Facts in Brief

On 28 February 1997, the Indian Railways issued a circular providing that reserved candidates promoted at roster points could not claim seniority over senior general candidates who were promoted later. This followed the law laid down by the Supreme Court, which had held that it was “permissible” to provide that reserved candidates promoted at roster points would not be entitled to claim seniority at the promotional level as against senior general candidates promoted later to the same level. It was further held that “it would be open” to the State to provide that when a senior general candidate was later promoted to the level to which a reserved candidate had earlier been promoted, the general candidate would be treated as senior to the reserved candidate at the promotional level as well — unless, by then, the reserved candidate had received a further promotion to a higher post. Accordingly, the State of Punjab began revising its seniority lists and making further promotions of senior general candidates who had reached the level earlier reached by reserved candidates.

At this juncture, another three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that the general rule in the Service Rules relating to seniority from the date of continuous officiation would apply even to roster-point promotees, since otherwise there would be discrimination against reserved candidates.

In light of these two contrary decisions, the State was left in a quandary, and the matter was brought before the Supreme Court. The issues framed included:

• Could roster-point promotees (reserved category) count their seniority in the promoted category from the date of their continuous officiation, as against general candidates who were senior to them in the lower category and were promoted later to the same level?
• Whether the “catch-up” principle claimed by the general candidates was tenable?

Judgment

The Court’s judgment may be summarised as follows:

• Roster-point promotees (reserved category) could not count their seniority in the promoted category from the date of their continuous officiation in the promoted post, as against general candidates who were senior to them in the lower category and were promoted later. Conversely, a senior general candidate at the lower level, if promoted later but before the reserved candidate received a further promotion, would have to be treated as senior at the promotional level to the reserved candidate — even if the reserved candidate had been promoted to that level earlier.
• The Apex Court held that the decision in Jagdishlal v. State of Haryana, AIR 1997 SC 2366, had reached an incorrect conclusion because it applied a rule of continuous officiation that was never intended to apply to reserved candidates promoted at roster points. There was no conflict between the principles laid down in Union of India v. Virpal Singh, (1993) 6 SCC 685, and Ajit Singh Januja v. State of Punjab, (1996) 2 SCC 215. In Ajit Singh, the Court had considered the validity of a Circular dated 19 July 1969, which expressly declared that “roster points were seniority points.” The decision in Ajit Singh was therefore correct.
• If a senior general candidate at an initial level (say L-3) reached the next level before the reserved candidate (a roster-point promotee) at that next level (L-2) moved further up to a higher level (L-1), then seniority at L-2 had to be modified by placing the general candidate above the roster promotee, reflecting their inter se seniority at L-2. Further promotion to L-1 had to be based on this modified seniority at L-2 — that is, the senior general candidate of L-3 would remain senior at L-2 to the reserved candidate, even if the latter had reached L-2 earlier.
• After Ajit Singh, it became necessary that where a reserved candidate had been promoted to a higher level (say Level 2) under the reservation quota, and a general category candidate (senior to the reserved candidate at Level 3) was promoted to the same level (Level 2) later, and the reserved candidate was then promoted to the next level (Level 1) disregarding the general category candidate who was promoted to that level later — in such situations, it became necessary to review the promotion of the reserved candidate to Level 1 and reconsider the same, though without reverting the reserved candidate who had already reached Level 1. As and when the senior reserved candidate was later promoted to Level 4, seniority at Level 4 was also to be re-fixed on the basis of when the reserved candidate at Level 3 would have received his normal promotion, treating him as junior to the senior general candidate at Level 3.

For the Common Man

After this decision, it is clear that reserved category promotees cannot count their seniority in the promoted category from the date of their continuous officiation, as against general candidates who were senior to them in the lower category and were promoted later.