JUDGMENT

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J. - Leave granted in special leave petitions.

2. These three appeals arise out of the dispute between general candidates and reserved candidates in Haryana in regard to their seniority. The appellants are the reserved candidates. In Haryana, it is important to note that the Government had issued a circular on 9-2-1979 that on promotion at the roster point, the reserved candidates would not count their seniority. This was reiterated by an elaborate circular dated 10-1-1997 recently issued after Ajit Singh (Ajit Singh Januja v. State of Punjab, (1996) 2 SCC 715 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 540 : (1996) 33 ATC 239) (hereinafter called Ajit Singh I ((Ajit Singh Januja v. State of Punjab, (1996) 2 SCC 715 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 540 : (1996) 33 ATC 239)) was decided by this Court on 1-3-1996. Before us, the learned Senior Counsel for the State of Haryana, Shri Rajeev Dhavan submitted that the said circulars correctly reflect the legal position.

3. Today, we have delivered judgment in IAs Nos. 1 to 3 filed by the State of Punjab in CAs Nos. 3792-94 of 1989 (Ajit Singh case). We shall describe it as Ajit Singh II (Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab, (1999) 7 SCC 209). We agree that the above circulars correctly reflect the legal position.

4. There are three civil appeals before us. The first of these appeals is Sube Singh Bahmani v. State of Haryana [civil appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 16648 of 1996]. This appeal is filed against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP No. 5533 of 1996 dated 10-7-1996, The second one Gian Singh v. State of Haryana [civil appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 23107 of 1996] is also against the judgment dated 10-7-1996 in CWP No. 5397 of 1996. The appellants belong to the reserved category. The third civil appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 4945 of 1997 (Kamal Kanta v. State of Haryana) is filed against the judgment of the same High Court dated 16-1-1997 in CWP No. 4592 of 1996. The appellants are again reserved candidates. We shall refer to the relevant rules in each of these three cases.

5. In Sube Singh Bahmani case the rules are as follows. The posts belong to the Punjab Financial Commission Officers governed by Group B Service Rules, 1986 which consists of Superintendent and equivalent post in Class II. Below that, the posts of Clerk, Assistant and Deputy Superintendent which are Class III posts, are governed by the Punjab Financial Commission Class III Rules, 1957. In the former, Rule 9(3) provides that the promotion shall be based on seniority-cum-merit but that no person shall be entitled to claim promotion on the basis of seniority alone. Rule 11 states that seniority shall be determined on the basis of continuous length of service. In the latter i.e. the 1957 Rules, Rule 7(2) states that all appointments, whether by promotion or transfer shall be strictly by selection while Rule 11(c) states that seniority shall be determined in accordance with the seniority in the appointment from which they are promoted but in the case of Assistant, their seniority shall be determined in the order they are promoted, as such. Admittedly, there is a roster to implement reservation for promotion at Class III Level from the post of Clerk to the post of Assistant and from the post of Assistant to the post of Deputy Superintendent. Beyond that there is no reservation in Class II or Class I post.

6. In Gian Singh case and in Kamal Kanta case the parties belong to the Haryana Civil Secretariat Service. The appellants are reserved candidates. The parties are governed by the Punjab Civil Secretariat (State Service, Class III) Rules, 1952 as adopted/amended in Haryana (vide notification dated 15-3-1978 etc.). Rule 6 deals with recruitment including by way of promotion to the posts of Assistant and Deputy Superintendents. Rule 6(3) requires promotion by way of "selection". Clause 9(c) states that seniority in respect of those who are promoted shall be dete