Important point
The remedy of ‘reservations’ to correct inherited unbalances must not be an overkill.

Judgment

M. Jagannadha Rao, J.-We have before us these three Interlocutory Applications Nos. 1 to 3 filed for “clarification” by the State of Punjab in Civil Appeal Nos. 3792-94 of 1989 (Ajit Singh Januja & Ors v. State of Punjab1) (hereinafter referred to as Ajit Singh in this judgment). The matter concerns a dispute relating to seniority of reserved candidates and general candidates.

2. At the outset we make it clear that in this judgment we are not concerned with the reservation policy of the State or with the validi­ty of any procedure fixing roster points for purpose of promotion of reserved candidates. We are here dealing only with a limited question relating mainly to seniority of the reserved candidates promoted at roster points.

3. We also make it clear that what we are deciding today is based on principles already laid down by this Court since 1950 and in particu­lar since 1963. Basing on those principles, we are concerned with the limited question as to whether Union of India v. Virpal Singh2 and Ajit Singh Januja v. State of Punjab (supra), which were earlier decided in favour of the general candidates are to be affirmed or whether the latter deviation made in Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana3 against the general candidates, is to be accepted.

How these IAs 1-3 came to be filed for clarification ?

4. The circumstances under which the State of Punjab has filed these IAs for clarification are as follows :-

5. Initially, in a case relating to the Indian Railways, a two Judge Bench of this Court in Union of India v. Virpal Singh (supra) (herein­after referred to as Virpal) held that it was “permissible” for the Railways to say that reserved candidates who get promotion at the roster points would not be entitled to claim seniority at the promo­tional level as against senior general candidates who got promoted at a later point of time to the same level. It was further held that “it would be open” to the State to provide that as and when the senior general candidate got promoted under the rules, - whether by way of a seniority rule or a selection rule - to the level to which the re­served candidate was promoted earlier, the general candidate would have to be treated as senior to the reserved candidate (the roster point promotee) at the promotional level as well, unless, of course, the reserved candidate got a further promotion by that time to a higher post. (This is described for convenience, as the ‘catch up’ rule)

6. Close on the heels of Virpal, came Ajit Singh from Punjab, before a three Judge Bench and the Bench held that the question of seniority at the promotional level had to be decided by applying the provisions of Article 14 and 16(1) and if any order, circular or rule provided that such reserved candidates who got promotions at roster points were to be treated as senior to the senior general candidates who were promot­ed later, then such an order, circular or rule would be violative of Article 14 and 16(1). It was, however, held that the position would be different if by the time the senior general candidate got his promotion under the normal rules of seniority or selection, the re­served candidate who was promoted earlier at the roster point, had got a further promotion. In other words, the ‘catch up’ principle as laid down in Virpal was accepted. In coming to the above conclusions, the three Judge Bench relied upon the principles laid down by the nine Judge Bench in Indira Sawhney v. Union of India4 and by the Constitution Bench in R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab5. These two cases had laid down earlier the manner in which the rights of the general candi­dates and the reserved candidates ought to be balanced. In Ajit Singh the Court said the balance must be maintained in such a manner that there was no reverse discrimination against the general candidates and that any rule, circular or order which gave seniority to the reserved candidates promoted at roster point, would be violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of th