ORDER :

In view of the conclusions recorded by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dipankar Datta (concurred to by Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.R. Bhat) the appeal is disposed of in terms of the following directions:

“We direct RBI to grant notional promotion to Mr. Nair on the post of Assistant Manager Grade ‘A’ to be effective from the date of presentation of the writ petition before the High Court, i.e. 27th September, 2006 and actual promotion from 15th September, 2014, i.e. the last date for compliance of the order of the High Court. This exercise must be completed within a period of 2 (two) months from date. The monetary benefits accruing to Mr. Nair with effect from 15th September, 2014 shall be computed and released by 4 (four) months from date.

Since Mr. Nair has a couple of years for his retirement on superannuation, it is needless to observe that in computing his retiral benefits due regard shall be given to his promotion, as directed above, with effect from 27th September, 2006.

The appeals stand disposed of on the above terms. Parties shall bear their own costs.”

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.

1. I have had the benefit of reading the detailed and elaborate reasoning of my learned brother judge, Dipankar Datta, J. While I concur with the conclusions and relief granted to the appellant, I wish to record a few observations, by way of abundant caution, on the larger question of reservations in promotions for any class of citizens other than those covered by Article 16(4-A) of the Constitution.

(I) HISTORY OF RESERVATIONS IN PROMOTIONS

2. The question of reservations in promotions has a chequered history. In General Manager, S. Rly. vs. Rangachari, (1962) 2 SCR 586 a constitution bench in a 3:2 decision held that reservations in promotions were permissible. They were not merely restricted to initial appointments, but also selected posts subsequently.¹ [Id. Para 27] This was a decision rendered during the era when this court’s understanding of Articles 15(4) and 16(4) was that such provisions were exceptions to the rule under Articles 15(1) and 16(1). However, this interpretation underwent a change [The dissenting opinion of Subba Rao, J. in T. Devadasan vs. Union of India, (1964) 4 SCR 680 was affirmed in State of Kerala vs. N.M. Thomas, (1976) 2 SCC 310], as elucidated in State of Kerala vs. N.M. Thomas, (1976) 2 SCC 310, wherein K.K. Mathew, J. opined:

“If equality of opportunity guaranteed under Article 16 (1) means effective material equality, then Article 16 (4) is not an exception to Article 16 (1). It is only an emphatic way of putting the extent to which equality of opportunity could be carried viz. even up to the point of making reservation.”² [Ibid. Para 78] In Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India, 1992 Supp. (3) SCC 217 a nine-judge constitution bench, equipped with this interpretation, revisited the question of reservations in promotions. Question No. 7 was unambiguously cast: “Whether Article 16 permits reservations being provided in the matter of promotions?” Eight out of nine justices considered the issue, and held that the view expressed in Rangachari (supra) was erroneous, and that reservations in promotions were impermissible under Article 16.”

3. The observations made by different judges in their opinions are extracted below:

(a) Per Kania, Venkatachalaiah and B.P. Jeevan Reddy, JJ:

“828. We see no justification to multiply ‘the risk’ which would be the consequence of holding that reservation can be provided even in the matter of promotion. While it is certainly just to say that a handicap should be given to backward class of citizens at the stage of initial appo