SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 10576

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, J, ANJALI BHAWRA, A
All India Equality Forum (regd.) through its Organizational Zonal Secretary Jaipal Singh Phogat – Appellant
Versus
Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Communications, Electronics and Information Technology – Respondent
OA No. 060/946/2024



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sh. Puneet Jindal, Sh. Rohit Sharma
For the Respondents: Sh. Harmanjot Singh Gill, Sh. Rohit Seth

Promotions must comply with legal mandates on data collection for SC/ST representation, and general seniority should be maintained unless justified otherwise.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Article 16(4A) of Constitution of India - Reservation in promotions and maintenance of roster - The tribunal held that the Railway Board's promotion orders did not comply with the Supreme Court's mandate on quantifiable data collection regarding SC/ST representation. (Paras 35, 36, 40)

(B) Constitutional Law - Legal principles concerning reservations, seniority, and promotions - The court emphasized that the enabling provision of Article 16(4A) does not grant a vested right to reservation unless inadequacy is demonstrated through quantifiable data, reiterating the need for adherence to general seniority. (Paras 30, 38)

Facts of the case:
Applicants claim violation of guidelines regarding seniority and reservation laws leading to the promotion of junior candidates over them, despite previous rulings mandating adjustments based on adequate representation.

Findings of Court:
The impugned instructions and promotion orders were set aside due to lack of adherence to constitutional safeguards and required legal processes, mandating correct allotment of seniority.

Issues: The issues revolved around the legality of promotions made without quantifiable proof of SC/ST under-representation and the arbitrary bypassing of seniority principles.

Ratio Decidendi: The tribunal reiterated that promotions should follow general seniority unless justifiable deviations are backed by quantifiable data; promotions violating this principle were deemed arbitrary and unconstitutional.

Result: The impugned PS No. 15806/2023 and promotion order dated 13.06.2024 are set aside.

Table of Content
1. applicants challenge promotion guidelines and roster maintenance based on inadequacy of representation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. the tribunal holds that the impugned order breached legal principles concerning reservation and data collection. (Para 15 , 19)
3. promotion orders violate seniority principles and reservation laws due to lack of necessary data. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33)
4. court emphasizes adherence to constitutional requirements in promotions and reservation applicability. (Para 35 , 36 , 40)

ORDER

Per: SH. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR MEMBER (J):

1. This Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the A.T. Act, seeking the following relief(s):-

(i) Setting aside of PS No. 15806/2023 dated 15.02.2024 (Annexure A-19) to the extent that the previous instructions/guidelines dated 21.08.1997 (Annexure A-2) and maintenance of roster as per Annexure-1 therein has been ordered to be followed without due regard to DoPT letter dated 12.04.2022 (Annexure A-14) based upon the latest decision of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in CA No. 629 of 2022 titled ‗Jarnail Singh & Ors. Vs. Lachhmi Narain Gupta & Ors., coupled with the opinion of the Attorney General of India thereby breaching the mandate of Article 16(4A) of the Constitution of India and providing for reservation in promotions without collection of quantifiable data regarding inadequacy of representation of SC/STs in each cadre separately, thus violating the interim arrangement/decision as circulated vide PS No. 14620/2016 dated 3.10.2016 (Annexure A-5) till final decision in Jarnail Singh‘s case by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court.

(ii) Setting aside of Order dated 13.06.2024 (Annexure A-25) whereby the case of the applicant for promotion has been ignored and Respondents No. 5 and 6 who are much junior to the applicants No. 2 and 3 have been promoted in an out of turn arrangement, in violation of the directions set out by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court.

2. That the Applicant No. 1 i.e. 'All India Equality Forum' is a non- Government Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 which seeks to espouse the cause of its members, railway employees and in this particular case with special reference to supersession of its members namely, Kavish Banga. and Charanjit Singh (Applicants No. 2 and 3). certificate of registration dated 09.10.1997 is attached as Annexure A-1. The members of the organisation/Applicant No. 2 i.e. Kavish Banga was appointed on 19.12.2017 and Applicant No. 3/ Charanjit Singh was appointed on 29.03.2012, Both the applicants were appointed under the 'UR' (unreserved) category and are holding a Group-C post of Senior Section Engineer (Electric General) in Grade Pay of 9300-34800 GP- 4800 and are posted at different stations under the Northern Railways, Firozpur Division.

3. That for the first time, the Railway Board issued guidelines dated 21.08.1997 vide RB No. 114/1997 introducing the system of reservation rosters to be maintained in Group ‗C‘ and ‗D‘ promotional posts in compliance with the judgment in R.K. Sabharwal vs. State of Punjab and other decisions. It was laid down that the roster would apply to posts and not vacancies, and that vacancy-based rosters could operate only until the representation of SC/ST employees in a cadre reached the prescribed percentage of reservation (Annexure A-2).

4. Thereafter, the Hon‘ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, in its judgment dated 15.07.2011 in Lachhmi Narain Gupta & Ors. vs. Jarnail Singh & Ors. (CWP No. 13218/2009), quashed the DoPT‘s Office Memorandum dated 10.08.2010, holding that reservation in promotion could not be applied unless quantifiable data established inadequacy of representation. Against this judgment, SLP No. 30621/2011 was filed before the Hon‘ble Supreme Court, which by interim order dated 03.02.2015, directed maintenance of status quo in promotional matters (Annexure A-3).

5. In consequence of contempt proceedings (Contempt Petition (C) No. 314/2016 in SLP (C) No. 4831/2012),

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top