC-NIC Page 39 of 62 Created On Wed Nov 09 00:19:03 IST 2016

C/SCA/20936/2006 CAV JUDGMENT

Government   before   this   Court.   On   examination   of
various Oms issued by DoP&T, this Court inter alia
observed as under:

"Conjoint   reading   of   the   aforesaid   four
clarifications would make it abundantly
clear   that   when   SC/ST   candidates   are
appointed   even   by   promotion   on   their
merit   and   not   owing   to   reservation   or
relaxation   of   qualifications   will   be
adjusted   against   unreserved   points   and
not against reserved points. They would
still retain their status of SC/ST and will
be eligible to get benefit of reservation in
future/further   promotions.   Once   such
SC/ST  candidates  getting  promotion  on
their own merit and not due to reserved
points,   even   while   calculating   50%
points on reservation such persons would
be excluded meaning thereby they would
not   be   treated   as   promoted   against
reserved category.

For   promotion   to   grades   below   the
revised   pay­scale   of   Rs.   12,000­16,500
where   the   mode   of   promotion   is
'selection',   the  bench­mark   prescribed  is
'good'.   Thus,   those   officers   who   qualify
the   bench­mark  of  good  will   be   graded
by the DPC as fit or unfit. Those who are
graded   as   fit   shall   be   included   in   the
select   panel   prepared   by   the   DPC   in
order   of   their   inter­se   seniority   in   the
feeder   grade   and   there   shall   be   no
supersession  in promotion  among   those
who are found fit by the DPC in terms of
the prescribed bench mark of 'good'."

The respondents in that case contended that since as
per OM dated 8.2.2002, the mode of promotion was
selection,   and   all   the   candidates   who   achieved   the
benchmark of „good‟  were to be classified as fit and
there being no supersession in promotion, there was
no  element  of merit  as  visualized  in the  OM  dated
11.7.2002.   Dealing   with   the   contention   this   Court

Page 40 of 62

HC-NIC Page 40 of 62 Created On Wed Nov 09 00:19:03 IST 2016

C/SCA/20936/2006 CAV JUDGMENT

inter alia observed and held as under:

"After   considering   the   respective
submissions   and   the   position   contained
in various  office  memoranda,  we are of
the   opinion   that   having   regard   to   the
recruitment rules, it cannot be said that
the   promotion   to   the   post   of
Superintendent Grade B is merely on the
basis of seniority. It is treated as selection
post. The procedure to be observed by the
DPC   when   the   mode   of   promotion   is
selection   as   prescribed   in   OM   dated
8.2.2002.   As   per   this   OM   the   bench
mark   'good'   is   provided.   No   doubt,   the
persons are to be ultimately rated as 'fit'
or 'unfit'. However, only those candidates
would be eligible for promotion who are
declared fit and to get the declaration of
fit, DPC has to consider and arrive at a
conclusion,   on   the   basis   of   ACRs   and
other   material   provided   to   it,   as   to
whether  they are to be graded  as good.
There is an element of selection here and
unless   a   candidate   achieves   this   bench
mark, he would be treated as unfit. Fit or
unfit   Therefore   has   relevance   to
achieving the prescribed bench mark and
does  not   have   the  same  connotation   as
seniority­cum­fitness.   The   bench   mark
'good' has the element of merit.

Therefore, what is relevant for us to note
as   to   whether   SC/ST   candidates   are
selected for promotion to this post on the
same   standard   as   applied   to   general
candidates. If that is so, they would not
be   adjusted   against   reserved   vacancies.
On the other hand, if relaxed standards
are applied in making their promotions,
for   example   lesser   Bench   Mark,   lesser
period   of   qualifying   service,   bringing
them in zone of consideration because of
the   reason   of   their   being   SC/ST,
comparatively lesser ACRs etc., then they
would   be   deemed   as   promoted   against

Page 41 of 62

HC-NIC Page 41 of 62 Created On Wed Nov 09 00:19:03 IST 2016

C/SCA/20936/2006 CAV JUDGMENT

reserved   vacancies.   The  bench   mark   for
general category candidates is good. It is
not   known   and   nothing   has   come   on
record to show as to what was the bench
mark  provided  for  those  Inspectors  who
belonged  to  the  categories  of SC/ST.  In
the   absence   of   such   material   provided
before us or before the Tribunal it is not
possible to come to a definite conclusion.
At the same  time,  we find  that without
focusing   on   this   aspect   which   was
relevant,   the   Tribunal   simply   followed
B.C.K.   Ralu   (supra)   and   directed   the
petitioners   to   pass   a   detailed   and
speaking  order  on the  representation  of
the   respondents   herein.   In   these
circumstances,   having   regard   to   the
aforesaid   legal   position,   we   modify   the
directions  contained  in the  order  of the
Tribunal and dispose of the writ petition
by substituting the following directions:

Those   candidates   belonging   to   SC/ST
category   who   were   recommended   for
promotions   applying   the   same   bench
mark   of   'good'   as   applicable   to   the
general   candidates   such   SC/ST
candidates   would   be   adjusted   against
unreserved   points.   On   the   other   hand
such   SC/ST   candidates   who   are   given
promotion   on   the   basis   of   relaxed
standards would be treated as promoted
against reserved vacancies."

This Court, during the course of the judgment, noted
that vide OM dated 11.7.2002  it had been clarified
that   those   SC/ST   candidates   who   were   selected   on
their   own   merit   were   to   be   adjusted   against
unreserved   slots.   This   judgment   squarely   applies   to
the case before us, as the rules for promotion for the
feeder   cadre   of   Inspectors   in   Central   Excise   and
Customs to Superintendent Grade B are identical to
the   rules   for   promotion   from   cadre   of   Inspector   in
Central Excise to Superintendent Grade B in Central
Excise, which were subject matter of
Bharat Bhushan
& Anr
(supra).  The benchmark prescribed is  „good‟

Page 42 of 62

HC-NIC Page 42 of 62 Created On Wed Nov 09 00:19:03 IST 2016

C/SCA/20936/2006 CAV JUDGMENT

in   both   the   cadres.   Those,   who   achieved   the
prescribed  benchmark  are  to be rated  fit and  those
who are declared fit are to be promoted in order of
their   seniority.  As   noted   by   this   Court,   there   is   an
element  of selection  in the  benchmark  „good‟  since
those   who   had   not   achieved   the   prescribed
benchmark   of  "good"  are   required  to  be   treated   as
unfit and consequently are not to be promoted.

13.
In
Union   of   India   v.   Central   Administrative
Tribunal,  Writ  Petition  No.
1311/1999,  decided  by
Madras   High   Court   on   28.1.2003   the   decision   of
which   was   affirmed   by   Supreme   Court   in
K.Manorama  (supra),  Rule   204.8   of   the   relevant
rules provided that the candidates securing 80 marks
and   above   would   be   graded   as  "Outstanding"   and
candidates   who   were   securing   between   60%   marks
and   79%   marks   would   be   graded   as   "Good".   Rule
204.9   provided   that   employees   securing  the
gradation  "Outstanding"  were   to  be  placed   on   top,
followed   by   those   securing   the   gradation  "Good",
inter   se   seniority   within   each   group   being
maintained. The High Court noted that the selection
of  „outstanding‟  candidates   was   placed   purely   on
merit, without any other consideration, but, as far as
rest of the candidates were concerned, seniority was
to prevail, irrespective of variation in their qualifying
marks. The "outstanding‟  candidates were to have a
march   over   all   other   candidates,   irrespective   of
seniority, but, when it came to candidates coming in
the   category   of  "Good‟,  seniority   alone   was   to
prevail,  irrespective  of the qualifying  marks  secured
by   them.   Of   the   two   vacancies   notified,   one   was
reserved and other was unreserved. No candidate had
secured 80 marks or more in the written examination
and   therefore   all   the   successful   candidates   were
arrayed   in   accordance   with   their   seniority   in   the
feeder   cadre.   The   03rd  respondent   who   was   a
scheduled   caste   candidate   and   was   also   the
seniormost,   was   placed   at   sl.   No.   1   while   the   04th
respondent,   who   was  a  general   category   candidate,
was placed at sl. No. 2. The second respondent an SC
candidate   was   placed   at   sl.   No.   5   in   the   order   of
seniority. Admittedly, in the roster, SC point had to
be filled  in at the first instance  and  the unreserved
post had to be filled next. Since between 2nd  and 3rd
respondents, who belonged to reserved category, the

Page 43 of 62

HC-NIC Page 43 of 62 Created On Wed Nov 09 00:19:03 IST 2016

C/SCA/20936/2006 CAV JUDGMENT

3rd  respondent  was  the  seniormost,  having  achieved
the   first   place   in   the   gradation   list,   by   virtue   of
minimum   qualifying   marks   scored   by   him   his
selection  to the  post of Assistant  Law  Officer  at SC
point was imperative, the High Court was of the view
that once the post in the reserved category got filled
up,  there  was  no  scope  for  the  claim  of the  second
respondent   in   the   reserved   category.   In   unreserved
category, since the fourth respondent was the senior
most as per the gradation list, he having secured the
required marks for getting a placement at the second
level   by   virtue   of   his   seniority,   his   selection   under
unreserved category was also held to be correct. The
contention raised on behalf of the second respondent
was that though the third respondent belonged to a
reserved category, on account of his position as No.1
in the gradation list, he ought to have been selected
against  unreserved   post,   excluding   the   claim  of   the
other  selected  candidates. The High Court found  no
merit   in   the   contention,   the   same   being   applicable
only to  „outstanding‟  candidates and not to  „good‟
candidates. The High Court also held that the third
respondent,   who   was   a   scheduled   caste   candidate
could   not   have   been   selected   against   unreserved
category   inasmuch   as   once   he   stood   first   in   the
gradation   list,   by  virtue   of  his  „good   performance‟
along with others by virtue of his seniority, he had to
be   considered   for   selection   in   the  „SC   category‟,
which was the roster point in that selection and when
once his selection in that  „SC category‟  was rightly
made, there was no scope for considering the claim of
the second respondent in that category. It would thus
be seen that in the case before the High Court, it was
the reserved point in the roster which was to be filled
up   first.   Respondent   No.3   who   was   a   reserved
category   candidate,   who   on   account   of   his   having
secured the qualifying  marks and graded as  „good‟
and   also   being   seniormost   amongst   the   qualified
candidates was required to be considered against the
reserved   vacancy.   It   was   not   open   to   the   Selection
Committee not to consider him against the reserved
post,   which   was   to   be   filled   before   filling   the
unreserved  post. Once respondent  No.3 was selected
against  the  reserved  post,  there  was  no question  of
considering him again against the unreserved post. It
would  thus be seen that the High Court upheld  the
selection of respondent No.3 against the reserved post

Page 44 of 62

HC-NIC Page 44 of 62 Created On Wed Nov 09 00:19:03 IST 2016

C/SCA/20936/2006 CAV JUDGMENT

on account of the reserved post being the first one in
the   roster   to   be   filled   up   by   promotion   and
respondent   No.3   besides   being   a   reserved   category
candidate   was   also   the   seniormost   qualified
candidate.

When  the  matter  was  taken  to Supreme  Court,  the
appellant   before   the   Supreme   Court   who   also
belonged   to   a   scheduled   caste   took   the   plea   that
respondent No.3 Mr. M. Siddiah had been promoted
on his own merit and not because of his being a SC
candidate and therefore he should have been adjusted
against   the   general   category   vacancy,   whereas   she
should have been promoted against the reserved post,
on   account   of   her   being   a   scheduled   caste.   On
examination   of   the   matter,   Supreme   Court   found
that,   in   fact,   respondent   No.   3   had   not   obtained
highest marks. He had obtained 124 marks, whereas
respondent   No.   4   obtained   128   marks.   Two   more
candidates,   who   were   not   selected,   had   obtained
marks higher than the marks obtained by respondent
No.3.

The   Supreme   Court   noted   that   the   Tribunal   had
observed in para 14 of its order that respondent No.3
had   obtained   the   highest   number   of   marks   in   the
selection and therefore the question of his being the
SC candidate had evaporated on account of his being
the most meritorious candidate in the entire selection.
The Tribunal had also observed that had respondent
No.4 come up in the marks over that of respondent
No.3 and the question of the respondent No.3 being
the senior in the SC candidates, then respondent No.3
would have been justified in being empanelled in the
reserved category. The Supreme Court noted from the
chart quoted  in the judgment  that respondent  No.4
had   actually   obtained   the   highest   marks   I.e.   128,
whereas respondent No.3 Mr. Siddaiah had obtained
124 marks. There were two other candidates between
respondent  No.4 and respondent  No.3,  one  of them
having   obtained   127   marks   and   other   having
obtained   125   marks.   The   Supreme   Court   observed
that   Mr.   Siddaiah   (respondent   No.3)   had   been
selected   out   of   them   essentially   because   it   was   a
scheduled caste vacancy, which came to be allotted to
him, keeping aside other candidates. The Court was

Page 45 of 62

HC-NIC Page 45 of 62 Created On Wed Nov 09 00:19:03 IST 2016

C/SCA/20936/2006 CAV JUDGMENT

of the view that there was no occasion to apply the
instruction contained in Railway Board‟s letter dated
29.7.1993  nor the propositions  in  R.K.Sabharwal‟s
case (supra). The observations made by the Supreme
Court in this regard are as under:

"In   view   of   this   position,   there   is   no
occasion   to   apply   the  instruction
contained in Railway Board's letter dated
29.7.1993   nor   the   propositions   in  R.K.
Sabharwal's  judgment   (supra)   to   the
present   case.   Even   otherwise,   the
principle that when a member belonging
to a Scheduled Caste gets selected in the
open competition field on the basis of his
own   merit,   he   will   not   be   counted
against the quota reserved for Scheduled
Castes,   but   will   be   treated   as   open
candidate,   will   apply   only   in   regard   to
recruitment by open competition and not
to the promotions effected on the basis of
seniority­cum­suitability."

14. The   learned   counsel   for   the   private
respondents  submitted  that the decision of Supreme
Court in K.Manorama (supra) would not apply to the
case   before   this   Court   for   the   reasons   that   (I)
respondent   No.  3,  in  that   case,   who  was  promoted
against the reserved post had obtained lesser marks
(124) than the general category candidate who had
obtained   128   marks   and,   therefore,   did   not   have
equal merit (ii) the first vacancy  to be filled  up by
promotion   was   a   reserved   vacancy   and   the   SC
candidate  having  already been selected  against that
vacancy could not have been considered against the
general category vacancy and (iii) no office order or
circular similar to clarificatory Oms dated 11.7.2002
and   10.8.2010  had  been  issued.
He  also  submitted
that in view of the decision of the Constitution Bench
of Supreme Court in
R.K.Sabharwal
(supra), it is no
more  res   integra  that   not   only   those   who   are
appointed   by   way   of   direct   recruitment,   but   also
those   who   are   promoted   on  the   basis   of  their   own
merit are to be adjusted against the general vacancies
and not against the reserved vacancies.
We take note
of the  fact  that  in case  of  K.Manorama  (supra),  it

Page 46 of 62

HC-NIC Page 46 of 62 Created On Wed Nov 09 00:19:03 IST 2016

C/SCA/20936/2006 CAV JUDGMENT

were rules 204.8 & 204.9 of the relevant rules which
applied   to   the   case   before   the   Court.   Neither   OM
dated   2.4.1997   nor   the   Oms   dated   11.7.2002   &
10.8.2010   issued  by  DoP&T   were  applicable   to  the
case   before   the   Supreme   Court.   Therefore,   the
observations   made   by   the   Supreme   Court   in   the
context of the rules of Railways, would not ipso facto
apply   to   the   case   before   us,   where   the   promotions
were to be made in terms of various Oms issued by
DoP&T from time to time.

15. Relying upon the decision of Supreme Court in

Ajit Singh Januja
(supra)  as well as the view taken
by   this   Court   in  Bharat   Bhushan  (supra),   it   was
contended  by  the  learned  counsel  for  the   petitioner
that since  some  of the  reserved  category  candidates
had,   on   account   of   reservation   available   in
confirmation   at   the   relevant   time,   been   granted
earlier   confirmation   and   consequently   had   become
senior to the petitioner, who was appointed earlier to
them in point of time, promotion of such candidates
cannot be counted against general vacancies.

16.
In
Ajit Singh Januja
(supra),  the Government
of Punjab had issued a circular stating therein that
those  Scheduled  Castes/Backward  Classes  employees
who get appointed/promoted against reserved points
on   the   basis   of   their   merit/seniority   could   not   be
counted   for   the   purpose   of   reservation   but   that
reserve point should be carried over to the next point
on   the   roster   and   filled   by   a   candidate/employee
belonging  to Scheduled Castes/Backward  Classes, so
that   the   deficiency   of   representation   in   service   is
made up. The issue which Supreme Court was called
upon to consider
in that case
was as to whether, the
members   of   Scheduled   Casts/Tribes/Backward
Classes,   for   whom   specific   percentage   of   posts   had
been reserved and roster had been provided and who
had been promoted against those posts on the basis of
"accelerated   promotion",   because   of   reservation  of
posts and applicability of the roster system can claim
promotion   against   general   category   posts,   in   still
higher  grade,  on the  basis of their  seniority,  which
itself was the result of „accelerated promotion‟ on the
basis   of   reservation   in   roster.   Allowing  the   appeal
and setting aside the judgment of the Full Bench of

Page 47 of 62

HC-NIC Page 47 of 62 Created On Wed Nov 09 00:19:03 IST 2016

C/SCA/20936/2006 CAV JUDGMENT

Punjab   and   Haryana   High   Court,   Supreme   Court
observed and held as under:­

"In R.K. Sabharwal's case, this Court has
treated   the   members   of   the   Scheduled
Castes   and   Backward   Classes   in   two
categories   I.e.   those   who   are   appointed
or   promoted   having   competed   with
general category candidates on merit and
those   who   are   appointed/promoted   on
basis of reservation and roster. For those
who have competed on merit it has been
held that their number is not to be taken
into consideration while working out the
percentage   of   reservation.   In   respect   of
those  members  of Scheduled  Castes  and
Backward   Classes,   who   have   been
appointed/promoted   on   the   basis   of
reservation and roster, it has been said in
clear   and   unequivocal   terms   that   the
"running   account"   shall   stop   after   the
quota provided under the instructions is
reached   and   the   roster   cannot   be
operated thereafter. In other words, there
is   no   question   of   promoting   further
number   of   such   candidates,   who   have
been appointed/promoted on the basis of
reservation and roster.

If the contention
of   the   respondents   is   accepted   as   has
been done  by the High Court that such
appointees/promotees   can  be  considered
against posts meant for general category
candidates   merely   because   they   have
become   senior   on   basis   of   accelerated
promotions   then,   according   to   us,   that
exercise   shall   amount   to   circumventing
the  judgment  of the  Constitution  Bench
of   this   Court   in   the
Sabharwal
case,
because   for   all   practical   purposes   the
promotions of such candidates are being
continued   like   a   running   account
although   the   percentage   of   reservation
provided for them has been reached and
achieved. Once such reserved  percentage
has been achieved and even the operation
of   the   roster   has   stopped,   then   how   it
will   be   permissible   to   consider   such

Page 48 of 62

HC-NIC Page 48 of 62 Created On Wed Nov 09 00:19:03 IST 2016

C/SCA/20936/2006 CAV JUDGMENT

candidates   for   being   promoted   against
the general category posts on the basis of
their   accelerated   promotion,   which   has
been achieved by reservation and roster.

Once   the   quota   is   full   and   roster   has
stopped   for   members   of   the   Scheduled
Castes  and   Backward   Classes   in  respect
of whom reservation has been made and
roster has been prescribed then their case
for   promotion   to   still   higher   grade
against general category posts has to be
considered not treating them as members
of   the   Scheduled   Castes   or   Backward
Classes "on any crutch". They cannot be
promoted   only   on   basis   of   their
'accelerated seniority' against the general
category posts. In  R.K. Sabharwal's case
it was said that the candidates belonging
to   Scheduled   Castes   who   compete   on
their   own   merit   along   with   general
category candidates then they are not to
be   counted   within   the   percentage   of
reservation made for such candidates in
the service,  because  they have  competed
with the general category candidates on
their   own   merit.   The   same   principle
which   has   been   enunciated   by   the
Constitution Bench in the aforesaid case
shall   be   applicable   whenever   a  member
of Scheduled Castes or Backward Classes
has   got   accelerated   promotion   to   a
higher grade and is to be considered for
further promotion to a still higher grade
against   general   category   posts.   The
accelerated   promotions   are   to   be   made
only against the posts reserved or roster
prescribed.  There  is no  question  of that
benefit   being  available   when   a  member
of Scheduled Castes or Backward Classes
claims   promotion   against   general
category  posts  in the  higher  grade.  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
candidate   is   promoted   later   to   that

Page 49 of 62

HC-NIC Page 49 of 62 Created On Wed Nov 09 00:19:03 IST 2016

C/SCA/20936/2006 CAV JUDGMENT

higher   grade   the   general   category
candidate shall regain his seniority over
such   earlier   promoted   scheduled
caste/tribe candidate. As already pointed
out   above   that   when   a   scheduled
caste/tribe candidate is promoted earlier
by applying the rule of reservation/roster
against   a   post   reserved   for   such
scheduled   caste/tribe   candidate,   in   this
process he does not supersede his seniors
belonging to the general category. In this
process there was no occasion to examine
the   merit   of   such   scheduled   caste/tribe
candidate  vis­a­vis his seniors  belonging
to the general category. As such it will be
only   rational,   just   and   proper   to   hold
that when the general category candidate
is promoted later from the lower grade to
the   higher   grade,   he   will   be   considered
senior   to   candidate   belonging   to   the
scheduled caste/tribe who had been given
accelerated   promotion   against   the   post
reserved   for   him.   Whenever   a   question
arises   for   filling   up   a   post   reserved   for
scheduled   caste/tribe   candidate   in   still
higher   grade   then   such   candidate
belonging   to   scheduled   caste/tribe   shall
be   promoted   first   but   when   the
consideration  is in respect of promotion
against   the   general   category   post   in   a
still   higher   grade   then   the   general
category   candidate   who   has   been
promoted later shall be considered senior
and his case shall be considered first for
promotion   applying   either   principle   of
seniority   cum   merit   or   merit   cum
seniority. If this rule and procedure is not
applied then result will be that majority
of the posts in the higher grade shall be
held  at  one  stage  by  persons  who   have
not   only   entered   in   service   on   basis   of
reservation and roster but have excluded
the   general   category   candidates   from
being  promoted  to be posts reserved  for
general   category   candidates   merely   on
the   ground   of   their   initial   accelerated
promotions.   This   will   not   be   consistent

Page 50 of 62

HC-NIC Page 50 of 62 Created On Wed Nov 09 00:19:03 IST 2016

C/SCA/20936/2006 CAV JUDGMENT

with   the   requirement   or   the   spirit   of

Article   16(4)
or
Article   335
of   the
Constitution." (emphasis supplied)

The   case   before   us   is   not   a   case   of   second   or
subsequent   promotion.
We   are   concerned  with
promotion to the cadre of Superintendent Grade „B‟
from   the   cadre  of   Inspectors,   who   were   directly
appointed in that cadre. The case before us is not a
case of further promotion of those SC/ST candidates,
who had already obtained „accelerated promotion‟ in
the feeder cadre. This was for the first time, they were
being   considered   against   a   promotional   post.   The
principle
laid down by
Supreme Court in
Ajit Singh
Januja
(supra)   is  known   as   „catch   up   principle‟.

However,   a   contrary   view   was   taken   by   a   Three­
Judge Bench of Supreme Court in
Jagdish Lal v. State
of   Haryana
(1997)   6   SCC   538.

That   view   was
overruled by the Constitution Bench in Ajit Singh (II)
vs.   State   of   Punjab  (
1999)   7   SCC   209  and  Ram
Prasad   v.   D.K.   Vijay
,  (1999)   7   SCC   251.

The
Constitution Bench re­affirmed the view taken in
Veer
Pal   Singh   Chauhan
(supra)  and
Ajit   Singh   Januja

(supra).  The issue became alive again on enactment
of Constitution (Eighty­fifth
Amendment)  Act, 2001

which   was   aimed   at   restoring   the   benefit   of
consequential   seniority   to   the   reserved   categories
w.e.f. 17.06.1995.
The 77th  and 85th  Amendment to
the   Constitution   were   challenged   before   Supreme
Court and the matter was decided by a Constitution
Bench in M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC

212.  The   Constitution   Bench   upheld   the   77th,   81st,
82nd and 85th Amendments to the Constitution as well
as their retrospective effect. Certain conditions were,
however,   imposed   by   the   Constitution   Bench.   The
view   taken   in
M.   Nagraj
(supra)   was   affirmed   in

Suraj Bhan v. State of Rajasthan
, (2011) 1 SCC 467
as   well   as   in   a   recent   decision   in
U.P.   Power
Corporation  Limited  v.  Rajesh Kumar  & Ors.
(4)   Scale   687.
In   the   case   before   us,   we   are   not
concerned with those conditions since the validity of
the Oms issued by DOP&T from time to time has not
been challenged before us.

This decision, therefore, does not apply to the issues
which we are called upon to decide in this petition.

Page 51 of 62

HC-NIC Page 51 of 62 Created On Wed Nov 09 00:19:03 IST 2016

C/SCA/20936/2006 CAV JUDGMENT

17. This   Court   in  Bharat   Bhushan  (supra)   gave
certain   examples   of   relaxed   standards   in   obtaining
promotions,   for   example   lesser   benchmark,   lesser
qualifying service, extended zones of consideration on
account   of   being   from   reserved   categories,   lesser
number of ACRs etc. to be considered for promotion.
Obtaining   early   confirmation   was   not   one   of   the
examples of relaxed standard given by this Court in
the   case   of  Bharat   Bhusahn  (supra).   The   learned
counsel   for   the   petitioner   has   not   drawn   our
attention to any judicial pronouncement holding that
obtaining  early confirmation  by a reserved  category
candidate would amount to obtaining promotion on
the basis of relaxed standards. More importantly, the
petitioner   ought   to   have   challenged   the   earlier
confirmation   granted   to   those   reserved   category
candidates who were junior to him in the feeder cadre
of   Inspectors   at   the   time   when   the   confirmation
leading to their becoming senior to him in that cadre
was   granted.   By   not   challenging   their   early
confirmation,   the   petitioner   accepted   the   seniority
granted to them by the department. Having accepted
the seniority by not challenging the same before an
appropriate   forum,   the   petitioner   cannot   now   rake
up that issue in the form of the argument advanced
by him. It would be appropriate for us to note at this
stage that in  The Direct Recruit Class­II Engineering
Officers'   Association   and   Others   v.   State   of
Maharashtra  and   Others:  (1990)   2   SCC   715,   a
Constitutional  Bench  of Supreme  Court  clearly held
that   once   an   incumbent   is   appointed   to   a   post
according   to   rule,   his   seniority   has   to   be   counted
from the date of his appointment and not according
to   the   date   of   his   confirmation.   The   petitioner
therefore   ought   to   have   challenged,   at   the
appropriate   time,   the   early   confirmation   and
consequent   seniority   granted   to   those   reserved
category   Inspectors   who   were   junior   to   him   in   the
cadre   of   Inspectors.   No   such   course   of   action   was
however taken by the petitioner. We, therefore, find
no merit in this submission.

18. For   reasons   stated   hereinabove   we   find   no
legal   infirmity   in   the   impugned   order.   The   writ
petition   is   devoid   of   any   merit   and   is   hereby
dismissed without any order as to costs."

Page 52 of 62

HC-NIC Page 52 of 62 Created On Wed Nov 09 00:19:03 IST 2016

C/SCA/20936/2006 CAV JUDGMENT

30. Thus,   the   aforesaid   decision   clearly   indicate   that   the
reservation in promotional post is also applicable and permissible based
upon   the   principle   pronounced   by   the   Supreme   Court   in   light   of   the
constitutional provisions.  Now in light of the aforesaid observations, in
various decisions, it can well be said that now the point of reservation in
promotional post is no more  res integra  and the controversy raised in
these petitions was required to be decided in light thereof.

31. The submission of Shri M.S.Rao, learned advocate for the
petitioners of S.C.A. Nos.20936 of 2006 with 20938 of 2006 to 20943 of
2006, who were not party is to the effect that the Tribunal could not
have   proceeded   with   the   matter   without   there   being   effective
representation   from   the   concerned   affected   parties,   who   are   in   the
instant case, the petitioners in S.C.A. Nos.20936 of 2006 with 20938 of
2006   to   20943   of   2006.     This   contention   appears   to   be   just,   as   the
tribunal could not have proceeded with the matter in which the tribunal
was in fact called­upon to examine the very notification dated 4th August
2004  in  which  there   were  recruitment announced for  as  many  as  24
vacancies in the post of Passenger Driver in the pay scale of Rs.5000 -
9000.     The   affected   parties   were   naturally   those   S.C.   candidates   in
whose   favour   the   10   seats   out   of   24   were   reserved.     The   tribunal
unfortunately has proceeded on the basis that the said notification on
the   face   of   it   indicated   that   there   was   clear   violation   of   the   50%
moratorium reserving the vacancies.  In fact, the basic principle required
to   be   borne   in   mind   in   this   type   of   matters   was   unfortunately   not
adverted to at all by the tribunal and therefore, to that extent we may
say that the learned counsel for the petitioners in these petitions was
justified   in   submitting   that   there   ought   to   have   been   effective
representation on their side also.

Page 53 of 62

HC-NIC Page 53 of 62 Created On Wed Nov 09 00:19:03 IST 2016

C/SCA/20936/2006 CAV JUDGMENT

32. This aforesaid contention though appears to be well taken
would not require to be given greater emphasis than what it deserves, as
in  the  subsequent event, the  petitioners   of  S.C.A.  Nos.20936  of  2006
with   20938  of  2006  to   20943   of   2006   did   make   an   attempt  to   seek
audience and hearing from the tribunal by way of Review Application
being   no.8   of   2006,   in   which   though   restricted   but   opportunity   was
available   to   the   petitioners   to   make   there   stand   clear.     The   Court
hastened to add here that though said opportunity was in fact required
to be characterized, as limited as it was restricted on account of limited
scope of review application, as observed by the tribunal itself.

33. Learned counsel for the petitioners in S.C.A. Nos.20936 of
2006 with 20938 of 2006 to 20943 of 2006, further contended that the
judgment and order of the tribunal passed in O.A. No.286 of 2005 on 2nd
March 2006 could not have been passed, as the tribunal appears to have
erred in not appreciating the fact that the original petitioners in O.A.
No.286 of 2005 did not challenge the said notification dated 4th August
2004   and   permitted   the   entire   proceedings   pursuant   thereto   and
participated   in   the   process   and   after   having   failed   in   the   process,
belatedly assailed the same, which was not open to them in light of the
authorities cited at the bar on their behalf i.e. (1) AIR 1986 SC 1043 in
case   of  Om   Prakash   Shukla   V/s.   Akhilesh   Kumar   Shukla   and   others
relevant paragraph no.23, (2)  Vijendra Kumar Verma V/s. Public Service
Commission, Uttarakhand and others, reported in (2011) 1 Supreme Court
Cases 150  with emphasis upon paragraph no.24 and the judgments on
this line.

34. The aforesaid two judgments in our considered view though
laying down a ratio in the facts of those cases, in which the Court did
not approve the challenge to the selection process by the unsuccessful

Page 54 of 62

HC-NIC Page 54 of 62 Created On Wed Nov 09 00:19:03 IST 2016

C/SCA/20936/2006 CAV JUDGMENT

candidate   on   the   ground   that   the   unsuccessful   candidate   chose   to
participate   knowing   fully   well   the   drawbacks   and   therefore,
subsequently after failing in the process, he cannot be permitted to assail
the same on the very same ground, which he did not object while taking
the process.  In the instant case, we are unable to except this contention
of learned counsel for the petitioners of S.C.A. Nos.20936 of 2006 with
20938   of   2006   to   20943   of   2006,   as   the   original   petitioners   in   fact
appears to have approached the tribunal much before the declaration of
the result.  The entire controversy in the instant case, touching upon the
Constitutional provision and it's implementation i.e. applicability of the
reservation and the ceiling thereon.  Therefore, the same cannot be said
to be suffering from any factor like estopple etc., as there cannot be any
estopple in such a situation and therefore, the facts of the present case
being   different   than   the   case   cited   hereinabove,   the   submission   of
learned counsel for the   petitioners  of S.C.A.  Nos.20936  of 2006  with
20938 of 2006 to 20943 of 2006 assailing the tribunal's order, in our
view does not deserve acceptance.

35. The Court therefore, now is to examine as to whether the
tribunal's order assailed in this  proceeding and which is sought to be
supported by the respondents, could be said to be just and proper so as
to call for no interference.

36. The tribunal's order dated 2nd  March 2006 passed in O.A.
No.286   of   2005   and   its   recording   of   findings   in   some   paragraphs
deserve to be set­out hereinbelow.

"2. The facts lie in a narrow compass.  It appears
from Annex. A/9, annexed to M.A.417/05, that the
respondents  had  also notified  earlier  a selection  for
20 posts of passenger drivers.  No posts were reserved

Page 55 of 62

HC-NIC Page 55 of 62 Created On Wed Nov 09 00:19:03 IST 2016

C/SCA/20936/2006 CAV JUDGMENT

either for SC/ST on that occasion.   The respondents
have thereafter issued the impugned notification.   It
appears   from   Annexure­A/4   that   this   matter   of
providing reservation in excess of 15% for SC and 7
½% for ST had been discussed as PNM item 177/04
and   that   the   WREU   association   was   expecting   an
early reply.

3. The   case   of   the   applicants   in   brief   was   that
there was already an over representation of SC/ST in
passenger drivers and that this reservation could not
have  been provided.   They have  referred  to Annex.­
A/2, which shows that against a sanctioned strength
of 89 posts, 74 persons are in position and that 15
posts are vacant.

They   had   subsequently   along   with   M.A.
471/05 produced a statement, Annex.A/8 that these
89 posts consists of 35 posts of driver (electric) and
54 posts of driver (diesel).   It was further indicated
that 67 posts have been filled up and 22 are vacant.

The   respondents   have   filed   a   detailed   reply
denying   many   assertions   including   genuineness   of
Annex.A/2.  They have, however, nowhere stated the
cadre   strength,   the   persons   in   position,   the
representation   of   SC/ST   therein,   Annex.R/2   shows
that the Union has been replied to on the question of
imbalance about questions from electrical and diesel
branch and not on the question of reservation.   The
following   justification   has   been   given   for   reserving
these posts­­

"5... It is submitted that in a cadre of 65 the
reserved   points   for   SC   which   have   fallen
vacant   are   required   to   be   filled   in   by
candidates  belonging  to SC community  and
as   such   the   Notification   dated   4/6/2004
(Annexure A/1) is in order.  It is once again
reiterated   that   the   reservation   is   to   be
provided against the reserved point and not
on   percentage   basis   as   alleged.     The
Applicants  have no cause to file the present
O.A."

Page 56 of 62

HC-NIC Page 56 of 62 Created On Wed Nov 09 00:19:03 IST 2016

C/SCA/20936/2006 CAV JUDGMENT

7. Coming  to the facts  of this case, we find
that while  the applicant  claims  that cadre is of
89   persons   the   respondents   say   it   is   of   65
persons.     The  said   controversy  could  have  been
easily  resolved  if  the  respondents  had   produced
the sanction order.  Nothing has also been stated
by the respondents regarding the point of roster
to which appointments have been made.  It could
then have been ascertained as to how are many
of these 24 posts have to be filled by roster and
how many on replacement basis.

8. A simple computation shows that against
24 posts 3.4 or say 4 posts of SC & 1.8 or 2 posts
of ST would be admissible.  As a matter of facts
10   posts   of   SC   can   become   admissible   only
against 65 posts.

9. It   is   clear  from   the   foregoing   discussions
that even if all these posts are on roster at best 4
posts of SC and 2 posts of ST posts could  have
been reserved though the actual reservation could
have   known  only   by   knowing  the   roster   points
operated and replacement if any.  Unfortunately,
nothing   has   been   brought   on   record   by   the
respondents to justify their action.   Nothing has
been stated about the carry forward vacancies."

37. Thus, from the aforesaid excerpts from the tribunal's order,
one   can   easily   make­out   that   after   adverting   to   the   provision   of   law
extensively, the tribunal did advert to the factual aspect, as the original
applicant claimed that there were 89 persons in the cadre as against that
respondent railway said that there were 65 persons.  Thus, the tribunal
was not appraised of the fact that what was the real cadre strength so as
to   apply   principle   governing   reservation.     As   could   be   seen   from   the
discussion in paragraph nos.8 and 9, many things have been left to the
realm of conjuncture and surmises and therefore, it can well be said that
there was no place before the tribunal to arrive at a concrete conclusion
on the facts and therefore, against the backdrop of the law laid down by

Page 57 of 62

HC-NIC Page 57 of 62 Created On Wed Nov 09 00:19:03 IST 2016

C/SCA/20936/2006 CAV JUDGMENT

the   Supreme   Court   especially   in   the   subsequent   paragraphs   of
U.   P.
Power Corporation
(supra), it can well be said that the factual aspect has
to be examined first for making the principle of law applicable.  In the
instant   case,   the   very   basis   of   the   factual   aspects   were   lacking   and
therefore,  in   our   considered   view   the   order   of   the   tribunal   dated   2nd
March   2006   cannot   be   said   to   be   based   upon   the   factual   aspects   or
rather after adverting to the factual aspects.

38. That brings the Court to examine the subsequent order of
the tribunal rendered in both the review applications on 6th  September
2006.     The   relevant   paragraphs   from   that   order   also   deserve   to   be
reproduced hereinbelow in order to appreciate the tribunal's advertence
thereto and the rival contentions in this behalf.

"12. Reliance   was   also   placed   by   him   on   the
decision of Hon'ble M.P. High Court in Mukesh Jani
V/s. State & Ors. [2003 LAB I.C. 2019].

"Where   factum   of   limitation   and   delay
and   laches   reconsidered   in   its   order
allowing  application  for review and  the
Tribunal   also   adverted   itself   to   the
applicability of particular circular, it was
clearly perceptible that the Tribunal was
adjudicating   the   matter   as   if   it   was
dwelling   upon   the   its   afresh   and   the
order   was   liable   to   be   quashed.

Moreover,   even   when   the   issue   of
limitation  has been erroneously  decided
that   cannot   be   a   ground   for   review.

Further,   at   the   first   instance   the
Tribunal   had   expressed   the   view   and
taken   into   consideration   certain
documents   and   interpreted   it   in   a
different   manner.     A   different
interpretation   would   not   come   within
the   ambit   and   sweep   of   the   concept   of
review."

Page 58 of 62

HC-NIC Page 58 of 62 Created On Wed Nov 09 00:19:03 IST 2016

C/SCA/20936/2006 CAV JUDGMENT

13. Great emphasis has been laid on the fact that
the applicants had not been impleaded as a party.  It
is   seen   from   the   record   of   the   main   O.A.   that   the
respondents, Railway Administration never thought if
fit to bring the result of the selection test on record
during the pendency of the O.A. in any case the order
appointing  them  was   subject   to  the   outcome  of the
case.

14. It is clear what has been discussed above that
the respondents, Railway Administration were in full
knowledge of the facts.  It was upto them to set up a
specific   case   regarding   the   representation   of   the
persons  belonging  to member  of Scheduled  Caste  in
the  Passenger  Driver  category.    It was also open to
them to set up the case that all the persons belonging
to S.C. who have been promoted in the past, had been
promoted  on  merit  and  therefore  did not  belong  to
General   category.     The   respondents   Railway
Administration had not set up a counter case on these
lines and merely satisfied itself by denying the case of
applicants   in   O.A.     These   documents   were   in   their
custody all along.

15. We   have   also   noticed   that   no   plea   of   carry
forward   vacancies   had   been   raised   by   the
respondents, Railway Administration in the O.A. and
no assertion was made that selection are being held
separately for backlog of SC, which has been carried
forward.     The   selection   notification   was   under

challenge   and   the   subsequent   appointment   is
consequence   of   that   selection   notification.     If   the
reservation  had not been properly applied,  then the
entire zone of consideration would change.

16. It   is   well   settled   that   the   government
department have to play a role of amicus curie when
there is clash between two sets of employee namely,
direct   recruit   or   promotees   or   between   General
category and persons belonging to reserved category.

Such an approach could not be discerned in the reply
filed by the official respondents in the instant case.

17. It is a settled position of law that if two views
are possible and the Tribunal  has taken a view the
same   cannot   be   substituted   in   review.     Same

Page 59 of 62

HC-NIC Page 59 of 62 Created On Wed Nov 09 00:19:03 IST 2016

C/SCA/20936/2006 CAV JUDGMENT

arguments cannot be repeated.

18. The  facts  by the private  applicants  on record
show that 13 out of 58 Drivers  as on 04/08/2004
belongs to members of Scheduled Caste.  That is close
to 23% representation as compared to 30% referred
to in the O.A."

39. These   observations   of   the   tribunal   is   in   respect   of   the
detailed contentions raised on behalf of counsels for the parties and after
tribunal's advertence to the provision of law as could be seen from the
tribunal's discussion in paragraph nos.3 to 11.  The unfortunate part of
the matter is that even the paragraphs reproduced hereinabove, though
indicate clearly that there was no clear finding recorded by the tribunal,
the tribunal proceeded on confirming the decision rendered by it on 2 nd
March 2006 in original application whereunder the entire notification
dated 4th August 2004 had been quashed and set aside and the resultant
effect was disturbing the equities in which during the pendency of the
review application, the result of the examination had been operated and
acted upon and majority of the members of both the sides got promotion
and are working on the posts.

40. We   are   of   the   considered   view   that   this   Court   need   not
embark upon the fact finding inquiry, as this is not the Court of the first
instance.  We are also of the view that looking to the observations of the
Supreme Court in respect of the applicability of the reservation in the
promotional  post, the  Court of the  first instance  i.e. the  tribunal was
required   to   record   its   findings   unequivocally   clear   qua   the   cadre
strength, the roster points, the seniority position and the applicability of
the law.   Unfortunately, in the instant case, both the decisions i.e. the
decision of 2nd  March 2006 in O.A. No.286 of 2005 as well as decision
dated 6th  September 2006 in Review Application No.8 of 2006 clearly

Page 60 of 62

HC-NIC Page 60 of 62 Created On Wed Nov 09 00:19:03 IST 2016

C/SCA/20936/2006 CAV JUDGMENT

indicates that the tribunal rendered its decision in absence of any clear
findings   qua   facts   and   has   proceeded   on   default   of   the   railway
administration in producing the material before it coupled with the fact
that the railway authority was under obligation to produce on record (1)
the correct seniority list, (2) the correct cadre strength.  As the tribunal
had to observe in its earlier order that the correct cadre strength of the
promotional post, as it is in dispute and there is no relevant material
placed by the railway administration to support their claim, we hastened
to   add   here   that   even   in   the   present   proceeding   also   there   was   a
question as to whether the cadre strength, as sought to be justified by
the railway administration, could be said to be correct or not as there
was   a   factum   of   restructuring,   which   was   said   to   be   an   attempt   to
manipulate   the   vacancies   or   reckoning   of   the   vacancies.     We   are
therefor, do not propose to go into this aspect at this stage and remit the
matters  to the  tribunal  for  deciding  it  afresh, that  will have  effect  of
reviving   the   original   O.A.   no.286   of   2005,   in   which   the   present
petitioners of S.C.A. Nos.20936 of 2006 with 20938 of 2006 to 20943 of
2006 will have to be joined as party and they will have to be treated as
respondents and they will have a right to place their material on record
and the tribunal shall decide the same in accordance with law in light of
the observations of Supreme Court mentioned hereinabove.  The remand
of   these   matters   is   warranted,   as   the   tribunal   being   adjudicating
authority  in  the  first  instance  will  have  to be  apprised  of  the  correct
vacancy   position   and   the   roster   point   as   stated   hereinabove   and
therefore, this remand is being made.  However, during the pendency of
the   matters   before   the   tribunal,   when   the   tribunal   is   to   here   these
matters, the  equities  created during the pendency of these matters by
way of effecting promotion, shall not be disturbed till the final decision
rendered   by   the   tribunal   in   this   proceeding.     Therefore,   the   matters
being S.C.A. Nos.20936 of 2006 with 20938 of 2006 to 20943 of 2006

Page 61 of 62

HC-NIC Page 61 of 62 Created On Wed Nov 09 00:19:03 IST 2016

C/SCA/20936/2006 CAV JUDGMENT

are partly allowed and Rule made absolute to the  aforesaid extent in
those matters.  The matter being S.C.A. No.4068 of 2007 is disposed of
and Rule discharged.

(S.R.BRAHMBHATT, J.)

(A.G.URAIZEE,J)
Rathod...

Page 62 of 62

HC-NIC Page 62 of 62 Created On Wed Nov 09 00:19:03 IST 2016