The principles regarding the necessity of quantifiable data for reservation in promotions, as laid down in M. Nagaraj, have only prospective application to avoid unsettling long-standing seniority and causing administrative chaos, thereby precluding retrospective challenges to past promotions.

O R D E R

By Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J):

In the instant OA, the applicants seek the following relief:-

(i) Direct the respondents to apply the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment dated 19.10.2006 in WP(C) No. 61/2002 (along with connected cases) titled M. Nagaraj & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (reported as AIR 2007 SC 71) in the cadre/hierarchy of posts of Fireman, Leading Fireman, Sub-Officers and Station Officers w.e.f. the date of issue of the aforesaid judgment, with all consequences which may include review of illegal and unconstitutional DPCs/promotions, reversions to the said posts.

(ii) Award costs of the proceedings and

(iii) Pass any order/relief/direction(s) as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice in favour of the applicants.”

Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submitted as under:-

2.1 The applicant No.1 (Bijender Singh) was appointed as a Fireman in the year 1992 (53 Batch) . The applicant Nos.2-6 (Amresh, Satyavir Singh, Ravinder, Sunder Sehrawat and Hawa Singh) were appointed as Fireman on 12.11.1990, 1.6.1984, 1.9.1988, 26.12.1985 and 12.11.1990 respectively.

2.2 Consequent to their promotion as Leading Fireman w.e.f. 29.04.2014, they are presently working on the said post. The applicants No. 7-8 (Vijay Singh and Dev Prakash) were appointed as Fireman in the years 1980 and 1983 respectively.

2.3 Both were promoted as Leading Fireman in February 2005 and as Sub-Officer in March 2012. In the cadre of Fireman, the next post on promotion is Leading Fireman. A Leading Fireman is entitled to promotion to the post of Sub-Officer and a Sub-Officer is entitled to be promoted as Station Officer.

2.4 All the applicants belong to the unreserved class. The respondents, while making direct recruitment, applied the reservation policy of the Government, and caste-based reservations were admitted to the reserved category. Besides the application of reservation policy at the time of initial appointment, the respondents have also been applying their reservation policy and thus providing special concession by way of earmarking posts for the reserved class in the promotional process, due to which the reserved class candidates have been stealing a march over the unreserved class (to which the applicants belong). It is relevant to point out here that vide judgment dated 19.10.2006 in M. Nagaraj & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that unless the State undertakes a fresh exercise and collects data identifying the classes requiring reservation in the matter of promotion and also the extent thereof, no reservation shall be admissible in promotion.

2.5 The applicants are also aggrieved by the facts that the mandate of M. Nagaraj (supra) has not been followed. It has been further submitted in para 4.11 as under:-

“That various DPCs have been held by the respondents in the interregnum in complete violation of the Constitutional Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court including DPCs held on 3.3.2011, 30.12.2014, 28.3.2008, 29.4.2010 (where ST/reserve class Fireman were promoted as Leading Fireman), 4.1.2014, 6.1.2014 (where reserved class Leading Fireman were promoted as Sub-Officer) and on 21.7.2006, 23.7.2012 (where reserve class sub-officer have been promoted as Station Officer) which require a review.”

3. Opposing the grant of relief, the learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the averments contained in the counter affidavit. It has been contended that the present OA is barred by limitation.

3.1 It has been ave