L. Narasimha Reddy, J.

These two Letters Patent Appeals arise out of the judgment dated 4.5.2015, passed in C.W.J.C. No.19114/12. While respondents 1 to 14 in the writ petition filed L.P.A. No.1066/15, respondents 15 to 20 therein filed L.P.A. No.1071/15.

2. The State of Bihar passed resolution dated 21.8.2012 (Annexure-13 to the writ petition) providing for reservation in promotion, with consequential seniority in favour of the employees belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (for short SC/STs.), working in various services of the State. This was done in exercise of power conferred upon or the liberty given to the State under Clause-(4A) of Article-16 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition was filed challenging the same. The consequential orders of promotion were also challenged by filing an interlocutory application.

3. The writ petitioners, i.e. the contesting respondents herein, are the employees working in various departments of the State. They challenge the resolution dated 21.8.2012 as being contrary to the letter and spirit of Article-16(4A) and violative of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment in M. Nagraj Vs. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212. The contentions advanced by the respondents were that:-

a) no finding was recorded as to backwardness, as mentioned in Nagraj’s case (supra) and the observation in the report, as to the relative backwardness is alien to the concept of reservation;

b) the second principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as regards adequacy of representation was totally ignored, though the representation of S.C. and S.T. employees in different cadres in various services was more than adequate, and in some cases 100%, reservation in promotion with consequential seniority was provided;

c) Though Article-16(4A) permits reservation for promotion with consequential seniority, in class, or classes, of service as distinguished from the entire service, the State provided for reservation for promotion in all the services, taking in its fold all the cadres in each of the services in the State; that too, without any time limit; and

d) No effort was made to identify the creamy layer, as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nagraj” case (supra).

3. The State and the other beneficiaries of the reservation opposed the writ petition raising several contentions. It was pleaded that:-

a) entire category of SC/STs. are deemed to be backward and there is no necessity to undertake any study about their backwardness;

b) the representation of SC/STs. in various cadres or classes in several departments is totally inadequate and the fact that there is considerable representation in some of the cadres or classes in certain services, is purely fortuitous;

c) being almost extension of Clause (4) of Article-16, which provides for reservation in State Services, the benefit under Clause-4A thereof cannot be restricted to any class or classes of service; and

d) the concept of creamy layer is totally unknown to the reservation in favour of SC/STs., as was categorically held in Indra Sawhney Vs. Union of India, 1992 Supp. (3) SCC 217.

4. Learned single Judge has undertaken extensive discussion with reference to provisions of law and decided cases, and allowed the writ petition. The impugned resolution, and the consequential promotions were also set aside. It was left open to the State, to take necessary steps strictly in accordance with the requirements under Article-16(4A) of the Constitution, as interpreted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nagraj’s case (supra).

5. Shri P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel for the State submits that the very approach of the learned single Judge to the entire issue was contrary to settled principles of law. He contends that time and again Hon’ble Supreme Court made it abundantly clear that the SC/STs. are to be treated as backward per se and, unlike in the case of economically and socially backward classes, there is no necessity to undert