The main legal point established is that the rule of reservation gives accelerated promotion but does not give accelerated consequential seniority, as per the decision in Ajit Singh Januja's case.

J.S.Khehar, J.

1. The petitioner was inducted into service of the respondents as a Beldar on 27.10.1978 i.e. the same date on which respondent No. 4 was also appointed as a Beldar. It is, however, not a matter of dispute that in the cadre of Beldars the petitioner was senior to respondent No. 4.

2. Respondent No. 4 was promoted as Agriculture Sub Inspector against a vacancy reserved for scheduled caste candidates in the year 1990. At the time of consideration of the claim of respondent No. 4 for promotion as Agriculture Sub Inspector, the claim of the petitioner was not considered despite his higher position in the seniority list on account of the fact that he did not belong to the said reserved category. Be that as it may, the petitioner was eventually promoted as an Agriculture Sub Inspector by an order dated 20.1.2001. On his promotion as Agriculture Sub Inspector, the petitioner claims seniority over respondent No. 4 in view of the decision rendered by the Honble Supreme Court in Ajit Singh Januja and others v. State of Punjab and others, 1996(2) SCT 278 : 1996(2) RSJ 119 wherein the Apex Court declared the legal position as under :-

"We respectfully concur with the view in Union of India v. Virpal Singh Chauhan, (supra) that seniority between the reserved category candidates and general candidates in the promoted category shall continue to be governed by their panel position i.e. with reference to their inter se seniority in the lower grade. The rule of reservation gives accelerated promotion, but it does not give the accelerated `consequential seniority, if a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidate is promoted earlier because of the rule of reservation/roster and his seniority belonging to the general category candidate is promoted later to that higher grade the general category candidate shall regain his seniority over such earlier promoted Scheduled Caste/ Tribe candidate. As already pointed out above that when a Scheduled Caste/Tribes candidate is promoted earlier by applying the rule of reservation/roster against a post reserved for such Scheduled Caste/Tribe candidate, in this process he does not supersede his seniors belonging to the general category. In this process there was no occasion to examine the merit of such Scheduled Caste/Tribe candidate, vis-a-vis his seniors belonging to the general category. As such it will be only rational, just and proper to hold that when the general category candidate is promoted later from the lower grade to the higher grade, he will be considered senior to a candidate belonging to the Scheduled Caste/Tribe who had been given accelerated promotion against the post reserved for him. Whenever a question arises for filling up a post reserved for Scheduled Caste/Tribe candidate in still higher grade then such candidate belonging to Scheduled Castes/Tribe shall be promoted first but when the consideration is in respect of promotion against the general category post in still higher grade then the general category candidate who has been promoted later shall be considered senior and his case shall be considered first for promotion applying either principle of seniority-cum-merit or merit-cum-seniority. If this rule and procedure is not applied then result will be that majority of the posts in the higher grade shall be held at one stage by persons who have not only entered in service on basis of reservation and roster but have excluded the general category candidates from being promoted to the posts reserved for general category candidates merely on the ground of their initial accelerated promotions. This will not be consistent with the requirement or the spirit of Article 16(4) or Article 335 of the Constitution.

3 Since the aforesaid claim of the petitioner was not being acceded to by the respondents, the petitioner approached this Court by filing C.W.P. No. 10640 of 2005. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by an order dated July 15, 2005 wherein a direction was issue