JUDGMENT

M. Jagannadha Rao, J.-Leave granted.

2. These appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 24115-24116 of 1996 (hereinafter called the main batch) are directed against the judgment of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal dated 20.11.1996 in Application No. 3756 of 1996 and 4849 of 1996. The Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 112818 of 2000 is directed against an interlocutory order dated 11.4.2000 in RP 240/2000 filed by the State of Karnataka staying an earlier order passed by the Karnataka High Court in W.P. 45205 to 45210 of 1999 on 11.1.2000, directing disposal of a representation to be filed by the general candidates seeking implementation of the recent judgment of this Court in Ajit Singh II v. State of Punjab1. That is how these cases have come before us.

3. The facts in the main batch of Civil appeals are as follows :

In a group of OAs filed before the Tribunal, the basic contention raised by the applicants (appellants in this Court) who were general candidates was that when they and the reserved candidates were appointed at level 1 and the Junior reserved candidates got promoted earlier at roster points to level 2 and again by way of roster points to level 3, and when the senior general candidate got promoted in due course to level 3, then the general candidate would become senior to the reserved candidate at level 3. At level 3, the reserved candidate had therefore to be considered along with the senior general candidate for promotion to level 4. This was precisely what was decided by the Constitution Bench of this Court recently in Ajit Singh II v. State of Punjab (supra), which was followed in Ram Prasad v. D.K. Vijay2, Jatindrapal Singh v. State of Punjab3 and Sube Singh Bahmani v. State of Haryana4, all decided on the same day.

4. The above contention raised by the appellants before us was rejected by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in its judgment under appeal. It held on a consideration of Rule 2(c), 4 and 4A and Article 16(1) and (4) of the Karnataka Government Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1957 that the reserved candidates promoted on the basis of roster at Levels 1 and 2 would become seniors from the date of the roster point-promotions and even if a senior general candidate reached Level 3 later, he would not be able to claim seniority over the reserved candidate at Level 3 because the reserved candidate had reached Level 3 earlier. In other words, reserved candidates could count their seniority at Level 3 from the date of promotion to Level 3. The Tribunal relied upon the words "it is open" to the Government occurring in Union of India v. Virpal Singh5 and distinguished Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab6, Indira Sawhney v. Union of India7, R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab8 and other cases. The Tribunal further observed that the parties would be governed by the law as it prevailed prior to the date of the decision in Sabharwal. The Applications of the general candidates were dismissed.

5. The general candidates have, therefore, filed these main batch of appeals.

6. So far as the other appeal arising out of the SLP (C) No. 11218 of 2000 is concerned, the appellants are again the general candidates. After the judgment of this Court in Ajit Singh II, the general candidates filed WPs 45205 to 45210 of 1999 seeking directions to the Government to follow Ajit Singh II. The High Court passed an order on 11.1.2000 directing the State Government to consider the representation of the appellants to be filed by the general candidates raising the above point. The appellants preferred representation to the State Government, but the State filed RP 240/2000 for recalling the order dated 11.1.2000 on the ground that the present batch of appeals were pending in this Court. The High Court then passed order on 11.4.2000 staying its earlier orders dated 11.1.2000. Against the said order dated 11.4.2000, the present appeal has been preferred by the general candidates.

7. On 9.1.98, the main batch was directed to be listed after d