HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 21711 OF 2021

O R D E R:

Petitioners approached this Court aggrieved by the action of the State Government in issuing Memo No.73 dated 24.07.2021 and the consequential proceedings dated 27.08.2021 culminating in G.O.Ms.No.247, whereby revised panels were drawn up disturbing the promotions effected after 02.06.2014 in the cadres of Joint Secretary and Deputy Secretary to Government. They contend that this action, purportedly taken in obedience to the Division Bench judgment dated 11.12.2018 in Writ Petition No.4415 of 2016 and batch, is, in substance, not a review but a wholesale revision, unsettling vested rights and is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

2. Petitioners state that they belong to Scheduled Tribe category and were validly promoted to the posts of Joint Secretary and Deputy Secretary in the Secretariat in accordance with the policy embodied in G.O.Ms.No.5 dated 14.02.2003 and G.O.Ms.No.26 dated 20.02.2009, which provide for reservation in promotion with consequential seniority. Their grievance is that Para 5.2 of the impugned Memo stipulates that once

adequacy of representation is achieved, further promotions shall be made only on the basis of general seniority reckoned from the feeder cadre, thereby nullifying the benefit of consequential seniority and reviving the "catch-up" principle which was legislatively abrogated by the 85^th Constitutional Amendment. They further contend that their objections to the provisional review panels were rejected by cryptic orders dated 27.08.2021

without assigning reasons, contrary to law.

2.1. Petitioners rely on settled constitutional jurisprudence. In Indra Sawhney v. Union of India¹, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that reservation under Article 16(4) was confined to initial appointments and not to promotions, which led to the 77th Amendment introducing Article 16(4A). In M. Nagaraj v. Union of India2, the Constitution Bench upheld the validity of the 77^th and 85^th Amendments but mandated that before providing reservation in promotion with consequential seniority, the State must collect quantifiable data on inadequacy of representation, establish backwardness, and ensure efficiency of administration under Article 335. In Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta3, the Hon’ble

1992 Supp (3) SCC 217

(2006) 8 SCC 212

(2018) 10 SCC 396

Supreme Court clarified that Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes need not prove backwardness afresh, though the requirement of collecting quantifiable data on inadequacy remains. In B.K. Pavitra v. Union of India⁴, it was held that consequential seniority is not a mere statutory benefit but a constitutional incident of promotion flowing from Article 16(4A), and once the exercise as stipulated in Nagraj’s case (supra) is completed, consequential seniority cannot be withdrawn by executive instructions, as that would amount to reintroducing the catch-up principle abrogated by the 85^th Amendment. Petitioners also place reliance on Kranti Associates v. Masood Ahmed Khan⁵, where the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that reasons are the heartbeat of every conclusion and any order affecting civil rights without reasons is arbitrary.

3. The State, in its counter, contends that its action is strictly in compliance with the Division Bench judgment in Writ Petition No.4415 of 2016 and batch. It is stated that the Government constituted a Six-Member Committee to review the panels post-2014, in line with the mandate of Nagaraj and Jarnail Singh’s case, and on that basis, revised panels were drawn and notified. It is contended that consequential seniority

(2019) 16 SCC 129

(2010) 9 SCC 496

can be extended only till adequacy of representation is reached; once adequacy is achieved, promotions must revert to the rule of general seniority. The State states that supernumerary posts were created to prevent reversions, and hence no actual prejudice has been caused to petitioners.

4. Impleaded Respondents 6 and