Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, S.C. Agarwal
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS, APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS
VERSUS
VIRPAL SINGH CHAUHAN AND OTHERS, RESPONDENTS.
Civil Appeals No. 9272 of 1995 with Nos. 2261 of 1987, 5044 of 1989, 4436 and 18 of 1990, W.Ps. (C) Nos. 1208 of 1987, 565 of 1993, C.As. Nos. 9273-77 of 1995, decided on October 10, 1995.
Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14 and 16 - Policy in vogue – Promotions - Appeal is preferred against judgment of Central Administrative Tribunal disposing of Original Application with certain directions - It was originally field as writ petition in Allahabad High Court which on constitution of Central Administrative Tribunal was transferred to Tribunal - It was field by what may be called for sake of convenience employees not belonging to any of reserved categories general candidates - which means open competition candidates - Railway Administration as well as employees belonging to reserved categories - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes were imp leaded as respondents – Held Therefore only way to assure equality of opportunity to Backward Classes and general category is to permit roster to operate till time respective appointees promotes occupy posts meant for them in roster - Operation of roster and running account must come to an end thereafter - Vacancies arising in cadre after initial posts are filled will pose no difficulty - As and when there is vacancy whether permanent or temporary in particular post same has to be filled from amongst the category to which the post belonged in roster - For example Scheduled Caste persons holding the posts at roster points retire then these slots are to be filled from amongst persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes - Similarly if the persons holding the post at retire then these slots are to be filled from among the general category - By following this procedure there shall neither be shortfall nor excess in percentage of reservation - Constitution Bench has however made it clear that the rule enunciated by them shall operate only prospectively - It has further been held in the said decision that percentage of reservation has to be worked out in relation to number of posts which form cadre strength (and that) the concept of vacancy has no relevance in operating the percentage of reservation - As matter of fact it is stated that this batch of cases were also posted for hearing before the Constitution Bench along with batch of cases but these cases were delinked on ground that they raise certain other issues which did not arise – Order accordingly
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:
The case concerns the constitutional validity and interpretation of reservation policies in promotions and seniority within railway services, particularly for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (!) .
The dispute arose from promotions made under reservation rules, with contention over whether reserved category candidates should have seniority over general candidates promoted later, and how reservation affects the seniority list (!) .
The reservation policy operates through a roster system designed to ensure proportional representation, but its implementation must be consistent with constitutional principles of equality and seniority rights (!) (!) .
The promotion process involves a merit-based panel or select list, with reservations applied through a roster that allocates posts for reserved categories, but the seniority in higher grades is generally determined by the original entry seniority, unless promotion is on merit (!) (!) .
The operation of reservation rosters and seniority lists has been clarified to mean that while reservations facilitate accelerated promotions, they do not automatically confer seniority over non-reserved candidates promoted on merit or through regular procedures (!) (!) .
The principles established emphasize that once the reserved quota in a cadre is filled, the purpose of the reservation policy is achieved, and the roster should cease to operate thereafter, except in specific circumstances (!) (!) .
The seniority of reserved candidates promoted on the basis of reservation does not automatically rank them above general candidates who were promoted later but on merit; seniority is primarily based on the original entry date and merit, with reservation providing limited benefits (!) (!) .
The legal framework permits the State to define the extent and manner of reservation, including special provisions like exemptions and concessions, which are included under the broader concept of reservation (!) (!) .
The operation of reservation policies and rosters must be prospective, with the percentage of reservation calculated based on the cadre strength, not vacancies, and once the reserved posts are filled, the roster should not be further operated (!) (!) .
The principles also recognize that reservation in promotions must balance social justice with administrative efficiency, and that reserved candidates promoted earlier do not necessarily gain seniority over general candidates promoted later, unless explicitly provided (!) (!) .
The legal interpretation supports that reservation policies are flexible and can be tailored to specific circumstances, but they must align with constitutional guarantees of equality and non-discrimination (!) (!) .
The rules governing seniority and reservation are distinct but interrelated, with specific circulars and instructions clarifying their application in the railway service context, emphasizing that reservation benefits do not automatically alter seniority rights (!) (!) .
The overall legal stance affirms that while reservation facilitates social justice by providing opportunities, it does not override the fundamental principles of seniority based on merit and original entry, except where explicitly permitted (!) (!) .
The policy and legal principles endorse a balanced approach, ensuring reserved category candidates benefit from promotion opportunities without disrupting the seniority structure established by merit and original appointment dates (!) (!) (!) .
The legal framework also acknowledges that the operation of reservation rosters and seniority lists must be consistent with constitutional mandates, and that once the reservation quota is filled, the roster's purpose is fulfilled, and its further operation is unwarranted (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further elaboration or specific legal advice based on these key points.
JUDGMENT
B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J. -
CAs Nos. 9272-73 & 9277 of 1995 [Arising out of SLPs (C) Nos. 6468 of 1987, 1682 of 1988, and 8111 of 1994], CAs Nos. 2261 of 1987, 5044 of 1989, 4436 of 1990, 18 of 1990, Wps (C) Nos. 1208 of 1987 and 565 of 1993 [Main Opinion]
1. Leave granted in special leave petitions.
2. These appeals/writ petitions raise an important but difficult question concerning the nature of rule 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 promoted category. The issue is best illustrated by taking the facts in the first of these matters, viz., Union of India v. Virpal Singh Chauhan. The appeal is preferred against the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Allahabad Bench) disposing of Original Application No. 647 of 1986 with certain directions. [It was originally field as a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court which, on the constitution of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Allahabad Bench), was transferred to the Tribunal.] It was field by, what may be called for the sake of convenience, employees not belonging to any of the reserved categories (hereinafter referred to as "general candidates" - which means open competition candidates). The Railway Administration as well as the employees belonging to reserved categories, i.e., Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes were impleaded as respondents. The writ petition/original application came to be filed in the following circumstances:
Among the category of Guards in the Railway service, there are four categories, viz., Grade C, Grade B, Grade A Special. The initial recruitment is made to Grade C and they have to ascend rung after rung to go upwards. The promotion from one grade to another in this category is by seniority-cum-suitability. In other words, they are "non-selection posts". The rule of reservation is applied not only at the initial stage of appointment to Grade C but at every stage of promotion. The percentage reserved for Scheduled Castes is 15 per cent and for Scheduled Tribes 7.5 per cent, a total of 22.5 per cent. To give effect to the rule of reservation, a forty-point roster was prepared in which certain points were reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes respectively, commensurate with the percentage of reservation in their favour. For Scheduled Caste candidates, the places reserved in the roster were: 1, 8, 14, 22, 28 and 36 and in the case of Scheduled Tribe candidates, they were: 4, 17 and 31. Subsequently, a hundred-point roster has been prepared, again reflecting the aforesaid percentages.
3. In the year 1986, the position was that both the petitioners in the original application (general candidates) and the party-respondents in the said original application (members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) were in the grade of Guards Grade A in the Northern Railway. On 1-8-1986 the Chief Controller, Tundla passed orders promoting certain general candidates on ad hoc basis to Grade A Special. Within less than three months, however, they were sought to be reverted and in their place, members of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes were sought to be promoted. Complaining that such a course of action is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, the general candidates approached the High Court, which petition, as stated above, was transferred to the Tribunal. The general candidates asked for three reliefs, viz., (a) to restrain the Railway authorities from filling up the posts in the higher grades in the category of Guards by applying the rule of reservation; (b) to restrain the Railway Administration from acting upon the illegal seniority list prepared by them; and (c) to declare that the petitioners (general candidates) are entitled to be promoted and confirmed in Guard Grade A Special on the strength of their seniority earlier to the reserved category employees. Their contenti
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
