V. Nath, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. In view of the amplified nature of the issue arising for consideration in the present writ application, the learned counsel for the parties who have filed their respective intervention petitions for being impleaded as parties, have also been heard.

3. The irksome issue of reservation in promotion with consequential seniority has surfaced again in this writ application wherein the petitioners have questioned the legality and propriety of the resolution dated 21.08.2012 issued by the State Government (Annexure-13) taking the decision to continue the provision for reservation in promotion with consequential seniority to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes employees in services under the State Government. By filing the interlocutory application (I.A.No.9227/13), the prayer has been made by the petitioners for addition of the reliefs regarding quashing of the different promotion orders and seniority lists mentioned in detail and annexed with the said interlocutory application.

4. All the writ petitioners are government servants holding different posts in different departments. It is the case of the petitioners that in view of the decision in the case of M. Nagaraj Vs Union of India , (2006) 8 SCC 212 laying down the parameters to be adhered to before making provision for promotion with consequential seniority for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes employees in services under the State Government, and also accordingly in view of the directions by this Court in CWJC No. 5649/08 and CWJC No. 3937/2011, the State Government called for a report /data regarding backwardness and inadequacy of representation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes employees in the government services and on the basis of the said report/data, the resolution dated 21.08.2012 has been issued. It is, however, the case of the petitioners that the said report/data is completely perfunctory and mechanical ignoring even vital and crucial conditions laid down by the Apex Court in M. Nagaraj (Supra) and subsequent judgments. It is further case of the petitioners that the impugned resolution on the basis of the cryptic and tutored report/data is neither legal nor proper. The petitioners have stated in detail in the writ application as well as in the interlocutory application (I.A.No.9227/13), the manner in which their service conditions have been and would be affected by the impugned resolution.

5. In their counter affidavit the respondent-State as well as the intervener respondents have denied the assertions made by the petitioners in the writ application and have come out with the case that the report/data clearly demonstrates the backwardness and inadequate representation of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes employees in the different services which are the factors justifying the grant of promotion with consequential seniority to such employees and further that the grant of promotion with consequential seniority to such employees would not affect the efficiency in service. It is further case of the respondents that the decision to grant promotion with consequential seniority to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes has been taken after the scrutiny of the quantifiable data and sufficiency of materials as demonstrated therein.

6. Before proceeding to consider the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties and a number of decisions relied upon, it would be profitable here to take into notice the legislative and judicial history pertaining to reservation in promotion to SCs/STs employees in government service. It has, however, simultaneously to be kept in focus that after the dictum in M. Nagaraj (Supra) by the Apex Court with emphasis on distinction between the existence of power and exercise of power and recognizing the application of theory of “guided power”, the judicial review is now limited to the exercise of power by the State Government in making the provision(impugned reso