JATINDER PAL SINGH AND ORS. ETC. ETCversusSTATE OF PUNJAB

             JATINDER PAL SINGH AND ORS. ETC. ETC.                              A
                                      v.
                           STATE OF PUNJAB

                          SEPTEMBER 16, 1999

 [DR. A.S. ANAND, C.J., K. VENKATASWAMI, G.B. PATTANAIK,                        B
       S.P. KURDUKAR AND M. JAGANNADHA RAO, JJ.]


      Service Law:

       Promotion-Seniority-Roster point promotees vis-a-vis-genera/             C
candidates-Inter se seniority-Determination of-Reserved candidates
promoted as Head Masters/Head Mistresses on the basis of roster points-
Claim for promotion to the post of Principals-Allowed by High Court
relying on Jagdish Lal's case-Validity of-Held, in view of Ajit Singh I as
affirmed by Ajit Singh II, reserved candidates promoted on roster points not
entitled to claim benefit of continuous officiation in promotional post-High    D
Court not justified in allowing the claim of reserved candidates relying on
Jagdish Lal 's case-Punjab Education Service (School ad Inspection Cadre)
(Class JI) Rules, 1976-Rules JO &12.

      Promotion-Seniority-Roster point promotees vis-a-vis general              E
candidates-Inter se seniority-Determination of-Railways-Promotion of
reserved candidates even after 1.3.1996 but before 1.4.1997 on the basis of
continuous officiation-Genera/ candidates already reaching the promotional
level-Effect of-Held, there is no need to revert the reserved candidates-
However, their promotion shall be deemed as ad hoc-Seniority and promotion
to be 'determined following Virpa/ and Ajit Singh I as affirmed in Ajit Singh   F
JI.

     Promotion-Roster point-Applicability of-Whether can be applied
on vacancy basis even if the roster has exhausted?-Held, no.

      In ~njab Education Department, general candidates woi:king as senior G
Lecturers/Principals or as Deputy District Education Officers were promoted
to the post of Principals by an order dated 3.7.1997. Persons belonging to
reserved category, working as Head Masters/Head Mistresses challenged
the said promotion orders by filing writ petitions and claiming promotions
to the post of Principals. High Court allowed the writ petitions by following H
                                    585
     586                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A Jagdish La/'s case. Aggrieved, general candidates have filed the present
     appeals.

          In Railways, certain promotions were made even after 1.3.1996 (Ajit
    Singh I case) on the basis of the continuous officiation of the roster point
    promotees even though several general candidates had reached the
B   promotional level before the reserved candidates. Consequently, Interlocutory
    Application were filed by Railways for protecting the promotions of reserved
    candidates made after 1.3.1996 but before 1.4.1997. Besides this certain IAs
    were filed by reserved candidates, SC/ST organisations and Union of India.

           Disposing of the appeals and IAs, the Court
c
          HELD : 1.1. Promotion of officers belonging to Punjab Education
    Department is governed by Ajit Singh I as affirmed in Ajit Singh II in regard
    to seniority and prospectivity based on R.K. Sabharwal. .Thus, High Court
    was not justified in allowing the writ petitions of reserved candidates relying
D   on Jagdish Lal. [589-G]

           Ajit Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab, [1999] suppl. 2 SCR, relied on.

         Ajit Singh Januja & Ors. v. State of Punjab, [1996] 2 SCC 715 and R.K.
    Sabharwal v. State of Punjab, (1995] 2 SCC 745, rt:lied on.
E
          Jagdish Lal & Ors. v. State of Punjab, [1997] 6 SCC 538, held
    inapplicable.

           1.2. Under Punjab Education Service (School and Inspection Cadre)
    (Class II) Rules, 1976, sub-clause (3) of Rule JO states that all appointments
F   to the posts shall be made on the basis of seniOrity-cum-merit and no member
    of the service shall have any right for promotion merely on the basis of
    seniority. Rule 12 of the Rules states that inter se seniority of the members
    of the service shall be determined by the continuous length of service on a
    post counted from the date of appointment etc. As stated in Ajit Singh II, the
G   seniority rule of continuous officiation is inter linked with the promotion
    rule based on equal opportunity and cannot be delinked. The promotion of the
    reserved candidates from the post of Master/Mistress was governed by roster
    points in Punjab, by the Circular dated 19.7.69 referred to in Ajit Singh II
    which stated that 'roster points are seniority points'. The writ petitioners
    (Master/Mistress) who belonged to the reserved category admittedly got
H   promotion as Head Master/Head Mistress on the basis ofsuch a roster. On
                             J.P. SINGH v. STATE                             587

  the date when the impugned order promoting the respondents was made (i.e.         A
  3.7.1997), the law as laid down by this Court in Ajit Singh's, case Oudgment
  dated 1.3.1996) was holding the field. The reserved candidates were therefore
· not entitled to claim benefit of continuous officiation in the promotional post
  from the date of their appointment to that post. [589-B-C-D-EJ

        2. There is no need for Railways to revert reserved category officers, B
 promoted even beyond 1.3~ 1996 but before 1.4.1997. But their promotions
 shall be deemed to be ad hoc as they were otherwise irregular and further
 their seniority in the promoted category shall have to be determined by
 following Vilpal and Ajit Singh I as explained in Ajit Singh II as if they were
 not so promoted. If a reserved candidate was promoted to Level 4 before C
 1.4.1997, without considering the case of the senior general candidate who
 had reached Level 3 before such promotion such reserved candidate need not
 be reverted, but the said promotion to Level 4 is to be reviewed and seniority
 at Level 3 has to be refixed and on that basis promotion/seniority at Level
 4 (as and when the general candidate is promoted to Level 4) is again to be
 refixed. The seniority of the reserved candidate at Level 4 will be refixed on D
 the basis of when his turn would have come for promotion to Level 4, ifthe
 case of the senior general candidate was considered at Level 3 in due time.
 Ajit Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab, [1999) Suppl. 2 SCR, relied on.
                                                            (591-H; 592-A-C-DJ

      Union of India v. Virpal Singh, (1995) 6 SCC 684 and Ajit Singh               E
 Januja & Ors. v. State of Punjab, [1996J 2 SCC 715, relied on.
       3. It cannot be accepted in view of Sabharwal 's case that roster points
 have to be applied on vacancy basis and as and when vacancies arise, even
 if roster has exhausted itself. [590-D[

       R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab, [1995) 2 SCC 745, relied on.              F
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 316-317 of
 1999 Etc. Etc.

      From the Judgment and Order dated 8.10.98 of the Punjab and Haryana
 High Court in C.W.P. Nos. 10756 and 10759of1997.                                   G
       C.S. Vaidyanathan, Additional Solicitor General, H.N. Salve, Dr. Rajiv
 Dhawan, Raju Ramachandran, Hardev Singh, D.D. Thakur, L.G. Havnur: K.
 Parasaran, M.N. Rao, Rajiv K. Garg, Preetesh Kapur, Atul Sharma, N.D. Garg,
 Ms ..Meenakshi Arora, Rajiv Dutta, Ms Enakashi Kulshreshtha, Uday Kumar,
 Kap1l Sharma, Hemant Sharma, K.C. Kaushik, (D.S. Mehra) for Ms. Anil               H
    588                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.·

A Katiyar, Chand Kiran, Dr. K.S. Chauhan, E.C. Vidyasagar, Muqbal Chand, Prof.
    D.N. Sadashiv, A. Raghunath, A. Subba Rao, Anurag Mathur, Pradeep R.
    Tiwari, A. Mariarputham, Ms. Aruna Mathur, A.D.N. Rao, (R.S. Suri) (NP),·
    Ms. Sushma Suri, Vijay Hansaria, Sunil K. Jain and Ajay Kumar Gupta for the
    appearing parties.

B         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J. In this judgment we shall deal with certain
    appeals relating to officers of the State of Punjab. We shall also deal with
    Interlocutory Applications Nos. 10-12/98 filed by the Railways and IAs 4-6
C   by the Union of India. We shall also deal with certain contempt applications
    and other lnterlocutary applications.

    l. C.A. Nos. 316-317199

          The two appeals C.A.Nos. 316-317/99 have been preferred by the general
D candidates of Punjab against the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High
    Court in CWPs 10756of1997 and 10759of1997 dated 8.10.1998. The High
    Court, in the judgment under appeal, followed Jagdish Lal & Ors. v. State of
    Punjab, [1997] 6 SCC 538 in preference to the judgment in Ajit Singh Januja
    & Ors. v. State of Punjab. [1996] 2 SCC 715, hereinafter called Ajit Singh No.
    I. The officers here belong to the Punjab Education Department and the
E   contest is for the post of Principals governed by the Punjab Education
    Service (School and Inspection Cadre) (Class II) Rules, 1976.

          Today, we have delivered judgment in IAs 1 to 3 filed in Ajit Singh by
    the State of Punjab (C.As. 3792-94/89). That judgment will be described here
    as Ajit Singh (II) for convenience.
F
          The facts of these two Civil Appeals are as follows: C.W.P. No.10756/
    97 was filed by Ms. Gurbachan Kaur and 6 others (Head Mistresses) all
    belonging to the reserved category praying for a writ of certiorari to quash
    the promotion order dated 3.7.97 and for a mandamus seeking promotion of
G   the said writ petitioners as Principals. Similarly, C.W.P. No. 10759of1997 was
    filed by Charan Singh and 9 others (Head Masters) all belonging to the
    reserved category for similar relief and also for promoting the writ petitioners
    in th~ place of the opposite party. They impleaded the appellants (general
    candidates) as respondents in the writ petition. The appellant Jatinder Pal
    Singh in CA No. 316of1999 was a respondent in C.W.P. 10759/97. The array
H   of the parties shows that the writ petitioners (Head Masters/Head Mistresses)
                     J.P. SINGH v. STATE [M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.]                    589



    -   (reserved category) were all working as Head Masters in 1997 while the non-
        official respondents (general candidates) were working as Senior Lecturer/
        Principal or as Deputy District Education Officers. The general candidates
        have come up in appeal because the High Court has followed Jagdish Lal.
                                                                                            A



              So far as this department is concerned, the relevant rules are as follows.
        Under Rule 10 of the Class II Rules, the posts of Principal, Deputy District B
        Education Officers, Senior Lecturers etc. are to be filled up by promotion in
        respect of 75% and 25% by direct recruitment. Under Class II Rules, 1976,
        Sub-clause (3) of Rule 10 states that all appointments to the posts shall be
        made on the basis of seniority-cum-merit and no member of the service shall
        have any right for promotion merely on the basis of seniority. Rule 12 of the C
        Rules states that inter se seniority of the members of the service shall be
        determined by the continuous length of service on a post counted from the
        date of appointment etc. appendix B (Rule 9) specifies the required years of
        teaching experience as head of High/Higher Schools (i.e. Head Master/Head
        Mistress) or equivalent post. As stated in Ajit Singh II, the seniority rule of
        continuous officiation is interlinked with the promotional rule based on equal D
,       opportunity and cannot be delinked.
'
               Admittedly, the promotion of the reserved candidates from the post of
        Master/Mistress to the post of Head Master/Head Mistress was governed by
        roster points in Punjab, by the Circular dated 19.7.69 referred to in our
        judgment in Ajit Singh II delivered today, which stated that 'roster points are     E
        seniority points'. The writ petitioners (Master/Mistress) who belonged to the
        reserved admittedly got promotion as Head Master/Head Mistress on the
        basis of such a roster. On the date when the impugned order promoting the
        respondents was made (i.e. 3. 7 .1997), the law as laid down by this Court in
        Ajit Singh 's case Gudgment dated 1.3.1996) was holding the field. Inasmuch         F
        as subsequently, on 7.5.97 the judgment of this Court in Jagdish Lal was
        delivered, the reserved candidates filed these two writ petitions which were
        allowed under the impugned judgment following Jagdish Lal.

               In the light of our judgment in Ajit Singh II delivered today, it is clear
        that the respondents (writ petitioners) cannot rely on Jagdish Lal. The case        G
        is governed by. Ajit Singh I as affirmed in Ajit Singh II both in regard to
        seniority and prosp~tivity based on R.K. Sabharwal, [1995] 2 SCC 745.

             Therefore, the appeals are allowed and the writ petitions are dismissed
        subject to the principles laid down in Ajit Singh II. It will be for the State of
        Punjab to implement Ajit Singh II both in regard to seniority as stated in
    590                       SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A Points 1 to 3 therein and as to prospectivity of R.K. Sabharwal and Ajit Singh
     I as explained in Point 4 in Ajit Singh II. The respective cut off dates of
     Sabharwal and Ajit Singh I shall have to be adhered to as stated in Ajit
     Singh II.

          II. I. As. 1-3 in C.P.Nos.148-150/97:
B
         These IAs have been filed by the petitioner, party-in person, who is a
  reserved candidate, in the CPs which were disposed of on 17.3 .1997. The
  petitioner was promoted as Superintendent Grade II on 10.7.87 while Rewa
  Singh (general candidate) was promoted as Superintendent Grade I on 3.3.89.
  Some more general candidates were promoted as Superintendents Grade I on
G 1.4.96. His grievance is about the above promotions of general candidates.
  (Petitioner has since been promoted as Superintendent Grade I in April, 1997).

           The Contempt Petitions 148-150 of 1997 were dismissed by this Court
    on 17.3.97 stating that there was no contempt or breach of the interlocutory
D   orders of this Court dated 9.8.94/16.10.95 passed in Ajit Singh/. In these IAs
    and in his written submissions petitioner contends that roster points have to
    be applied on vacancy basis and as and when vacancies arise, even if the            .
                                                                                       ....
    roster has exhausted it§~lf. This plea cannot be accepted in view of Sabharwal.
    Petitioner also relies on Jagdishlal which contention can no longer survive.
    There are thus no merits in these IAs. They are dismissed.
E
          Ill /As. by Union of India : !As 4 to 6 in IAs 1 to 3 in Ajit Singh I:

           IAs 4 to 6 are filed by the Union of India in IAs 1 to 3 in CA Nos.3792-
    94/89 Ajit Singh 's case. We have disposed of these IAs 1 to 3 filed by the
    State of Punjab for clarification by our judgment delivered today and described
F   it as Ajit Singh II. The Union of India wants Ajit Singh 1 to be confirmed. That
    has been done. These !As 4 to 6 stand disposed of.

            Jv.   /As. for impleadment:
            /As 7 to 9 in /As 1 to 3 in Ajit Singh I:
G         IAs 7 tcr 9 are filed in IAs. 1 to 3 in CA Nos. 3792-94 of· 1989 for
    impleadment of the All India Confederation of SC/ST Organisations. The IAs
    are allowed. Our Judgment in Ajit Singh II delivered today shall govern.           ...
            V.    /As by Railways:
H          /As JO to 12 in /As 1 to 3 in Ajit Singh I: .
             J.P. SINGH v. STATE [M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.)                    591
              Seniority of roster point promotees will be governed by Virp~l       A
              as explained in Ajit Singh II.

       IAs 10-12 of 1998 are by the Railways in IAs 1 to 3 in Ajit Singh 's case.
(On 18.1.1999, by mistake, it is shown that these IAs are allowed. We recall
the said order and restore the IAs to file). The Railways want to say that
Union of India v. Virpal Singh, [1995] 6 SCC 684 has not been correctly B
decided. The same point was raised by the reserved candidates in the IAs
1 to 3 filed in Ajit Singh 's case by the State of Punjab for clarification. We
have dealt with this aspect in our main judgment in IAs 1-3/97 in Ajit Singh
II and rejected the same. That will govern these IAs. In fact, admittedly
Railways have implemented Virpal as per their orders dated 28.2.97 in respect C
of selection and non-selection posts. Thus, there are no merits in these IAs
10-12 and they are liable to be dismissed. In other words, the question of
seniority of the roster point promotees will be on the basis of what was
qecided in Virpal and Ajit Singh I and as explained under Points 1 to 3 in
Ajit Singh II.
                                                                                   D
       Prospectivity of Sabharwal and Ajit Singh/:

      So far as the 'prospectivity' based on Sabharwal is concerned, the
decision on Point 4 of Ajit Singh II will apply.

      So far as prospectivity of Ajit Singh I is concerned, our decision in Ajit   E
Singh II will apply in principle but with a slight modification of the cut off
date as stated above.

      It appears that in the Indian Railways which is a very huge organisation,
after Ajit Singh I was decided, the said judgment could not be taken up for
implementation immediately. Therefore, there were certain further promotions F
after l.3.96 on the basis of the continuous officiation of the roster point
promotees (reserved candidates) even though several general candidates had
reached the promotional level before the reserved candidates moved further
upwards. The Railways made a special plea through the learned Additional
Solicitor General, Sri C.S. Vaidyanathan that such reserved candidates be not G
reverted from the higher post if promoted before 1.4.97.

      We are acceding to this request made on behalf of the Railways as a
special case but subject to a reservation - which was accepted by learned
senior counsel. We agree that there is no need to revert those reserved
category officers, if they were promoted even beyond 1.3.96 but before 1.4.97. H
     592                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

 A But their promotions shall have to be deemed ad hoc as they were otherwise
    irregular and further their seniority in th~ promoted category sh~ll however       <
    have to be determined by following Virpal and Ajit Singh I as explained in
   Ajit Singh II as if they were not so promoted. To give an example - in the case
   ofr9ster points at two L"evels, i.e. from Level 1 to Level 2 and Level 2 to Level
   3, if the reserved candidate was promoted before 1.4.97 to Level 4, such
B reserved candidate need not be reverted. If by the date of promotion of the
   reserved candidate from Level 3 to Level 4 before 1.4:97, the senior general        ·~
   candidate at Level 2 had reached Level 3, he has to be considered as senior
   at Level 3 to the reserved candidate because the latter was still at Level 3 on
   that date. But if such a general candidate's seniority was ignored and the
C reserved candidate was treated as senior at Level 3 and promoted to Level
   4, this has to be rectified after 1.3.96 by following Virpa/, Ajit Singh No. l as
   explained in AjitSingh II. In other words, if a reserved candidate was promoted
  to Level 4 before 1.4.97, without considering the case of the senior general
  candidate who had reached Level 3 before such promotion such reserved
  candidate need not be reverted, but the said promotion to Level 4 is to be
D reviewed and seniority at Level 3 has to be refixed and on that basis promotion/
  seniority at Level 4 (as and when the general candidate is promoted to Level
  4) is again to be refixed. The seniority of the reserved candidate at Level 4
  will be refixed on the basis of when his tum would have come for promotion
  to Level 4, if the case of the senior general candidate was considered at Level
E 3 in due time.
    Subject to the above, IAs 10 to 12 are dismissed.

              VJ. /As by Karnataka Officers:

              /As 13 to 15 in /As 1 to 3 in Ajit Singh /:
F
        IAs 13 to 15/98 have been filed by certain officers of Kamataka State
  who are respondents in pending SLP (C) Nos.24115-16of1996. By an order
  dated ?.1.1998, this Court directed that the said SLPs be listed after the
  decision of the Constitution Bench. No orders are necessary in these IAs.
  The Civil Appeal Nos. 316-317/99 and the IAs filed in CP.148-150/97 and the
G various other IAs filed in IAs 1 to 3 in Ajit Singh I are disposed of accordingly.
    S.V.K.'                                        Appeals and IAs disposed of.