The claim for restoration of seniority is barred by delay and laches, as the promotions of junior candidates were not timely challenged, affirming the necessity of prompt legal action in service matters.

JUDGMENT

Petitioners have approached this Court seeking the following reliefs.

“A Call for the records leading up to Exhibit P10.

B. Issue a writ of Certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Exhibit P6.

C. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 2nd respondent organization to restore the original seniority in respect of the petitioners in the post of Asst Foreman from the date of their promotion to the said post in tune with the 'catch up' rule laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.K.Pavitra I, and thereafter consider their candidature also for promotion to the post of Foreman within a time limit to be laid down by this Hon'ble Court.

D. To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. The 2^nd petitioner died during the pendency of this proceeding, and a memo has been filed by the learned counsel for the petitioners intimating that they are not intending to implead the legal heirs of the 2^nd petitioner and therefore, this Court will be considering the claim of the 1^st petitioner alone and he will be referred to as the ‘petitioner’ in this writ petition.

3. Essential contention raised by the petitioner is that the petitioner joined service as a Lascar much prior to respondents 6 to 8. It is submitted that respondents 6 and 8 belong to the Scheduled Tribe category, and the 7^th respondent belongs to the Scheduled Caste category. Respondents 6 to 8 earned an accelerated 1^st promotion to the next promotion post of Greaser and subsequent intervening post on the basis of reservation, thereby gaining seniority over the petitioner. The consequential seniority gained by respondents 6 to 8 was reckoned for the grant of promotion to the post of Assistant. Foreman and later respondents 6 and 8 were promoted to the post of Foreman. Petitioner contends that the issue regarding reservation for promotion, etc., was considered by the Apex Court in several judgments, and on the basis of the same, the petitioner is entitled to the relief sought. The learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court the decisions by the Apex Court and other High Courts in the matter of reservation, and contended as follows:-

“1. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in General Manager, Southern Railway v Rangachari , AIR 1962 SC 36 held reservation in promotion can be provided under Art 16(4) as exception to Art 16(1). The same view was endorsed in C.A. Rajendran v Union of India & Ors., AIR 1968 SC 507 .

2. Indra Sawhney & Ors. V. Union of India & Ors., 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 altered this vew and held:

●Reservation is not applicable for promotions.

●Reservation is applicable only for initial appointments.

●Quantum of reservation not to exceed 50% in any year.

●Creamy layer to be excluded.

The Central Government was, however, given 5 years in which to amend rules.

3. In 1995 parliament adopted 77th amendment by inserting Art 16 (4A), enabling it to provide for reservation in promotions.

4. In R.K.Sabharwal & Ors. v State of Punjab & Ors., 1995 (2) SCC 745, it was held:

●Reservations to be worked out on Cadre Strength (i.e. total No. of posts in a cadre).

●Roster to be inoperative after one round of appointments is completed.

5. Union of India & Ors. v Virpal Singh Chauhan & Ors., 1995 (6) SCC 684 laid down the 'Catch Up' Rule whereby:

●Seniors from general category would regain seniority on being promoted in normal turn after the junior who was promoted earlier on Roster point.

●'Catch Up' rule would be applicable only if both senior and junior are in the same post at the same time.

●S