Ajit Singh (II) v. State of Punjab (1999) 7 SCC 209
FACTS IN BRIEF
The Indian Railways issued a circular on February 28th, 1997, to the effect that the reserved candidates promoted at roster points could not claim seniority over the senior general candidates promoted later. This was done following the law laid down by the Supreme Court—that it was “permissible” to follow that reserved candidates who get promotion at the roster points would not be entitled to claim seniority at the promotional level as against senior general candidates who got promoted at a later point of time to the same level and that “it would be open” to the State to provide that as and when the senior general candidate got promoted to the level to which the reserved candidate was promoted earlier, the general candidate would have to be treated as senior to the reserved candidate at the promotional level as well, unless, of course, the reserved candidate got a further promotion by that time to a higher post. Similarly, the State of Punjab was proceeding to revise seniority lists and make further promotions of the senior general candidates who had reached the level to which the reserved candidates had reached earlier.
At that point of time, another three-judge Judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that the general rule in the Service Rules relating to seniority from the date of continuous officiation would be attracted even to the roster point promotees as otherwise there would be discrimination against the reserved candidates. In
In light of above two contrary decisions, State was in a quandary what to do and the same was brought
before the Supreme Court, wherein the issues, inter alia, were:
- Could the roster point promotees (reserved category) count their seniority in the promoted category from the date of their continuous officiation vis-à-vis the general candidates who were senior to them in the lower category, and who were later promoted to the same level?
- Whether the ‘catch-up’ principles claimed by the general candidates are tenable?
JUDGMENT
The judgment of the Court can be summarized as follows:
- The roster point promotees (reserved category) could not count their seniority in the promoted category from the date of their continuous officiation in the promoted post vis-à-vis the general
candidates who were senior to them in the lower category and who were later promoted. On the
other hand, the senior general candidate at the lower level, if he reached the promotional level
Later, but before further promotion, the reserved candidate would have to be treated as senior, at the promotional level, to the reserved candidate, even if the reserved candidate was earlier promoted to that level. - The Apex Court held that the decision of Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana (AIR 1997 SC 2366) arrived at an incorrect conclusion because of applying a rule of continuous officiation which was not intended to apply to the reserved candidates promoted at roster points. There was no conflict in
the principles laid down in the two judgments of Union of India v. Virpal Singh (1993) 6 SCC 685
and Ajit Singh Januja v. State of Punjab (1996), 2 SCC 215. In Ajit Singh, the Court had to consider
the validity of such a Circular dated 19.7.69, which positively declared that the “roster points were
seniority points. Thus, the decision by Ajit Singh was correct. - In case any senior general candidate at initial level (suppose L-3) reached next level before the
reserved candidate (roster point promotee) at next level (i.e. L-2) goes further up to higher level
(L-1), then the seniority at next level (i.e. L-2) had to be modified by placing such a general candidate above the roster promotee, reflecting their inter se seniority at Level 2. Further promotion to higher level (L-1) must be on the basis of such a modified seniority at L-2, namely, that the senior general candidate of L-3 will remain senior also at L-2 to the reserved candidate. even if the latter had reached L-2 earlier. - After decision in Ajit Singh, it becomes necessary that a reserved candidate who has been promoted to higher level (say, level 2) under reservation quota and the general category candidate (senior to reserved candidate at level 3) who was promoted to same level (i.e. level 2) later and for promotion to next level (level 1) the reserved category candidate was promoted to disregard of general category candidate who was promoted to same level (level 1) later, then in such situations It has become necessary to review the promotion of the reserved candidate to level 1 and reconsider the same, without causing a reversion to the reserved candidate who reached level 1. As and when the senior reserved candidate was later promoted to level 4, and the seniority at level 4 was also to be
re-fixed on the basis of when the reserved candidate at level 3 would have gotten his normal promotion, treating him as junior to the senior general candidate at level 3.
CONCLUSION
After the above decision, it is clear that reserved Category promotees cannot count their seniority in the promoted category from the date of their continuous officiation in the promoted post-vis-à-vis general candidates who were senior to them in lower category and were later promoted.
Youtube facebook whatsapp web weather translate google amazon gmail google translate Instagram cricbuzz traductor Hotmail restaurants satta king tiempo twitter googel maps Yandex Sarkari result clima hotels fb yahoo maps chatgpt yahoo mail weather tomorrow Netflix roblox nba wordle tradutor livescore premier league ibomma speed test canva pintrest outlook Instagram login omegle flipkart myntra paypal paytm Alibaba ebay lottery sambad linkedin tiktok shein bbc news real madrid gmail login Walmart ikea cricket snaptik flashscore English to hindi twitch google scholar Barcelona Sarkari Naukri matrimonial shadi lgbtq third gender woman children Advocate barrister vakil supreme court high court commissioner exams ll.b ll.m ugc net law ph.d. m.b.a. graduation degree certificate school additional session judge civil judge justice jurists crime criminology punishment capital sentence death warrant fine constitution of india criminal procedure code civil procedure code evidence act sale of goods act arbitration act all india bar exam lower judiciary higher judiciary additional district attorney contract act amendment act u.s. constitution Canada p r section article schedule judgment vacancy post Porsche louis Vuitton chanel Gucci Hermes dior cartier rolex titan tiffany & co Ferrari estee lauder coach lancome burberry prada omega yves saint Laurent Lamborghini ray-ban Armani Moncler tata reliance Givenchy celine Bentley tag Heuer sk-II can cleef & arpels bulgari Shangri-la lao feng xiang dabur baidyanath cipla birla monte carlo loewe rolls-royce bottega-veneta jaege-leCoulture Maserati valentino dolce & gabbana Salvatore Ferragamo sulwhasso tom ford Maruti Suzuki Hyundai kia intercontinental Tissot aston martin ysl beauty fendi Versace kenzo la mer longines gold price sensex human rights pollution