Holding

Respondent No.3 can only be treated as appointed against point 9 in the roster and must be placed below the appellant in the seniority list.

Summary

The case concerned the inter‑se seniority of two officers appointed to the Punjab Superior Judicial Service in 1986 – the appellant, a general‑category candidate, and respondent No.3, a Mazhbi Sikh (Scheduled Caste). The dispute arose over which roster points (7 or 9) the two Scheduled‑Caste appointees – Shri G.S. Samra (non‑Mazhbi Sikh) and respondent No.3 – should occupy, given the reservation policy that 50% of SC vacancies be offered to Balmikis and Mazhbi Sikhs. The Supreme Court examined the Government letters dated May 5 1975 and April 8 1980, which clarified the allocation of odd‑numbered vacancies to Balmikis/Mazhbi Sikhs and even‑numbered vacancies to other SCs, and held that the April 8 1980 clarification is retrospective and forms part of the 1975 instructions. Applying this scheme, the Court concluded that the vacancy at point 7 (reserved for non‑Mazhbi SCs) must be filled by Shri G.S. Samra, while respondent No.3, being a Mazhbi Sikh, could only be placed at point 9. Consequently, respondent No.3 must rank below the appellant in the seniority list, which is to be revised accordingly. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the High Court’s decision.

Issues considered

The correct allocation of roster points between two Scheduled‑Caste appointees under the 1975 and 1980 reservation instructions
Whether the April 8 1980 clarification operates retrospectively and forms part of the 1975 policy
The impact of the allocation on the inter‑se seniority of the appellant and respondent No.3

Legislation cited

Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules, 1963s. Rule 8-A

Subjects

reservationScheduled CastesMazhbi SikhseniorityPunjab Superior Judicial Serviceinter se seniorityretrospective clarificationroster allocationRule 8-A

Judgment

S.S. GREWAL A
v.

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.
MAY7, 1993
B
[P.B. SA WANT AND S.C. AGRAWAL, JJ]
Civil Services Punjab S11perior Judicial Sen1ice Rules, 1963 Rule 8A and
Goi1ernment of Punjab Communication dated June 6, 1974, November 9, 1974;
May 5, 1975 and April 8, 1980-Reservation for Mazhbi Sikhs and
Balmikis-lmplementation of insimctions- Preparation of roster-Inter se
seniority ofGeneral Ca1eg01ycandidare and Mazhbi S~klt tltrouglt direct recruit-
c
ment.

. Recruitment to the Punjab Superior Judicial Service was governed by
th«' Punjab Superior Judicial Senice Rules, 1963. Rule 8-A inserted in the
said rules by notification dated June 14, 1977 provided that instructions
D
issue(; by the State Government from time to time in relation to reservation
of appointments tor posts for Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes were
applicable for appointments to posts in the Service.

The Secretary to the Government of Punjab, Welfare of Scheduled
Castes ~.nd Backward Classes Department by letter dated June 6, 1974 E
informed all Heads of Department etc. that it had been decided to increase the
percen:lage of reservation in direct recruitment in all services from 20 % to
25% in the case of members of Scheduled Castes and from 2% to 5% in the
case of members belonging to Backward Classes, and indicated the vacancies
to be reserved for the members of Scheduled Castes in a lot of 100 vacancies
and specified the points. It also directed that the Roster already existing F
would not be abandoned, but would now be maintained in continuation from
the vacancy in the existing Roster last fdled up according to the new pattern
of reservation.

Circular dated November 19, 1974 made provision for carrying for·
G
ward of reservation for members of Scheduled Castes/Backward Classes,
and directed that the reservation should be carried forward form vacancy to
vacancy in the same block until a Scheduled Caste or a Backward Class
person is appointed or promoted in the same block, and that the reservation
should be carried from Yacancy to vacancy in each block and from block to
block until the carried forward vacancies are filled up. H
593
594 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] 3 S.C.R

A B~· letter dated May 5, 1975 the Secretary to the Go\'ernment, Welfare
Department Communicated to all Heads of Department.; that the Govern-
ment has decided tr.at henceforth, 50% \'acancies of the quota reserved for
Scheduled Castes should be oftered to Balmikis and Mazhbi Sikhs as a first
preference from amongst the Scheduled Castes candidates.
-·
B The Under Secretary, Welfare Department Resenation Cell by his
letter dated April 8,1980, clarified the position with regard to the implemen-
tation of instructions regarding reservation for Mazhbi Sikhs and Balmikis
contained in the aforesaid letter dated May 5, 1975, the Clarification was to
the efl'cct that : (1) the combined merit list can be disturbed while gh'ing
appointment to the candidate belonging to Balmikis and Mazhbi Sikhs; (ii) the
c first reserved \'acancy c-.tn be offered to Balmikis and Mazhbi.Sikhs although
their name may be below in the merit list, and (iii) on the basis of 50%
reser\•ation Balmikis and Mazhbi Sikhs 1,3,5 and so on reser,·ed \'acancics
shall go to the candidates of these castes if available and 2,4,6 and so on
reserved vacancies shall go to other Scheduled Castes candidates.
D
After introduction of Rule 8-A in the Punjab Superior .Judicial Service
Rules, four persons were appointed by way of direct recruitment to the
Service in the year 1979. One of them, Shri Balwant Rai, belonged to a
Scheduled Caste (other then Balmikis or Mazhbi Sikhs). Thereafter, in 1981
one post fell vacant but no person belonging to a Scheduled Caste could be
E selected and candidate belo~ging to general category was appointed against
the said post. In 1982, selection was made for two posts but only one person
could be selected and he also belonged to the general category and no person
belonging to a Scheduled Caste was available for appointment. In 1986, six
persons including the appellant and respondent No. 3 were appointed on the
basis of direct recruitment. Out of those six persons, four belonged to the
F
general category and two belonged to Scheduled Castes; One of the two
persons wa~ Shri G.S. Samra who belonged to a Scheduled Caste other than
Balmikis or Mazhbi Sikh. In the merit list for the said se.lection the appellant
was placed at No. 1, Shri G.S. Samra at No. 2, and respondent No. 3 at No. 5.
As per the Roster, Shri G.S. Samra was placed at Point No. 7, the appellant
G at Point No. 8 and respondent Nii: 3 at Point No. 9. After joining the Service,
Shri G.S. Samra resigned and had ceased to be a member of the service prior.
to April, 1, 1988.

In the tentative seniorify list as on April 1, 1988, the appellant was placed
at Serial No. S2 and respondent No. 3 was placed at ·..
Serial No. 53. Respondent
H
S. S. GREWAL v. STA TE OF PUNJAB 595

No. 3 submitted a representation against his placement in the seniority list and A
. claimed that he should be placed against the post reserved for scheduled
castes at Serial No. 5 in the Roster and on that basis be given the seniority of
the year of 1981,,and that since he is a Mazhbi Sikh, he is entitled to preference
.over Shri G.S. Samra who belonged to a Scheduled Caste other tlian Balmikis
·and Mazhbi Sikhs, and he claimed that he should have been placed at Point
No. 7 in the Roster and Shri G.S. Samra should have been placed at Point No. B
9 and on that basis also respondent No. 3 is senior to the appellant. Represen·
tation was also invited from the appellant in this regard. After considering the
representations the High Court decided that respondent No. 3 was entitled to
be placed above Shri G.S. Samra in l'iew of the Circular Letter dated May 5,
1975 and thathel?hould have.been placed against Point No. 7 in the roster and
Shri G.S. Samra should have b~en placed against Point No. 9 in the Roster, In c
the .revised seniority list Respondent No. 3 was placed at Serial No. 52 while
the appellant was placed at Serial No. 53.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision the appellant rded a Writ petition
in the High Court which was dismissed. D
/
The appellant appealed to this Court and contended that the first
appointment, by direct recruitment, ofa person belonging to the Scheduled
Castes was of Shri Balwant Rai made in 1979, that was at Point No. 1 in the
Roster, and should have gone to a Balmiki or Mazhbi Sikh but since no person
belonging to these communities was available Shri Balwant Rai who belonged E
to a Scheduled Caste was appointed. Relying on the clarification contained in
the letter dated April 8, 1980 it was submitted that the vacancy at Point No.
5 reserved for Scheduled Castes was to be carried forwarded to point No. 7
and Shri G.S. Samra had to be adjusted at Point No. 7 in the Roster, that
~ respondentNo.3 beinga MazhbiSikh could not claim to be placed at Point No.
7 against a vacancy which was reserved for a candidate belonging to Sched· F
uled Castes other than Balmikis and Mazhbi Sikhs and thathe could therefore
be only placed against the v.acancy at Point No. 9 in the Roster.

The appeal was contested on behalf of Respondent No. 3 who urged that
in view of the order dated May 5, 1975050% vacancies of the quota reserved G
for Scheduled Castes have to be offered to Balmikis and Mazhbi Sikhs and
since Shri .Ba.I want Rai belonggin~ to a ~cheduled ~t;.te. other than Balmikis
& Mazhb1 Sikhs had been appomted m 1979, the ext post should go to
Balmikis and Mazhbi sikhs, and on that basis, respondent No. 3 was entitled
to be appointed against the second post at point No.7 of the Roster and Shri
H
596 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993) 3 S.C.R.

A G.S. Samra could only be appointed against third post at Point No. 9 in the
Roster. It was also urged that the clarification contained in the letter dated
April 8, 1980 could only have prospective operation with effect from the date
of its issue, and the sub roster indicated therein could be given effect to only
from that date, and on that basis also respondent No.3 was entided to be
placed against Point No. 7 in the 100 point roster and Shri G.S. Samra against
B Point No. 9 in the said roster.

Allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment of the High Court,
this Court,

HELD : 1. (a). There is no dispute in the instant case; that respondent
c
No.3 has been appointed against the post reserved for members of Scheduled
Castes and the question is about the inter se placement of two persons
appointed against vacancies reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates. The
Circular dated March 6, 1961 does not deal with the said question and it has
to be dealt with on the basis of the instructions contained in the orders dated
D May 5, 1975 and April 8, 1980. (605-E)

Jagjit Singlt v. State of Punjab, [1978} 3 S.C.R. 547, explained and distin-
guished.

1.(b). Respondent No.3 can only be treated to have been appointed
E against the vacancy at point No. 9 in the Roster and on that basis he must be
placCMI below the appellant in the seniority list. Respondent No 2 is directed
to re~ise the seniority list of the members of the Service accordingly. The
appellant would be entided to consequential benefits accruing as a result of
revision in the seniority. (605-F)
F
2. The letter dated April 8, 1980 gives clarifications on certain doubts
that had been created by some Departments in the matter of implementation
of the instructions contained in the earlier letter dated May 5, 1975. Since the
said letter dated April 8, 1980 is only clarificatory in nature there is no
question of its having an operation independent of the instructions contained
G in the letter dated May 5, 1975 and the clarifications contained in the letter
dated April 8, 1980 have to be read as a part of the instructinns contained in
the earlier letter dated May 5, 1975. (603-E) ·

3. A statute which is explanatory or clarificatory of the earlier enact-
H 'ment is usually held to be retrospective.
S.S. GREWAL v.STATEOFPUNJAB 597
r
Craies on Statute Law 7th Edn. p. 58, relied on. (603-F) A

4. All appointments against vacancies reserved for Scheduled Castes
made after May 5, 1975 (after May 14, 1977 in so far as the Punjab Superior
Judicial Service is concerned) have to be made in accordance with the
instructions as contained in the letter dated May 5, 1975 as clarified by letter
..._. dated April 8, 1980. (603-F) B

-' 5. The appointment ofShri Bal want Rai in 1979 has to be treated to be
an appointment made under the said instructions and operation of these

- instructions cannot be postponed till April 8, 1980. The sub-roster as indi·
catcd in the letter dated April 8, 1980 would have to be applied in respect of
the post on which Shri Balwant Rai was appointed in 1979 and the said
C

appointment has to be regarded as having been made against the vacancy at
Point No. I in the roster which was reserved for Balmikis or Mazhbi Sikhs but
since no Balmiki or Mazhbi Sikh was selected for that post, the said vacancy
was assigned to Shri Balwant Rai who belonged to a Scheduled Caste other
than a Balmiki or Sikh. (603-H, 604-A) D

6. The vacancy at Point No. l which was reserved for Balmikis or
MazhbiSikhs could not be carried forward in view of the directions contained
' in the letter dated April 8, 1980. (604-A)

7. The next post resen·ed for Scheduled Castes at Point No. 5 in the
E
roster was meant for a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste other than
Balmikis and Mazhhi Sikhs. (604-A)

8. In the selections that were made in 1981 and 1982 no person belonging
to a Scheduled Caste was selected and, therefore, posts at Point Nos. 5 and 6 F
in the Roster became available to candidates in the general category and the
vacancy at Point No. 5 reserYed for Scheduled Castes was carried forward to
point No. 7. (604-B)

9. In 1986, two persons belonging to Scheduled Castes, namely Shri G.S
Samra and respondent No. 3 were selected. (604-B) G

10. Since the post a8point No. 5 which had been carried forward to point
No. 7 was reserved for a candidate belonging~ a Scheduled Caste other tlr.m
Balmiki or Mazhbi Sikh it had to be assigned to Shri G.S.Samra falling in that
category and respondent No.3 who was a Mazhhi Sikh could only he ap· H
598 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] 3 S.C.R.

A pointed against the reserved vacancy at Point No. 9 in the Roster. Respondent
No.3 can not claim that the vacancy at Point No. 7 should be assigned to him.
If respondent No.:J is adjusted against the vacancy at Point No.9 in the Roster,
he has to be placed in seniority below the appellant who was appoin!ed against
Point No. 8 in the Roster. (604-C) · ·

B CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.241of1993.
f.
From the Judgment and Order dated 9.10.1991 of the Punjab and Haryana
High Court in Civil Wr~t Petition No. 5727 of 1991. ·

c Barish N. Salve Jagdish Sin.gh Kuhar.and A.K. Mahajan for the Appellant.

Ujagar Singh, Ms. Nar;esh Bakshi R.S. Yadav and G.K. Bansal for the
Respondents.

T~e Judg.ment of the Court was delivered by
D
S.C. AGRA WAL,J. : This appeal relates to the inter se seniority of the
appellant and respondent No. 3 in the Punjab Superior Judicial Service (hereinafter
referred to as 'The Service'). The appellant and respondent No. 3 were both ;
appointed to the Service on May 26, 1986 on the basis of selection by direct
E recruitment. The appellant belongs to the general category whereas respondent
No. 3 is a Mazhbi Sikh, which is a Schedule Caste in Punjab.

The recruitment to the Service is governed by Punjab Superior Judicial
Servite Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Rules'). By Rule 8-A, which
was inserted in the rules by notification dated June 14, 1977, the instructions issued
F by the State Government from time to time in relation to reservation of appoint-
ments or posts for Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes were made applicable
for the purpose of making appointments to the posts in the Service. The orders of
the State Government relating to persons belonging to Scheduled Castes in this
regard which have a bearing in this appeal are as follows :-

G
(1) Letter dated June 6, 1974 from the Secretary to the Government of
Punjab, Welfare of Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes Department to all
Heads of Department etc. It was communicated that it had been decided to increase
the percentage of reservation in direct recrui!ment in all services from 20% to 25%
in the case of members of Scheduled Castes and from 2% to 5% in the case of
ff members belonging to Backward Classes. In the said letter, it was also indicated
S.S. GREWAL v. STATE OF PUNJAB [AGRAWAL,J.] 599

that the vacancies to be reserved for the members of Scheduled Castes in a lot of . A
100 vacancies would be at the points specified below :-

1, 5, 9, 13, 17, 21, 25, 29, 33, 37, 41, 45, 49, 53, 57, 61, 65, 69, 73; 77, 81,
85, 89, 93 and 97 and so on.

- It wa<> also directed that the Roster already existing would not be abondoned,
but would now be maintained in continuation from the vacancy in the existing
Roster last .filled up according to the new pattern of reservation that has been
B

prescribed in the earlier paragraphs in the said letter.

(2) Circular dated November 19, 1974 relates to carrying forward of reserva- c
ti on for members of Scheduled Castes/Backward Classes. It was directed that "the
reservation should be carried forward from vacancy to vacancy in the same block
until a Scheduled Caste or a Backward Class person, as the case may be, is
appointed or promoted in the same block. It was further directed that if all the
vacancies in any block detennined on the basis of prescribed Roster are filled up
by other category-person due to non-availability of Scheduled Castes or Backward D
Classes persons, the reservation should be carried forward to the subsequent
blocks. The said letter required that the reservation should be carried forward from
vacancy to vacancy in each block· and from block to block until the carried forward
vacancies are filled up by the members of the Scheduled Castes or Backward
Classes. It was also provided that only one reserved vacancy out of the carried
forward vacancies should be filled in a block of appropriate Roster in addition to E
the normal reserved point of the block.

(3) Letter dated May 5, 1975, from the Secretary to the Government, Punjab,
Welfare of Scheduled Castes & Backward Classes Department addressed to all
Heads of Departments etc. It was communicated that the Government have F
decided that henceforth, 50% vacancies of the quota reserved for Scheduled
Castes should be offered to Balmikis and Mazhbi Sikhs, if available, as a first
preference from amongst the Scheduled Castes candidates.

(4) Letter dated April 8, 1980 addressed by the Under Secretary to the
Government of Punjab, Welfare Department Reservation Cell, to all Heads of G
Departments etc. The position with regard to the implementation of instructions
regarding reservation for Mazhbi Sikhs and Balmikis under the letter dated May
5, 1975 was clarified as follows :-

"i) Combined merit list can be disturbed while giving appointment H
600 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] 3 S.C.R.

A to the candidate belonging to Balmikis and Mazhbi Sikhs.

ii) On the basis of 50% reservation the first reserved vacancy can be
offered to Balmikis and Mazhbi Sikhs although his name may be

B
below in the merit list.
-
iii) On the basis of 50% reservation, Balmikis and Mazhbi Sikhs I,
3, 5 and so on reserved vacancies shall go to the candidates of thc.se
castes if available and 2, 4, 6 and so on reserved vacancies shall go
to other Scheduled Castes candidates.

c It is clarified here that these instructions are to be implemented
when the names of the candidates of Balmikis and Mazhbi Sikhs are
included in the merit list after selection. If no candidate belonging
to these communities has been selected or less candidate selected
then the reserved vacancy should be filled up from amongst the
other Scheduled Castes candidates meaning thereby no reserve
D vacancy reserved for Balmikis and Mazhbi Sikhs should be carried
forward.''

After the introduction of Rule 8-A in the Rules, four persons were appointed ·
. by way of direct recruitment to the Service in the year 1979. One out of them, Shri
Balwant Rai, belonged to a Scheduled Caste (other than Balmikis or Mazhbi
E Sikhs). Thereafter, in 1981. one post fell vacant but no person belonging to a
Scheduled Caste could he selected and the candidate belonging to general
category was appointed against the said post. In the year 1982, selection was made
for two posts but only one person could be selected and he also belonged to the
general category and no person belonging to a Scheduled Caste was available for
F appointment. In 1986, six persons including the appellant and respondent No.3 _ __,..
were appointed on the basis of direct recruitment. Out of those six persons, four
belonged to the general category and two belonged to Scheduled Caste. One of the
two persons was Shri G.S. Samra who belonged to a Scheduled Caste other then
Balmikis or Mazhbi Sikhs. In the merit list for the said selection the appellant was
placed at No. l, Shri G.S. Samra was at No. 2 and respondent no. 3 was at No. 5.
· G As per the Roster, Shri G.S. Samra was placed at Point No. 7, the appellant at Point
No.8 and respondent no. 3 at Point no. 9. After joining the Service, Shri G.S. Samra
resigned from the same and had ceased to be a member of the Service prior to April
l, 1988.
·-
In the tentative seniority list of the members of the Service as on April l,
H
S. S.GREWAL v. STATE OF PUNJAB [AGRAWAL,J.] 601

1988, the appellant was placed at Serial No. 52 and respondent No. 3 w~ placed A
at Serial No.53. Respondent No.3 submitted a representation against his place-
ment in the seniority list and claimed that he should be placed against the post
reserved for Scheduled Caste at Serial No. 5 in the Roster and on that basis he
should be given the seniority of the year of 1981. He also submitted that since he
is a Mazhbi Sikh, he is entitled to preference ov.er Shri G.S. Samra who belonged
to a Scheduled Caste other than Balmikis and Mazhbi Sikhs, and he claimed that B
he should have been placed at Point No. 7 in the Roster and Shri G.S. Samra should
have been placed at Point No. 9 and on that basis also respondent no. 3 is senior
to the appellant. Representation was also invited from the appellant. in this regard.
After considering the said representations the High Court, on its administrative
side, decided that the respondent No. 3 was entitled to be placed above Shri G.S.
Samra in view of the Circular Letter dated May 5, 1975 and that he should have c
been placed against Point No. 7 in the roster and Shri G.S. Samra should have been
placed against PointNo.9 in the Roster. On that basis the seniority list was revised
and respondent No.3 was placed at Serial No. 52 while the appellant were placed
at Serial No. 53. Feeling aggrieved by the revision in the seniority, the appellant
filed a writ petiti~n in the High Court which was dismissed by the High Court by
D
judgment and order October 9,. 1991. This appeal is directed against the said
judgment of the High Court.

There is no dispute that appellant has been rightly assigned Point No. 8. If
Respondent no. 3has to be assigned Point No. 7 as found by the High Court, then
.. ~ would be senior to the appellant but if Respondent No. 3 is assigned Point no. E
9 then appellant would be senior to Respondent no. 3 It is, therefore, necessary to
determine whether respondent No. 3 is entitled to be placed at Point no. 7 in the
of
Roster in place Shri G.S. Samra who should be placed at Point No.9,or that the
respondent no.3 should be assigned Point No.9 of the Roster. The said question
requires consideration of the various orders relating to reservation for Scheduled
Castes to which reference has been made earlier. As indicated earlier by letter F
dated June 6, 1974 PQints l, 5, 9, 13, 17, 21, 25, 29, 33, 37, 41, 45, 49, 53, 57, 61,
65, 69, 73, 77, 81, 85, 89, 93 and 97 in the Roster are reserved for members of
Scheduled Castes. By letter dated May 5, 1975, 50% of the vacancies of the quota
reserved for Scheduled Castes_ are required to be offered to Balmikis and Mazhbi
Sikhs, if available, as a first preference from amongst the Scheduled Castes G
candidates. In view of the clarifications contained in the letter dated April 8, 1980
on the basis of 50% resen:ation the first reserved vacancy can be offered to
Balmikis and Mazhbi Sikhs although his name ma¥ be below in the merit list and
on the basis of 50% reservation, amongst the vacancies reserved for Scheduled
Caste, vacancies 1, 3, 5 and so on would go to Balmikis and Mazhbi Sikhs, if
available, and reserved vacancies 2, 4, 6 and so on wmild go to other Scheduled H
602 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] 3 S.C.R.

A Castes candidates. It has also been clarified that if no candidate b~longing to the
communities of Balmikis and Mazhbi Sikhs was selected or less number of
candidates were selected then the reserved vacancies should be filled up amongst
the other Scheduled Castes candidates and that no vacancy reserved for Balmikis
and Mazhbi Sikhs should be carried forward. In view of the aforesaid clarifications
out of the posts reserved for Scheduled Castes in the Roster, there was reservation
B for Balmikis and Mazhbi Sikhs on the posts against the following points in the
Roster:

r, 9, 17. 25, 33, 41, 49, 57. 65, 73, 81, 89, and 97. '

-
j

\

There was reservation for members of Scheduled Castes other than Balmikis
c
and Mazhbi Sikhs on the posts agains.t the following points in the Roster :

5, 13, 21, 29, 37, 45, 53, 61, 69, 77, 85, and 93,

The learned counsel for the appellant has urged that since these orders
D relating to reservation for Scheduled Castes became applicable to the Service with
effect from June 14, 1977, when Rule 8-A was inserted, all appointments to the
Service after June 14. 1977 have to be made in accordance with these orders. The
submission is that the first appointment, by direct recruitment, of a person
belonging to the Scheduled Castes was of Shri Balwant Rai made in 1979. That
was at point No. 1 in the Roster. That should have gone to a Balmiki or a Mazhbi
E
Sikh but. since no person belonging to those communities was available, Shri ·
Ralwant Rai, who belongs to a Scheduled Caste other than Balmikis and Mazhbi
Sikhs, was <iFiX'i!Jted. It has been further urged that in view of the clarification
contained in the letter dated April 8. 1980, a vacancy reserved for Balmikis and
Mazhbi Sikhs is not required to be carried forward and the Balmikis and Mazhbi
F Sikhs cannot claim reservation in respect of the next vacancy at Point no. 5 which
was reserved for Scheduled Castes other than Balmikis andMazhbi Sikhs and they
can only claim the vacancy that was reserved for Balmikis or Mazhbi Sikhs at point
No.9. It was submitted that Shri G.S. Samra who belonged to a Scheduled Caste
other than EJalmikis and Mazhbi Sikhs was entitled to be appointed against the
reserved vacancy at Point No.5 reserved for a candidate belonging to a Scheduled
G Caste other than Balmikis and Mazhbi Sikhs but since at the time of selections that
were made in the years 1981 and 1982, no person belonging to a Scheduled Caste
was .available. The yacancy at Point No. 5 reserved for Scheduled Castes was
carried forward to point No. 7 and Shri G.S. Samra had to be adjusted at pointNo.7
in the Roster. The submission is that respondent No. 3, being aMazhbi Sikh, could
not claim to be placed at point No. 7 in the Roster against a vacancy which was
H reserved for a candidate belonging to a Scheduled Castes other than Balmikis and
S.S. GREWAL v.STATEOFPUNJAB (AGRAWAL.J.] 603

' Mazhbi Sikhs and he could be only placed against the vacancy at point No.9 in the A
Roster.

The learned counsel for the respondent No.3 on the other hand has urged that
in view of the order dated May 5, 1975, 50% vacancies of the quota reserved for
Scheduled Castes have to be offered to Balmikis and MazhbiSikhs and since Shri
Balwant Rai belonging to a Scheduled Caste other than Balmikis and Mazhbi B
Sikhs had been appointed in 1979, the next post should go to Balmikis and Mazhbi
Sikhs, and on that basis, respondent No.3 was entitled to be appointed against the
second post at point No. 7 of the Roster and Shri G.S. Samra could only be
appointed against third post at point No.9 in the roster. In the alternative, it was
urged that the order dated April 8, 1980 could only have prospective operation with
effect from the date of issue of the said order and the sub-roster indicated by the
c
said order could be given effect to on! y from thatdate and on that basis the first post
reserved for Scheduled Castes should go to Balmikis or Mazhbi Sikhs and on that
basis also respondent No. 3 was entitled to be placed against point No. 7 in the lOO-
point roster and Shri G.S. Samra against point No.9 in the said roster.
D
From a perusal of the letter dated April 8, 1980, we find that it gives
clarifications on certain doubts that had been created by some Departments in the
matter of implementation of the instructions contained in the earlier letter dated
May 5, 1975. Since the said letter dated April 8, 1980 is only clarificatory in nature,
there is no question of its having an operation independant of the instructions
contained in the letter dated May 5, 1975 and the clarifications contained in the E
letter dated April 8, 1980 have to be read as a part of the instructions contained in
the earlier letter dated May 5, 1975. In this context it may be stated that according
to the principles of statutory construction a statute which is explanatory or
clarificatory of the earlier enactment is usually held to be restrospective. (See:
Craies on Statllte Law, 7th Ed., p. 58). It must, therefore, be held that all

- appointments against vacancies reserved for Scheduled Castes made after May 5, F
1975 (after May 14, 1977 in so far as the SerYice is concerned), have to be made
in accordance with the instructions as contained in the letter dated May 5, 1975 as
clarified by letter dated April 8, 1980. On that view, the appointment of Shri
Balwant Rai in 1979 has to be treated to be an appointment made under the said
instructions and operation of these instructions cannot be postponed till April 8, G
1980. lfthe matter is considered in this light then the sub-roster as indicated in the
Jetter dated April 8, 1980 would have to be applied in respect of the post on which
Shri Balwant Rai was appointed in 1979 and the said appointment has to be
regarded as having been made against the vacancy at point No 1. in the the roster
which was reserved for Balmikis or Mazhbi Sikhs but since no Balmiki or Mazhbi
H
604 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] 3 S.C.R.

A Sikh was selected for that post. the said vacancy was assigned to Shri Bal want Rai
who belonged to a Scheduled Caste other than a Balmiki or Mazhbi Sikh. The said
vacancy which was reserved for Balmikis or Mazhbi Sikhs could not be carried
forward in view of the directions contained in the letter dated April 8, 1980. The
next post reserved for Scheduled Castes at point No. 5 in the roster was meant for
a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste other than Balmikis and Mazhbi Sikhs.
B In the selections that were made in 1981 and 1982 no person belonging to a
Schepuled Caste was selected and, therefore, posts at Points nos. 5 and 6 in the
Roster became available to candidates in the general category and the vacancy at
Poirit no.5 reserved for Scheduled Castes was carried forward to point No.7 In
1986, two persons belonging to Scheduled Ca~tes, namely Shri G.S. Samra and
respondent No.3 were selected. Shri G.S. Samra belonged to a Scheduled Caste
c other than Balmiki and Mazhbi Sikh whereas respondent No. 3 was a Mazhbi Sikh.
Since the post at point No.5 which had been carried forward to point No.7 was
reserved for a candidate belonging to a Scheduled Caste other than Balmiki or
Mazhbi Sikh it had to be assigned to Shri G.S. Samra falling in that category and
respondent No. 3 who was a Mazhbi Sikh could only be appointed against the
reserved vacancy at point No. 9 in the Roster. Respondent No. 3 can not claim that
D
the vacancy at Point No. 7 should be assigned to him. If respondent No.3 is adjusted
against the vacancy at Point No. 9 in the Roster, h.e has to be placed in seniority
below the appellant who was appointed against point No. 8 in the Roster.

In the judgment under appeal, the High Court has placed reliance on the
E instructions dated March 6, 196 l and the decision of this Court in Jagjit Singh v.
State of Punjab, [1978] 3 S.C.R. 547. The instructions dated March 6, 1961 deal
with a situation where the services of a Government Servant belonging to
Scheduled Castesffribes and Backward Classes ~e terminated and a resultant
vacant occurred. It has been directed as under :-

F "With a view to safeguard the interests of the rriembers _of the
Scheduled Castes!fribcs and Backward Classes, it has been de-
cided that if the services of a Government Servant belonging to
Scheduled Castesffribes or Backward Classes are terminated, the
resultant vacancy should not be included in the normal pool of
G vaca':'Jcies to be filled in accordance with the Block System bl!t
should be filled up on ad !toe basis from the candidates belonging
to these castes and classes. In other words the intention is that the
posts vacated by members of Scheduled Castesffribes and Back-
ward Classes should remain earmarked and be filled up by members
belonging to these Classes:'
H
S.S. GREWAL v. STAIB OF PUNJAB [AGRAWAL,J.] 605

In Jagjit Singh 's case, this Court was d ealing with appointments to the A
Punjab Civil Service (Executive Branch). The selection was made forappointment
against 12 vacancies in the said Service and other vacancies in the Alli~ Services.
Two of the vacancies in the Punjab Civil Service were reserved for Scheduled
Castes candidates. Three persons were selected from among the members of
Scheduled Castes. The appellant in the said appeal was at third place in the merit
list of the Scheduled Castes candidates. The first two candidates on the merit list B
were appointed and the appellant was appointed on the post of"A" Class Tehsildar
in one of the Allied Services. Subsequently, one of the two candidates who had
been appointed to the Punjab Civil Service resigned his office and a question arose
as to whether the appellant was entitled to be appointed to the Punjab Civil Service
against the· vacancy arising on account of resignation of the Scheduled Castes
candidate who had been appointed earlier. The appellant laid his claim for such c
appointment on the basis of the instructions contained in the circular of March 6,
1961. The said claim of the appellant was upheld by this Court and it was held that
the resultant vacancy caused by resignation of one of the Scheduled Castes
candidate should have gone to the appellant. The Circu Iar dated March 6, 1961 and
the decision in Jagjit Singh v. State of Punjab (supra) do not have a bearing on the
D
question in controversy in the instant case because here there is no dispute that the
respondent No.3 has been appointed against the post reserved for members of
Scheduled Castes and the question is about the inter se placement of two persons
appointed against vacancies reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates. The Circu-
lar dated March 6, 1961 does not deal with the said question and it has to be dealt
with on the basis of the instructions contained in the orders dated May 5, 1975 and E
April 8, 1980.

· For the reasons aforementioned the appeal is allowed, the judgment and the
order of the High Court dated October 9, 1991 is set aside. The Civil Writ Petition
filed by the appellant in the High Court is allowed and it is declared that respondent
No.3 can only be treated to have been appointed against the vacancy at Point no. 9 F
in the Roster and on that basis he must be placed below the appellant in the
seniority list.•Respondent No.2 is directed to revise the seniority list of the
members of the Service accordingly. The appellant would be entitled to conse-
quential benefits, if any, accruing to him as a result of such revision in the seniority.
-- The parties are left to bear their own costs.

- -
N.V.K. Appeal allowed.