Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 2696
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Judicial Member, Sumeet Jerath, Administrative Member
Narinder Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
OA No.1526/2021|OA Nos. 1559/2021|OA Nos. 1560/2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms. Abha Sharma, Mr. Anupam Maurya
For the Respondents: Mr. AK Behera, Mr. Pradeep Kumar Mathur, Mr. Chiranjeev Johri, Mr. U.Srivastava
Reservation in competitive recruitment to distinct Management Trainee cadre, not promotion, does not require quantifiable data on representation; governed by rules in force at notification, allowing consolidated exams.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16(4A), 335 - Reservation in recruitment to distinct cadre - Management Trainee cadre held to be separate competitive selection process, not promotion within existing cadre - Requirements of quantifiable data on inadequacy of representation under M. Nagaraj and Jarnail Singh inapplicable to newly constituted vacant cadre - Reservation permissible per Government policy. (Paras 62-65)
(B) Recruitment Rules - Application to vacancies - Recruitment governed by rules in force at time of notification - Earlier rules revoked; no mandate for year-wise examinations - Consolidated exam for accumulated vacancies valid under discretion for organizational needs. (Paras 68-70)
(C) Service jurisprudence - Participation in selection process - Candidate participating without objection estopped from challenging after failure. (Para 65)
Facts of the case:
Applicants, executives seeking induction as Management Trainees via internal competitive exam, challenged notification reserving posts for SC/ST without quantifiable data, applying later rules to earlier vacancies, and holding consolidated rather than year-wise exams. Respondents defended as per recruitment rules for distinct cadre.
Findings of Court:
Recruitment to Management Trainee cadre not promotion; constitutional preconditions for reservation inapplicable; process under prevailing rules valid; no interference warranted.
Issues: Whether reservation valid without quantifiable data; whether year-wise exams mandatory; applicability of superseded rules to old vacancies.
Ratio Decidendi: Distinct cadre recruitment via competitive exam exempt from promotion-reservation mandates; rules at notification time govern; no statutory requirement for year-wise process where discretion exists for needs-based recruitment.
Result: Original Applications dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. parties and case details identified (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. factual background of applicants' service (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. reservation in mt recruitment unconstitutional (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. year-wise exams under 2009 rules required (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 5. no consolidated exam; diversion illegal (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40) |
| 6. mt internal is recruitment, not promotion (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50) |
| 7. 2013 rules govern; consolidated exam valid (Para 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60) |
| 8. reservation valid for new mt cadre (Para 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66) |
| 9. 2013 rules apply; no year-wise mandate (Para 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74) |
| 10. all oas dismissed; no merit (Para 75) |
ORDER
Hon’ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J):
1.The brief facts of the OA No. 1526/2011 are that the applicants Nos. 1 and 2 joined Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited) as Junior Telecom Officers (JTO) on 02.06.2003 and 08.12.2003 respectively and were subsequently promoted as Sub Divisional Engineers (SDE) in July, 2013. Applicant No. 4 joined as JTO in February, 2007 and was promoted as SDE in June, 2018. Applicant No. 3 is a service association registered at Delhi on an All India basis, having members posted throughout India including within the jurisdiction of the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal. The Association also has a Branch Office in the State of Haryana and its members are similarly situated and affected as applicants Nos. 1 and
2. It is stated that neither the Association nor its members have filed any similar Original Application before any other Bench of this Tribunal or any other judicial forum. Applicant No. 4 is a member of Applicant No. 3 and is one of the affected employees.
2. The respondent, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, is a company incorporated under the Companies Act and fully owned by the Government of India, functioning under the administrative control of the Ministry of Communications, Department of Telecommunications. BSNL follows the reservation policy issued by the Government of India from time to time. As per the policy guidelines of the Government of India, reservation in promotion is provided to the extent of 15% for Scheduled Castes and 7.5% for Scheduled Tribes, and the same percentage is followed in BSNL.
3. The applicants have referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indira Sawhney’s case, reported as (1992) 6 SLR 321, wherein reservation in promotion was held impermissible and a five-year period was granted to the Government. Thereafter, the Constitution (77th Amendment) Act, 1995 introduced Article 16(4A) with effect from 17.06.1995 enabling the State to provide reservation in matters of promotion to SCs and STs if they were not adequately represented in services under the State.
4. The applicants have further relied upon the judgment in Union of India v. Virpal Singh Chauhan, JT 1995 (7) SC 231, wherein the principle of catch-up rule was evolved to restore seniority of general category candidates superseded due to reservation in promotion. Subsequently, by further constitutional amendment, consequential seniority was provided to SC/ST candidates with retrospective effect from 17.06.1995.
5. It is also stated that pursuant to the constitutional amendment, the Department of Personnel and Training issued Office Memorandum dated 13.08.1997 to continue reservation in promotion. The said Office Memorandum was quashed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) No. 3490/2010 on 23.08.2017, with directions that reservation in promotion cannot be granted without first undertaking the necessary exercise of collecting quantifiable data regarding inadequacy of representation and considering overall administrative efficiency.
6. The constitutional validity of Article 16(4A) was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M. Nagaraj & Oth
