AKHIL BHARTIYA SOSHIT KARAMCHARI SANGH, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS AND ORS.

        AKHIL BHARTIYA SOSHIT KARAMCHARI SANGH,                                       A
            THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND ANR.
                            v.
         UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY,
              MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS AND ORS.
                                                                                      B
                            SEPTEMBER 12, 1996

            (K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PAITANAIK, JJ.]

                 '
      Se1Vice Law :
                                                                                      c
       Seniority-By tlze time a se11ior perso11 belo11gi11g to the general categ01y
gets promoted to the higher grade if the junior perso11 belo11ging to a rese1ved
categ01y who had been promoted to still higher grade-Question of granti11g
seniority to the general category ca11didate i11 the promoted category could
11ot aris~Roster 111ea11t for rese1Ved category candidate followed-No barfor          D
filling up vacancies in the ge11eral categ01y even i11 favour of candidate
belonging to rese1ved catego1y if such ca11didate is entitled to the same on the
basis of his ge11eral seniority.

      R.K. Sabha1wal & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors., [1995) 2 SCC 745;
Union of India & Ors. v. Vi1pal Singh Clzauhan & Ors., [1995) 6 SCC 684;              E
Ma11agi11g Director EC/ Hyderabad & Ors. v. B. Kanmakar & Ors., [1993) 4
SCC 727; U11ion of India v. Mohd: Ramzan Khan, [1991) 1 SCC 580; Indian
Administrative Se1Vice (S.C.S.) v. Union of India & Ors., [1993) Supp. l SCC
730; Mohd. Slmjat Ali & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [1975) 1 SCR 449;
Mohd. Bhakar v. Krishna Reddy, (1970) SLR 768; State of Mysore v. G.B.
Purohit, (1967) SLR 753); Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar v. State of                      F
Maharashtra, [1974) 1 SCC 317 and Syed Khalid Rizvi & Ors. v. Union of
India & Ors., [1993] Supp. 3 SCC 575, relied on.

     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C)
No. 16812 of 1996                                                                     G
   • From the Judgment and Order dated 30.4.96 of the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench in O.A. No. 304 of of 1992.

      Rajeev Dhawan, Manoj Goel and Ms. Abha R. Sharma for the
Petitioners.                                                                          H
                              165
    166                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A         The following Order of the Court was delivered :

          G.B. PATIANAIK, J. Special Leave Petition was listed before us on
    6th September, 1996 and the same was dismissed but it was indicated that
    the reasoned order will follow and accordingly this order is being passed.
B                                                ''
          The question for consideration is whether the Central Administrative
    Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, committed any error in dismissing the O.As.
    filed before it on interpretation of the different circulars issued by the
    Railways and following the constitution Bench decision of this Court in
    R.K Sabh01wal's & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors., (1995) 2 SCC 745, on the
c   question of promotion of a reserved category candidate on the basis of his
    normal seniority in the cadre from which he is being promoted.

        Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 filed O.A. No. 304 of 1992 challenging the
  promotion of Shri A.S. Rana, respondent No. 6 to the post of D.S.K.-1
D made on 26.2.1991. The case of the petitioners was that petitioner No. 2
  joined the Railways as a Jr. Clerk on 4.12.1956 and was promoted as Sr.
  Clerk on 1.4.1966. He was promoted to D.S.K.-III on 16.10.1978 and
  further promoted to D.S.K.-11 on 24.3.1989. The respondent No. 6 belong-
  ing to the reserved category was appointed in the Railways as Jr. Clerk on
  30.10.1983 and was promoted as Sr. Clerk on 16.8.1984. He was promoted
E as D.S.K.-III on 26.11.1986. The said respondent No. 6 was promoted
  earlier to petitioner No. 2 to the cadre of D.S.K.-11 on 8.10.1987, in view
  of the post available in the cadre of D.S.K.- II for the reserve category
  people. When the question of promotion to cadre of D.S.K.-1 came up for
  consideration against the vacancies meant for general category said respon-
F dent No. 6 Shri Rana was promoted on 26.2.1991 on the basis of his
  accelerated seniority, he having taken advantage of accelerated promotion
  being a member of the reserved category. The petitioner No. 2 filed a
  representation before the authorities making the grievance·that respondent ·
  No. 6 could not have been promoted to a post meant for general category
  and the authorities illegally promoted him. but not being successful therein,
G challenged the promotion of respondent No. 6 before the Tribunal. The
  railway administration filed their counter-affidavit before the Tribpnal ·
  taking several technical objections regarding the maintainability of the
  proceedings at the behest of the association. So far as the merits of the
  case are concerned, it was contended that no doubt respondent No. 6 had
H been promoted to the cadre of D.S.K.- III and D.S.K.-11 against the
       AKHILBHARTIYASOSHITKARAMCHARISANGHv. U.O.I.                     167

reserved vacancy following the roster but so far as promotion to the cadre A
of D.S.K.-1 is concerned he was considered against a vacant post in the
general category on the basis of his normal seniority and ultimately he has .
been promoted in accordance with the circulars issued by the railway
administration and in accordance with the law laid down by this Court in
SabhalWal's case (supra). The Tribunal following the decisions of this
                                                                              B
Court in Sabha1Wal's case as well as Virpal Singh Chauhan's case rejected
the application on the conclusion that the alleged promotion of respondent
No. 6 was much prior to the decision of this Court in SabhalWal's case in
the year 1995 and promotion already made cannot be interfered.

       Dr. Rajiv Dhawan appearing for the petitioners, however, vehement- C
ly contended that the accelerated promotion of a reserve category can-
didate cannot confer on him the seniority in the promotion cadre and
therefore the impugned promotion of respondent No. 6 made in February,
1991 to the cadre of D.S.K.-1 must be held to be invalid and inoperative
and Tribunal committed gross error in rejecting the O.A. We find no force D
in the aforesaid contention. In Sabha1Wal's case this Court was considering
the question of promotion and the filling up of the post in the promoted
cadre and the implementation of the rosters indicating the reserved point.
In explaining legal position this Court held that the "running account" is to
operate only till the quota provided under the impugned instructions is
reached and not thereafter. The vacancies arising in the cadre, after the E
initial posts are filled, will pose no difficulty. As and when there is a
vacancy whether permanent or temporary in a particular post the same has
to be filled from amongst the category to which the post belonged in the
roster but in the event or non-availability of a reserve candidate at the
roster point it would be open to the State Government to carry forward F
the point in a just and fair manner. Having indicated the law as above it
was categorically held that the principle should operate only prospectively.
In further elaborating the point of computation of the percentage of
reservation this Court further held :

         "When a percentage of reservation is fixed in respect of a particular G
         cadre and the roster indicates the reserve points, it has to be taken
         that the posts shown at the reserve points are to be filled from
         amongst the members of reserved categories and the candidates
         belonging to the general category are not entitled to be considered
         for the reserved posts. On the other hand the reserved category ' H
    168                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A           candidates can compete for the non-reserve posts and in the event
            of their appointment to the said posts their number cannot be
            added and taken into consideration for working out the percentage
            of reservation. Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India permits
            the State Government to make any provision for the reservation
            of appointments or posts in favour of any Backward Class of
B           citizens which, in the opinion of the State is not adequately repre-
            sented in the Services under the State. It is, therefore, incumbent
            on the State Government to reach a conclusion that the Backward
            Class/Classes for which the reservation is made is not adequat~ly
            represented in the State Services. While doing so the State Govern-
c           ment may take the total population of a particular Backward Class
            and its representation in the State Services. When the State
            Government after doing the necessary exercise makes the reserva-
            tion and provides the extent of percentage of posts to be reserved
            for the said Backward Class then the percentage has to be followed
            strictly. The prescribed percentage cannot be varied or changed
D
            simply because some of the members of the Backward Class have
            already been appointed/promoted against the general seats. As
            mentioned above the roster point which is reserved for a Backward
            Class has to be filled by way of appointment/promotion of the
            member of the said class. No general category candidate can be         1..

E           appointed against a slot in the roster which is reserved for the
            Backward Class. The fact that considerable number of members
            of a Backward Class have been appointed/promoted against
            general seats in the State Services may be a relevant factor for the
            State Government to review the question of continuing reservation
F           for the said class but so long as the instructions/rules providing
            certain percentage of reservations for the Backward Classes are
            operative the same have to he followed. Despite any number of
            appointees/promotees belonging to the Backward Classes against
            the general category posts the given percentage has to be provided
            in addition."
G
        In the case of Union of India & Ors. v. Virpal Singh Chauhan & Ors.,
  [1995] 6 SCC 684, this Court again considered the case of accelerated
  promotion and inter se seniority between a general and reserve candidate
  in the promoted category and after considering the several circulars issued
H by the railway administration, held :
       AKHILBHARTIYASOSHITKARAMCHARISANGHv. U.0.1.                    169

        "Hence, the seniority between the reserved category candidates A
        and general candidates in the promoted category shall continue to
        be governed by their panel position. We have discussed herein-
        before the meaning of the expression 'panel' and held that in case
        of non-selection posts, no 'panel' is prepared of or is necessary to
        be prepared. If so, the question arises, what did the circular/letter
                                                                              B
        dated 31.8.1982 mean when it spoke of seniority being governed
        by the panel position? In our opinion, it should mean the panel
        prepared by the selecting authority at the time of selection for
        Grade 'C'. It is the seniority in this panel which must be reflected
        in each of the higher grades. This means that while the rule of
        reservation gives accelerated promotion, it does not give the ac-    c
        celerated - or what may be called, the consequential - seniority.
        There is, however, orie situation where this rule my not have any
        practical relevance. In a given case, it may happen that by the time
        the senior general candidate gets prompted to the higher grade,
        the junior reserved category candidate (who was promoted to the D
        said higher grade earlier) may have got promoted to yet higher
        grade. In other words, by the time the senior general category
        candidates enters, say, Grade 'B', his junior Scheduled
        Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidate is promoted to Grade 'A'. It is
        obvious that in such a case, the rule evolved in the aforesaid
        circulars does not avail the senior general candidate for there can E
        be no question of any seniority as between, say, a person in 'B'
        grade and a person in 'A' grade."

       This Court in Chauhan's case accepted the direction in Sabh01wal's
case that appointments according to roster already made prior to the F
judgment in Sabh01wal's case are legal and valid. In effect, they were
declared legal and valid and direction was given to determine seniority in
the light of the principles laid down therein. It was held that when the
panel/select list was prepared at the time of making selections for promo-
tion to the selection post it would be that panel and not the panel/select
list prepared at the time of appointment to the initial grade that would G
determine the seniority to the posts. It would obviously apply to future case
in accordance with the rule, the subject matter of the interpretation in the
judgment in Chauhan 's case. Therefore, the two judgment became effective
from the date of the decision in Sabh01wal's case. All appointments made
prior to that date being legal and valid including right to seniority in H
    170                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A promoted post or cadre, they require to be given effect to.

            In Managing Direct01; ECIL, Hyderabad & Ors. v. B. Kanmakar &
    Ors., [1993] 4 SCC 727 the Constitution Bench considered the scope of
    prospective operation of the judgment and held that as on the date of the
    judgment the order of dismissal or action taken prior to the date of the
B   judgment, as held in Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, [1991] 1 SCC
    580 could not be reopened. The Judgment will be prospective in nature,
    i.e., it will be operative from the date when it is made; if the copy of the
    enquiry was not supplied to the delinquent officer, from that date the order
    or action would get vitiated under Article 311(2) of the Constitution.
c
          In Indian Administrative Service (S.C.S.) v. Union of India & Ors.,
    [1993] Supp. 1 SCC 730 at 745-46 in paragraph 14 and 15, a Bench of three
    Judges had held that there is a distinction between right and interest. No
    one has a vested right to promotion or seniority, but an officer has an
D   interest to seniority acquired by working out the rules. It could be taken
    away only by operation of.valid law.

        In Mohd. Shujat Ali & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (1975] 1 SCR
  449 a Constitution Bench had held a rule which confas a right of actual
  promotion or a right to be considered for promotion, is a rule prescribing
E condition of the service. Another Constitution Bench in Mohd. Bhakar v.
  Klishna Reddy, (1970) SLR 768 had held that any rule which affects the
  promotion of a person relates to his condition "Of service and is not arbitrary
  or unconstitutional. In State of Mysore v. G.B. Purohit, (1967) SLR 753,
  another Bench of three Judges had held that the rule which merely affects
F chances   of promotion cannot he regarded as varying a condition of service.
  Chances of promotion are not condition of service, which principle was
  reiter:ited in another Constitution Bench judgement in Ramchandra
  Shankar Deodhar v. State of Maharashtra, (1974] 1 SCC 317. In Syed Khalid
  Rizvi & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (1993] Supp. 3 SCC 575, another
  Bench of three Judges referred with approval and relied on these cases
G and had held in para 31 at page 602 that no employee has a right to
  promotion but he has only the right to be considered for promotion
  according to rules. Chances of promotion are not conditions of service and
  are defeasible. An illustration was given as regards the inter se claim
  between general candidate and a reserved candidate and their right to
H seniority in the promotional post. When a reserved candidate was
       AKHILBHARTIYASOSHITKARAMCHARISANGHv. U.O.l.                         171

promoted according to the roster and got promotion to a higher post, it A
was observed that such a reserved candidate having scaled a march over
the senior general candidate to higher service, the senior general candidate
in the lower cadre who was subsequently promoted to the higher cadre
cannot claim seniority over the reserved candidate.

      In P.S. Ghalaut v. State of Haryana & Ors., (1995] 5 SCC 625, a Bench
                                                                                  B
of two Judges has held that in fixing inter se seniority as per the roster,
order of merit prepared by the Public Service Commission gets displaced
and the reserved candidate gets seniority over the general candidate in
accordance with the roster, though the general candidate has been recom-
mended by the Public Service Commission to be more meritorious. It was            C
held that when the roster is maintained to give effect to the constitutional
policy of reservation in respect of places reserved for reserved candidates
and fitted the general candidates and reserved candidates according to
roster, the changed order of merit invariably gets affected which is not
arbitrary or unconstitutional.
                                                                                  D
       Thus by the time a senior person belonging to the general category
gets promoted to the higher grade if the junior person belonging to a
reserved category who had been pr.omokd to the said higher grade earlier
has been promoted to still higher grade, question of granting seniority to
the general category candidate in the promoted category could not arise.          E
This being the position, and the promotion of respondent No. 6 to D.S.K.-1
having been made as early as in February, 1991 much prior to the judgment
of this Court in Sabharwal's case as well as Vbpal Singh Chauhan's case,
the Tribunal was wholly justified in rejecting the O.A. filed before it. That
apart in a particular cadre after following the roster meant for reserved         F
category candidate, there is absolutely no bar for filling up the vacancies
in the general category even in favour of candidate belonging to the
reserved category if the said reserved category candidate is entitled to the
same on the basis of his general seniority, No materials have been placed
before us to hold that the promotion of respondent No 6 was not on the
basis of his general seniority in D.S.K.-11. In the aforesaid premises, we find   G
no substance in the contention of Dr. Rajiv Dhawan and the special leave
petition must fail.

G.N.                                                       Petition dismissed.