Ram Prasad vs D. K. Vijay - 1999 Supreme(SC) 1053

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1999 Supreme(SC) 1053

1999(8) Supreme 157
Supreme Court of India
(From Rajasthan High Court)
K. Venkataswami, G.B. Pattanaki, S.P. Kurdukar & M. Jagannadha Rao, JJ.
Sh. Ram Prasad etc. etc. -Appellants
versus
Sh. D.K. Vijay & Ors. etc. etc. -Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 2866-68 of 1998
Decided on 16-9-1999
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : Altaf Ahmad, C.S. Vaidyanathan, Additional Solicitor Generals, Dr. Rajiv Dhawan, Gopal Subramaniam, H.N. Salve, Sr. Advocates, Dr. M.P. Raju, Abraham Pattiyani, Ms. Meeta Prasad, M.K.D. Namboodiary, Prakash Srivastava, Ranji Thomas, Javed M. Rao, (Ms. Sandhya Goswami) Advocate (NP), B.N. Singhvi, Brij Bhashan, P.K. Jain, Vinay Garg, Ms. Indu Malhotra, Ms. Kavita Wadia, Ms. Monika Arora, Vikas Mehta, Brij Bhushan, Dr. Jose P. Verghese, Sidharadham, Motilal, S.P. Sharma, (A.P. Medh) Advocate (NP), Hemant Sharma, K.C. Kaushik, D.S. Mehra, Advocates.

Headnote:(i) Service matter-Special Leave Petitions-Rajasthan Administrative Rules, 1954-Rules 8 and 33-Indian Police Services (Recruitment) Rules 1954-Rules 89, 28A and 33-Writ petitions filed in High Court by general candidate-Officers of R.P.S. seeking modification of seniority list-Civil writ petitions by general candidates officers of R.A.S. challenging mode of implementation of Rules 8 and 33 of Rajasthan Administrative Service Rules, 1954-Writ petitions partly allowed so far as seniority of reserved candidates at promotional level concerned-Following judgment of Supreme Court in Ajit Singh Januja v. State of Punjab, [1996(2) SCC 715]-High Court in regard to question whether placement of A.S.P. (Senior Scale) as Additional Superintendent (Selection Scale) amounted to promotion so as to give reserved candidates benefit of reservation bu way of roster points held in favour of reserved candidates that it amounted to promotion-Reservation as per roster points for promotion to selection scale has to be given-Following decision of Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Fateh Singh High Court of followed Ajit Singh No. 1 case-Held that reserved candidates on promotion at roster points cannot count their seniority from date of such promotion and their senior general candidates at lower level on promotion become senior to then appeal by reserved candidates-Reserved candidates entitled to be promoted to selection scale by way of roster points-To be done in manner mentioned in R.K. Sabbarwal v. State of Punjab, 1995(2) SCC 745. (Para 14)
       (ii) Seniority of roster point-Promotions - Contention of reserved candidates that upon promotion at roster points-Promotees can reckon seniority and that senior general candidates who later got promoted cannot be treated as seniors at promotion stage cannot be accepted in view of decision in Ajit Singh No. II (Appeal Nos. 3792-94 of 1989)-Seniority of roster point promotees will be on basis of decision in Ajit Singh No. 1 and under Points 1 to 3 in Ajit Singh No. 2. (Paras 15 and 16)
       (iii) Prospectivity-Of Sabharwal -[1995(2) SCC 745] Decision in Point 4 in Ajit Singh No. 2 will apply-No change in cut off date so far as Sabbarwal case concerned-Prospectivity of Ajit Singh No. 1-Decision in Ajit Singh No. 2 will apply in principle but with slight modification of cut off date-Reserved candidates if promoted to level 4 before 1.4.1997 without considering case of senior general candidates who had reached level 3 before such promotion such reserved candidates not to be reserved but said promotion to level 4 to be reviewed-Seniority at level 3 and level 4 as and when general candidate promoted to level 4 to be refixed-Contentions of general and reserved candidates rejected-Request of State of Rajasthan to the extent indicated above accepted to. (Paras 17 to 22)

Judgment

M. Jagannadha Rao, J.-Leave granted in the special leave petitions.

All the Civil Appeals arise out of the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in a batch of writ petitons. There are three sets of appeals.

2. The Civil Appeals 2866/98, 2867/98, 2868/98, 3282/98, 4084/98 have been filed by the reserved candidates and arise out of (DB) CWPs. 2545/96, 2812/96, 3086/96, 2963/96 and 4918/ 97 respectively. Civil Appeal 3935/98 is filed by the general candidates and arises out of CWP. 3080/96. The State of Rajasthan has filed C.A. Nos. 3147-3150/98 and they arise out of CWPs. 3086, 6208 and 4918/97 respectively. The Civil Appeals arising out of SLPs 9185-88/99 have also been filed by the State of Rajasthan and arise out of CWPs. 2545/96, 2675/96, 4726/97 (646/97) and 2963/96. The High Court has disposed of all the writ petitions by a common judgment dated 2.4.1988.

3. All the eight writ petitions werer filed in the High Court by the general candidates. The D.B. CWPs. 2812/96, 3086/96, 6208/96 and 4918/97 were filed in the High Court by the general candidate officers of the Rajasthan Police Service (for short R.P.S.) seeking modification of the Seniority list. Similarly, the D.B. Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 2543/96, 2675/96, 4726/96 (646/ 97) and 2963/96 were filed by the general candidate officers of the Rajasthan Administrative Service (for short ‘R.A.S.’) challenging the mode of implementation of Rules 8 and 33 of the Rajasthan Administrative Service Rules 1954.

4. Decision of the High Court :

The High Court took up CWP. 2812/96 in the Police Service and CWP, 2545/96 in the Administrative Service as the main case. The writ petitions were partly allowed so far as the seniority of the reserved candidates at the promotional level was concerned, by following the judgment of this Court in Ajit Singh Januja v. State of Punjab1 , i.e. Ajit Singh No. 1 dated 1.3.96. Promotions in excess of 28% quota were quashed.

5. In regard to the question whether the placement of Additional Superintendents of Police (senior scale) as Additional Superintendents (Selection scale) amounted to a promotion so as to give the reserved candidates the benefit of reservation by way of roster points the High Courts held in favour of the reserved candidates that it amounted to a promotion and that reservation as per the roster points for promotion to the selection scale has to be given. The High Court in that context followed the decision of this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Fateh Singh Soni2, dated 12.12.95. The general candidates are aggrieved in this behalf and filed C.A. 3935/98.

6. The High Court has also followed Ajit Singh No. 1 dated 1.3.96 and held that the reserved candidates on promotion at roster points cannot count their seniority from the date of such promotion and their senior general candidates at the lower level, on promotion become seniors to them. The reserved candidates have preferred appeals C.A. 2866-2868/98 and 3282/98 and 4084/98 in regard to this part the judgment. No submissions were made before us on behalf of the reserved candidates that reservation should be in excess of 28% quota.

Contentions in this Court :

7. The State of Rajasthan while accepting the principles laid down in Ajit Singh No. 1, has, however, filed C.A. 3147-3150/98 and the appeals arising out of SLPs. 9185-88/99 to contend that the seniority lists accepted in Fateh Singh Soni by this Court could not have been altered by the High Court, under the impugned judgment.

8. The general candidates contend that Fateh Singh Soni requires reconsideration. They also contend that, in any event, Fateh Singh Soni’s case was decided on 12.12.95 and at that time this Court was not dealing with the issue of seniority of the roster point promotees and hence after judgment in Ajit Singh No. 1 dated 1.3.96, it becomes necessary for the High Court to modify the seniority lists as accepted in Fateh Singh Soni’s case in implementation of Ajit Singh No. 1. The reserved candidates contend that

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1999 Supreme(SC) 1053

Cases Referred (7)