Hon’ble Pradeep Kant, J.—This bunch consists of writ petitions relating to the Government servants of Group A, Group B and Group C services in various Government departments of the State, like Vidhan Sabha, Civil Secretariat, Irrigation, Rural Engineering, Agriculture, Statistics, Drugs Control, Consolidation, Education, Medical and Health, Veterinary, Soil Conservation, Fire Service and Public Works Department, etc. and writ petitions relating to corporations, like U.P. Jal Nigam and U.P. Power Corporation Limited, etc.

2. All the writ petitions raise common challenge to the Uttar Pradesh Government Servants Seniority (Third Amendment) Rules, 2007 and in particular Rule 8-A and similar provisions in the service rules of the Corporations and other departments.

3. The writ petitions have made a challenge to the aforesaid Rule and also to Section 3(7) of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes) Act, 1994 as ultra vires Articles 14, 16(4-A) and 335 of the Constitution of India, with a further prayer that the respondents be directed not to provide reservation in the matter of promotion in concerned departments of the Government of U.P. and not to give effect to Rule 8-A aforesaid.

4. The petitioners also challenge the Government Order dated 17.10.2007, issued for implementing the provisions of Rule 8-A while determining the seniority of the members of service.

5. Rules 4 and 5, with their proviso of the U.P. Promotion by Selection (on Posts outside the Purview of the Public Service Commission) Eligibility List Rules, 1986, as amended in 1995 and 2001, hereinafter referred to as the Eligibility List Rules, 1986, are also under challenge.

6. The petitioners are also aggrieved by the Rules of preparation of separate eligibility list for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes for promotion to the posts, for which the criterion of promotion is ‘merit’, under the Eligibility List Rules, 1986, as amended from time to time and the inclusion of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes officers, in the Eligibility List for promotion to the higher post, in the absence of any vacancy in the reserved quota, against the general vacancy, by giving them accelerated seniority.

7. The writ petitions relating to corporations also raise the same challenge but with an additional ground that merely on issuance of the Government Order, the corporations have amended their Rules without application of mind and without even making an attempt or effort to find out the necessity of framing such a rule.

8. The main thrust of the challenge in all the writ petitions is that the State Government, grossly in violation of the constitutional provisions, the limitations provided therein and mandate of the Supreme Court in the case of ‘M. Nagraj and others v. Union of India and others’, (2006) 8 SCC 212, has framed rules (Rule 8-A) providing consequential seniority with accelerated promotion. The corporations have likewise adopted the same by amending their rules. On the same plea, they also challenge the very rule of reservation in promotion i.e. Section 3(7) of the Act, 1994 urging that neither at the time of enacting the said provision, nor at any point of time thereafter, any exercise has been done by the State Government as per the constitutional requirement prescribed in Article 16(4-A).

9. The sheet-anchor argument of the petitioners is that the case of M.Nagraj (supra) upholds the constitutional validity of Articles 16(4-A) and 16(4-B), declaring it to be an enabling provision for reservation in promotion with accelerated seniority. But this does not mean that the State Government was allowed to frame rules of reservation in promotion with or without consequential seniority with respect to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes persons without undertaking the exercise, as detailed in and provided in the said judgment.

10. Corollary to the aforesaid argument is that the State Government