Honble SHIV KUMAR SHARMA, J.–Since all these writ petitions involve common questions of law and facts, they have been analogously heard and are taken up for disposal together.

(2). The All India Equality Forum (for short `AIEF) in writ petition No. 4590/2003 seeks to quash the Notification dated December 28, 2002 that pertains to determination of seniority of persons holding the posts in different services in the State of Rajasthan. The AIEF also prays that benefit of consequential seniority may be declared to be available only in respect of posts/services where persons belonging to SC/ST category are not adequately represented and the selections made by Departmental Promotion Committees in respect of services including RAS/RPS be reviewed, recalled, quashed and set aside. In the alternative AIEF prays to declare that the benefit of consequential seniority pursuant to 85th amendment of the Constitution may not be given in respect of promotions made prior to June 17, 1995 when the said amendment was brought into force.

(3). In writ petition No. 7833/2003, the order dated December 10, 2003 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short `CAT) passed in O.A. No. 576/2003 has been called in question whereby the CAT directed to maintain status quo in the matter of promotion to Indian Police Service (for short `IPS).

(4). In writ petition No. 32/2004 the order dated December 18, 2003 of the CAT passed in O.A. No. 523/2003 has been assailed whereby the direction was issued by the CAT to consider the case of Mehtab Singh and keep the result in sealed cover.

(5). In writ petition No. 7909/2003 the order dated December 23, 2003 passed by CAT in O.A. No. 608/2002 has been assailed whereby the direction was issued by the CAT to consider the candidature of Ranjit Singh for promotion to the post of I.P.S. on the basis of seniority list dated July 19, 2000.

WRIT PETITION NO. 4590/2003:

(6). Concededly 85th Constitutional Amendment has been challenged by the petitioner AIEF in the Honble Supreme Court by filing Writ petition civil No. 234/2002 and their Lordships of the Supreme Court on November 11, 2002 were pleased to issue interim directions thus:-

``....... These writ petitions involve the constitutionality of Article 16(4A). The Court, by an interim order has directed not to revert any of the petitioners from their existing placement nor affect their standing in the seniority list, but at the same time the provisions of Article 16(4A) can be implemented and by virtue of that provision if some of the reserve category candidates are entitled to promotion they shall be promoted. The obvious idea being the Court should not stay the operation of a constitutional provision. The State finds difficulty in implementing the order on the ground that there does not exist sufficient vacancy of posts in a particular cadre to give effect to the provisions contained in Article 16(4A). This being an interim arrangement, we direct that they should apply to the number of vacancies available in a cadre to give effect to the promotional policy and undoubtedly, such a promotion can be granted only when the State makes a provision for reservation in terms of Article 16(4A)......

(7). Pursuant to the aforesaid direction the State of Rajasthan made amendments in various Service Rules giving effect to the provision of Article 16(4A) of the Constitution vide Notification dated December 28, 2002. The notification reads thus:-

``In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the Governor of Rajasthan hereby makes the following amendment in the various Service Rules as specified in the Schedule appended hereto, namely.

AMENDMENT

The existing proviso to rule as mentioned in column number 3 against each of Service Rules as mentioned in column number 2 shall be deemed to have been deleted w.e.f. 1-4-1997 and the following new proviso shall be deemed to have been inserted as the last proviso to the respective rule as mentioned in c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document