1. Dispute between general and reserved candidates regarding seniority upon promotion under roster systems in state services. (Para 2 , 4 , 5 , 6 )
Back
Next 
1999 Supreme(SC) 1057
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A. S. Anand, CJI., G. B. Pattanaik, K. Venkataswami, M Jagannadha Rao, S P Kurdukar, JJ.
SUBE SINGH BAHMANI AND OTHERS, APPELLANTS
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA, RESPONDENT.
Civil Appeals No. 5324 of 1999 with Nos. 5325-26 of 1999 (From the Judgment and Order dated 10-7-1996 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP No. 5533 of 1996),
decided on September 16, 1999.
Advocates appeared
D. D. Thakur, Dr. Rajeev Dhavan and H. N. Salve, Senior Advocates (Chand Kiran, Dr. K. S. Chauhan, Suresh Kait, Prem Malhotra, Jasbir Malik, Vijay Hansaria, Sunil Kr. Jain, Ajay Kr. Gupta, Rajiv Garg, N. D. Garg, Preetesh Kapur, Atul Sharma, H. R. Balmiki, N. N. Bhat, Bhup Singh Mehra, Dr. K. P. S. Dalal and Prabhash Kr. Yadav, Advocates, with them) for the appearing parties.
Seniority for roster-point promotees is linked to the promotion rule. General candidates who reach a grade before a reserved candidate is promoted to the next higher grade are senior at that grade, necessitating a review of subsequent promotions to higher levels, without reverting prior promotions.
Headnote:(A) Service Rules - Seniority and Promotion - The seniority rule of continuous officiation is linked to the promotion rule and cannot be delinked in the case of roster-point promotees. (Para 7)
(B) Seniority of Reserved Candidates - Where a general candidate reaches a specific grade before a reserved candidate is promoted to the next higher grade, the general candidate is to be considered senior at the lower grade. (Paras 11, 19, 21)
(C) Prospectivity of Judgments - Promotions made before the specified cut-off date shall stand without reversion, but seniority must be refixed in accordance with established legal principles regarding the prospectivity of prior judicial decisions. (Paras 13, 19, 21)
Facts of the case:
The appeals involve disputes between general and reserved category candidates regarding their inter se seniority in various government services. The reserved candidates were promoted through a roster system. The court examined the dates of promotion to the posts of Deputy Superintendent and Superintendent to determine whether the general candidates should be treated as senior to the reserved candidates at the respective levels.
Findings of Court:
The court found that if a general candidate reached the level of Deputy Superintendent before a reserved candidate was promoted to the level of Superintendent, the general candidate is senior at the Deputy Superintendent level. While promotions made before the cut-off date of 1-3-1996 will not result in reversions, the seniority at the lower level must be refixed. Consequently, if the seniority of general candidates was not considered during the promotion of reserved candidates to higher posts, such promotions must be reviewed and seniority refixed at the higher level as well.
Issues: The main issues were whether reserved candidates promoted via roster could maintain seniority over general candidates who reached the same grade earlier, and the impact of this seniority on subsequent promotions to higher grades.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that seniority is tied to the date of appointment to a grade. A general candidate who reaches a grade before a reserved candidate is promoted to the next higher grade is senior at that grade. This refixed seniority must be the basis for reviewing promotions to subsequent higher grades, subject to the principle that no reversions shall occur for promotions made before the specified cut-off date.
Result: Appeals disposed of with directions to review and refix seniority.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Reserved candidates claim seniority based on promotion dates; general candidates contest seniority based on the date they reached the preceding grade. (Para 10 , 15 , 21 )
3. Seniority of continuous officiation is linked to promotion rules; general candidates reaching a grade before a reserved candidate's higher promotion are senior at that grade. (Para 7 , 11 , 19 , 21 )
4. Seniority of continuous officiation cannot be delinked from promotion rules for roster-point promotees; seniority at the lower grade determines eligibility and seniority for the higher grade. (Para 7 , 8 )
5. Appeals disposed of with directions to review and refix seniority at the level of Superintendent and above, while ensuring no reversions for pre-1996 promotions. (Para 13 , 14 , 20 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 30 , 31 , 32 )
6. How is seniority determined for roster-point promotees in relation to general candidates?
Seniority of continuous officiation is linked to the promotion rule and cannot be delinked. General candidates who reach a specific grade before a reserved candidate is promoted to the next higher grade are considered senior at that lower grade. (Para 7 , 11 , 19 )
7. Does a reserved candidate's promotion to a higher grade prevent a general candidate from claiming seniority at the lower grade?
No. If a general candidate reaches the lower grade before the reserved candidate is promoted to the higher grade, the general candidate is senior at the lower grade, and the higher promotion may be reviewed. (Para 11 , 19 , 21 )
8. Are reserved candidates subject to reversion if promoted before the decision in Ajit Singh I?
No. Promotions made before 1-3-1996, the date of the Ajit Singh I decision, will stand and there will be no reversions, although seniority may still be refixed. (Para 11 , 19 , 21 )
9. What happens if seniority at a lower grade is not considered during promotion to a higher grade?
If the seniority of general candidates at the lower grade was not taken into account when promoting reserved candidates to the higher grade, the promotion and seniority at the higher grade must be reviewed and refixed. (Para 13 , 20 , 21 )
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 s
