Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Bharati M Bakhtiani vs M/O Finance on 15 September, 2025
1
OA No.407/2020
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCH, MUMBAI
O.A. No.407/2020
THIRD MEMBER REFERENCE
(under Sec .26 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985)
Reserved on: 09.09.2025
Pronounced on : 15.09.2025
Hon'ble Mr. Ajay Pratap Singh, Member (Judicial)
1. Bharati M. Bakhtiani, Aged 52 years, wife of Shri Mahesh
MBakhtiani., working as Superintendent of
Central Tax, presently posted at Thane Rural
GST Commissionerate and residing at B-5
Ranjit Society, Sarojini Naidu Road,
Mulund West, Mumbai - 400 080.
Email:[email protected], Cell:9967440098.
2. Chungath Shajan C, Aged 54 years, son of Shri C.C.
Chummar, Working as Superintendent of
Central Tax, presently posted at GST Thane Rural
Commissionerate Mumbai and residing at
1st Floor, Cross View, Opp. St. Thomas High
School, Thangewadi, Syndicate Garden,
Kalyan West - 421 301.
Email :[email protected], Cell:9987147145.
3. Sachin Arvind Deodhar, Aged 51 years, son of Shri
Arvind Y Deodhar, Working as Superintendent of Central
Tax, Presently posted at Pr. Commissioner (RA)
WTC, Mumbai on deputation and residing at
A/603, Oshokrishna CHS, B.P. Deshpande
Road, Vishnunagar, Naupada, Thane (West)
- 400 602. Email:[email protected]
4. Kalpita S. Dixit, Aged 52 years, Husband Shridhar
Govind Dixit, Working as Superintendent of Central Tax,
Presently posted at GST Mumbai East
Commissionerate, Mumbai and residing at
503, Vijay Tower, Bhaskar Colony, Naupada,
Thane West, Thane - 400 302.
Cell:9867611581, Email:[email protected].
5. P.K. Gambani, Aged 55 years, son of Shri Kishinchand A.
Gambani, working as Superintendent of
Central Tax, presently posted at GST Thane
Audit Commissionerate, Mumbai and residing at A-
7, Anant Anand CHS, Nimkar Society, Near NES
International School, Mulund Colony, Mulund
West, Mumbai - 400 082.
Email:[email protected], Cell:8369967695.
NARESH NARESH
KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA
2025.09.16
AHUJA 11:28:44+05'30'
2
OA No.407/2020
6. Meenakshi Deenanath Salvi, Aged 54 years, wife of Shri
Deenanath Balakrishna Salvi, working as Superintendent
of Central Tax, presently Posted at GST Thane Rural
Commissionerate Mumbai and residing at 1101/22 B
Wing,Regency Estate, Kalyan Shil Road, DombiviliEast,
Pin 421203.Email:[email protected],
Cell:9867611638.
7. Prakash Tukaram Poojari, Age 55 years, son of Shri
Tukaram Poojari,Working as Superintendent of
Central Tax, presently posted at Enforcement
Directorate, Mumbai and residing at 1206Buttercup,
Hiranandani Meadows, Glady AlwaresRoad, Thane West:
Email:[email protected]. Cell:7506818750.
8. Bhatt Sunil Kumar Pramodrai, Aged 52 years, son of
Shri Bhatt PramodAmratlal, working as Superintendent of
Central Tax, presently posted at CPC, Chief
Commissioner Office, Mumbai Zone, Mumbai
and residing at 1401 Krishna Heights
Plot No.31A, Sector 36, Kamothe,Navi Mumbai - 410 209.
Email:[email protected], Cell:9987332006.
9. Paresh Anand Pednekar, Aged 52 years, son of
Shri Anand Pednekar, Working as Superintendent of
Central Tax, Presently posted at CGST Audit-
IICommissionerate, Mumbai and Residing at B/403,
Jaydeep Park, Majiwada,
Thane West - 400601.Email:[email protected]
Cell:9004688981.
10. Harshavardhan S. Mandlekar, Aged 52 years, son of Late
Shri ShridharMandlekar, working as Superintendent of
Central Tax, presently posted at GST
RaigadCommissionerate, Mumbai and ResidingAt C6 Type
IV EktaVihar, Uran Phata,Sector25, CBD Belapur Navi
Mumbai 400 614.Email:[email protected]
Cell:9821457704.
11. Rajashekaran K Nair, Aged 51 years, son of Shri Kitty
Sankaran Nair,Working as Superintendent of Central Tax,
presently posted at Raigad GST Commissionerate and
Residing at 402, 5th floor, Shree Shraddha Avenue,
Plot No.65, Sector 20, Kamothe, New Panvel.
Email: [email protected],Cell:9768258994.
12. Shailaja M Nair, Aged 54 years, daughter of Shri
Madhavan Nair, Working as Superintendent of Central
Tax, presently posted at Navi Mumbai CGST
Commissionerate, Mumbai and residing B/1105, Prem
Ambar CHS, Plot No.5, Sector 16, Kamote, Panvel 410206.
NARESH NARESH
KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA
2025.09.16
AHUJA 11:28:44+05'30'
3
OA No.407/2020
Email: [email protected],Cell: 9773060590.
13. Pradnya A Bhagwat, Aged 51 years, daughter of
Shri Vasant Gopal Phansalkar,
Working as Superintendent of Central Tax,
presently posted at GST Raigad Commissionerate,
Mumbai and residing at A1/102, Snehdeep Society,
Sec-19A, Nerul 400706.
Email:[email protected], Cell:9820798835.
14. TVKS Subramaniam, Aged 52 years, son of Shri T.P.V.K.
Nagendr Rao, working as Superintendent of Central Tax,
presently posted at GST Raigad Commissionerate,
Mumbai and residing at Flat No. C-1204, BKS Galaxy,
Plot No.11 & 15, Sector 35F, Kharghar,
Navi Mumbai -410210.Email: [email protected],
Cell: 97570 58190.
15. Pushkar Ratnakar Nanoti, Aged 52 years, son of Shri
Ratnakar Nanot,working as Superintendent of Central
Tax, presently posted at GST Raigad Commissionerate,
Mumbai and Residing at Anandvan CHS, F 47/2/2,
Sector 4, Nerul, Navi Mumbai 400706. Cell: 92242 37406
Email: [email protected],
16. Deveshwar Sharan, Aged 52 years, son of Shri A.S.Anand
Murty, Working as Superintendent of Central Tax,
presently posted at GST Raigad Commissionerate,
Mumbai and residing at 202, Saisahara CHS,
Plot No.37, Sector 21, Nerul East 400706.
Email: [email protected], Cell:9820299289.
17. Deepa M Bhaskaran, Aged 50 years, wife of Manoj
Bhaskaran,Working as Superintendent of Central Tax,
presently posted at GST Mumbai West
Commissionerate, Mumbai and residing at
Flat No.9, Plot No.88, Laxmi building, Garodianagar,
Ghatkopar East, Mumbai-400077.
Email: [email protected], Cell: 9967546699.
18. Deepa Mohapatra, Aged 51 years, D/o of Shri Pritam
Singh Sandhu, working as Superintendent of Central Tax,
presently posted at GST Raigad Commissionerate,
Mumbai and Residing at J/106, Dara Enclave,
Army CHS Ltd, Plot No.6 Sector-9,
Nerul-East Navi Mumbai 400706.
Cell 9930291572, Email: [email protected].
19. Sreelatha V Nair, Aged 49 years, daughter of Shri
K.R.K.Menon, working as Superintendent of Central Tax,
presently posted at Marine & Preventive Wing,
Customs Preventive Commissionerate and
Residing at B-402, Bldg. No.95, Tilak Nagar,
Chembur, Mumbai-400089.
NARESH NARESH
KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA
2025.09.16
AHUJA 11:28:44+05'30'
4
OA No.407/2020
Email: [email protected]: 9920243850.
20. Anant Prasad Sahu, Aged 52 years, son of Late Shri
Bhagabata Sahu, working as Superintendent of Central
Tax, presently posted at GST Raigad Commissionerate,
Mumbai and Residing at CH-2/45, Kendriya Vihar,
Sector 11, Khargar, Navi Mumbai 410210.
Email:[email protected]:9833278414.
21. Shaji U, Aged 52 years, son of Shri Unnikrishna Warrier
working as Superintendent of Central Tax,
presently posted at GST Raigad Commissionerate,
Mumbai and Residing at: NL-6/12/14, Sector-15, Nerul,
Navi Mumbai. Email: [email protected],
Cell:9757397914
22. Abraham Zachariah, Aged 53 years, son of Shri
Perumanoor Abraham Zachariah, Working as
Superintendent of Central Tax, presently posted at GST
Raigad Commissionerate,
Mumbai and Residing at1002, Vasant Deep, Plot No.128,
Sector 19, Kharghar,Dist. Raigad 410210.
Email: [email protected], Cell:9819887780.
23. Jarene Tharakan, Aged 54 years, son of Shri Tharakan V
Mathal, Working as Superintendent of Central Tax,
presently posted at GST Mumbai East Commissionerate,
Mumbai and residing at: 1003, Fiona, Hiranandani Estate,
Godbunder Road, Thane (west)-400607.
Email:[email protected],Cell:9323006347.
24. Rajesh Ramekar, Aged 50 years, son of Shri Madhusudan
Ramekar, working as Superintendent of Central Tax,
presently posted at Audit Thane Commissionerate,
Mumbai and Residing at 4/103, Surya Enclave,
Tulsidham, Pokharan Road No.2, Thane (West)-400610.
Email: [email protected],Cell:9892959626.
25. Prakash E. Mhalsekar, Aged 53 years, son of Shri Eknath
N Mhalsekar Working as Superintendent of Central Tax,
presently posted at Audit-II GST Commissionerate,
Mumbai and residing at A-404, Chandraprabha,
Udayshree Road, Bhandup (East), Mumbai-400 042.
Cell: 9819010801, Email: [email protected].
26. Shashi Bhushan Prasad Sinha, Aged 52 years, son of
Late A.K. Sinha,working as Superintendent of Central Tax,
presently posted at GST Audit Raigad Commissionerate,
Mumbai and Residing at E-1/01 GirikunjCO-OP
HsgSociety Sector 8B, CBD BelapurNavi Mumbai-400614.
Email: [email protected], Cell: 7021679509.
NARESH NARESH
KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA
2025.09.16
AHUJA 11:28:44+05'30'
5
OA No.407/2020
27. Sheela Dayanandan, Aged 53 years, daughter of
Shri V.A.Asokan, working as Superintendent of Central
Tax, presently posted at Raigad GST Commissionerate
and Residing at Flat No.703, Royal Heights,Plot No.198-
199, Sector-21, Kamothe, Navi Mumbai - 410206.
Cell:9820677503, Email:[email protected].
28. Sanjeev Sahai, Aged 55 years, son of Shri HC Sahai,
Working as Superintendent of Central Tax,
presently posted at CCO, Mumbai Zone, Mumbai
and Residing at 302 Maheshwari, Gorai 2, Mumbai.
Cell: 9869402739, Email: [email protected].
29. Gurjinder Kaur, Aged 51years, daughter of Shri Randhir
Singh Kapoor,working as Superintendent of Central Tax,
presently posted at Marine and Preventive Wing,
Customs Preventive Commissionerate Mumbai and
Residing at B/4, Neusey Cottage, Sri Krishna Nagar,
Borivali East, Mumbai-400066.
Email:[email protected], Cell:9833874040.
30. Kunda S Kulkarni, Aged 59 years, wife of Shri S Kulkarni,
Working as Superintendent of Central Tax,
Presently posted at GST Mumbai West, Commissionerate,
Mumbai and Residing at 403,Synarbour, Vrushi Complex,
Holy Cross Road,I C Colony, Borivali West.
Email: [email protected], Cell: 9819187669.
31. Jaimon Raphel, Aged 53 years, son of Shri Thomas
Raphel
Working as Superintendent of Central Tax,
presently posted at GST Palghar, Commissionerate,
Mumbai and residing at 14/101, Cherish Homes,
M.B.Estate, Near Old Viva College,
Virar (West) Dist.Palghar, Maharashtra 401303.
Cell: 9823125231, Email: [email protected],
32. Inderpal Singh Chawla, Age 56years, son of Shri Bhagat
Singh Chawla, working as Superintendent of Central Tax,
presently posted at GST Mumbai West Commissionerate,
Mumbai and Residing at B/902, Pushp Vinod 2,
S.V.Road, Borivali West, Mumbai 400092.
Email:[email protected],Cell:7977943247.
33. Mangesh K Pandit, Age 55, son of Shri Krishna Ganpat
Pandit, working as Superintendent of Central Tax,
presently posted at GST Audit-III,
MumbaiCommissionerate, Mumbai and residing at Flat
No. 103, C. Ex. Bldg. no. 26, B. T. Marg, Opp. Meera
Tower, Oshiwara, Andheri-West, Mumbai-400053.
NARESH NARESH
KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA
2025.09.16
AHUJA 11:28:44+05'30'
6
OA No.407/2020
34. Suchitra Shetty, Aged 51 years, daughter of Shri Sunder
Shetty, Working as Superintendent of Central Tax,
presently posted at CGST Audit-II Commissionerate,
Mumbai and residing at B-303 Sousons IC Colony
Borivili West, Mumbai 400103.
Email:[email protected],Cell:9867724886.
35. Harish .S. Chawla, Aged 49 years, son of Shri Bhagat
Singh Chawla,working as Superintendent of Central Tax,
presently posted at GST Mumbai West Commissionerate
Mumbai and residing at B/1602, Pushp Vinod 2,
S.V.Road, Borivli West, Mumbai 400092.
Email: [email protected], Cell:9892195099.
36. Anila Das, Aged 59 years, daughter of Shri A.K.Das,
Working as Superintendent of Central Tax,
presently posted at Audit-III CGST, Mumbai
Commissionerate, Mumbai and Residing at C 201,
C.G.S Quarters,Wadala west, Mumbai 400031,
Email:[email protected] Cell:9167821255.
37. Niraj R. Rai, Aged 49 years, son of Shri Ravindranath,
Working as Superintendent of Central Tax,
presently posted at Mumbai West CGST
Commissionerate, Mumbai and Residing at A-73,
YamunaSector-3, Srishti Complex, Mira Road,
Distt-Thane-401107.Email:[email protected],
Cell:9892987200.
38. Kanchan Ravindra Kumar, Aged 53 years, Daughter of
Shri Mohan Laxman Juvekar, working as Superintendent
of Central Tax,presently posted at GST Mumbai West
Commissionerate, Mumbai and residing at A/202, Ambika
Darshan, C.P. Road, Near Bus Depot, Kandivali East,
Mumbai-400101.
Email:[email protected], Cell:9967713734.
39. Sumarani Ramachandran, Aged 51years, daughter of
Shri T.G. Subramanian, working as Superintendent of
Central Tax, presently posted at GST Mumbai West
Commissionerate Mumbai and residing at 501 A,
Wing Radha Vilas Kanderpada Dahisar West
Mumbai-400068.Email: [email protected],
Cell:9967591230.
40. Sujatha Surendran, Aged 52 years, daughter of
Shri V.Ramakrishnan, working as Superintendent of
Central Tax, presently posted at GST Mumbai
WestCommissionerate,Mumbai and residing at 701, Acme
Elite, Poonam Nagar,Andheri East Mumbai 400093.
Email:[email protected], Cell: 9833446203.
NARESH NARESH
KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA
2025.09.16
AHUJA 11:28:44+05'30'
7
OA No.407/2020
41. Promod A Mendon, Age 54 years, son of Shri ANAND
MENDON,Working as Superintendent of Central Tax,
presently posted at Marine & Preventive Commissionerate,
Customs, Mumbai and Residing at 1A/604, Oshiwara
Orchid CHS, PatliputraNagar, Jogeshwari West,
Mumbai-400102.Email:[email protected].
42. Sangeeta Ramrakhiany, Aged 56 years, daughter of
Shri Gopal Gianchand, working as Superintendent of
Central Tax, presently posted at Mumbai West GST
Commissionerate and residing at D.-1603,
Imperial Heights, BEST Colony, Goregaon West
Mumbai 400 104. Cell: 9321199211.
Email: [email protected].
43. Ganesh B. Moholkar, Aged 50 years, son of Shri
Balkrishna Moholkar,working as Superintendent of
Central Tax, presently posted at Audit-III GST Mumbai
Commissionerate and residing at 27/404, Central Excise
Officers Quarters,OshiwaraMhada, New Link Road,
Andheri (W), Mumbai-400 053.
Email: [email protected],Cell: 9821305075.
44. Susan Fernandes, Aged 51years, daughter of Shri John
Fernandes, Working as Superintendent of Central Tax,
presently posted at GST Audit-III Commissionerate,
Mumbai and Residing at B/102 Shringeri, Vrishi Complex,
Holy Cross Road, I.C. Colony, Borivali 400 104.
Email: [email protected],Cell: 9869431894.
45. Meritta Suni, Aged 51 years, daughter of Shri Thomas
Mathew, working as Superintendent of Central Tax,
presently posted at Marine & Preventive Commissionerate
and Residing at C-2/1001, Neelyog Apartments, Pant
Nagar, Ghatkopar(East), Mumbai-400075.
Email:[email protected],Cell:9869805686.
46. Nalluri Narsimha Rao, Aged 54 years, son of Shri Nalluri
Ranga Rao, Working as Superintendent of Central Tax,
presently posted at GST Mumbai East Commissionerate,
Mumbai and residing atA-12, High Rise CHS,
L.M. Road, Opp. MaryImmaculate High School, Borivali
West, Mumbai-400103.
Email:[email protected], Cell:99205-48661.
47. Prakash Sankunni Nair, Aged 53 years, son of Shri
Sankunni Nair, working as Superintendent of Central Tax,
presently posted at D.G.Audit, Mumbai Zonal Unit,
Mumbai and Residing at B-209, Usha Nagar Village Road,
Bhandup West, Mumbal-400078.
Email:[email protected],Cell:9867994255.
NARESH NARESH
KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA
2025.09.16
AHUJA 11:28:44+05'30'
8
OA No.407/2020
48. Sitaram Shivram Narkar, Aged 57 years, son of Shri
Shivam G. Narkar, working as Superintendent of Central
Tax, presently posted at Directorate of Enforcement,
Mumbai and residing at 407-A, Manik CHS, S.J. Marg,
Lower Parel, Mumbai
400013.Email:[email protected], Cell:
9969106399.
49. Parameshwaran Sankaran, Aged 54 years, son of
Shri Sankaran N. working as Superintendent of Central
Tax, presently posted at Directorate of Enforcement,
Mumbai and residing at 1304 Dosti Blossom,
Dosti Acres, Near Antop Hill, Wadala East
Mumbai 400037.Email:[email protected],
Cell:9892304725.
50. Anil Ramlal Purba, Aged 54 years, son of Shri Ramlal
Purba, Working as Superintendent of Central Tax,
presently posted at Directorate of Revenue Intelligence,
Adjudication, Mumbai and Residing at C-5/9/2:1,
Neelkanth Apartments, Sector-4 CBD Belapur, Navi
Mumbai - 400 614,
Email:[email protected],Cell:9867724933
51. Ajit A. Anikhindi, Aged 52 years,
son of Shri Ashwattha S Anikhindi, working as
Superintendent of Central Tax, presently posted at
Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence, (Adjn)
Mumbal.Residing at 8 Udayagiri CHS Opp.
TelecomFactory, Deonar, Mumbal-400088.
Email:[email protected], Cell:9820098356.
52. Konar Murugan S, Aged 52 years,
son of Shri KonarMasanam Subbiah, working as
Superintendent of Central Tax, presently posted at GST
Audit Thane Commissionerate.
R/at 1601, Arunoday Heritage, Opp. Usha Nagar, Village
Road, Bhandup West, Mumbai-400078.
Email: [email protected],Cell:9224171497.
53. V.M.Jayaprakash, Aged 53 years,
son of Shri V.K.Madhavan, Working as Superintendent of
Central Tax, presently posted at Audit-I Comissionerate,
Mumbai GST. Residing at B-11/304, Silver Tower, Silver
Park Complex, Mira Road (East) 401107,
Email: [email protected],Cell:9820086132.
NARESH NARESH
KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA
2025.09.16
AHUJA 11:28:44+05'30'
9
OA No.407/2020
54. Gautam Bhar, Aged 53 years, son of Shri G.C.Bhar,
working as Superintendent of Central Tax, presently
posted at Thane (Appeals) GST Commissionerate.
Residing at Flat No.202, Chandan Upvan CHS Ltd.,
Gawand Baug, Pokhran Road No.2, Thane (West)-400610.
Email: [email protected],Cell:9892210399.
55. Mary Mathew, Aged 51 years, wife of Mathew Jacob,
working as Superintendent of Central Tax, presently
posted at GST Mumbai South Commissionerate, Mumbai.
Residing at D-4, Customs Excise & Service Tax officers'
Quarters, Katrak Road, Wadala West, Mumbai-400031.
Email:[email protected], Cell:9324978781
56. Sanjay Krishna Vaje, Aged 51 years, son of Shri Krishna
Sitaram Vaje, working as Superintendent of Central Tax,
presently posted at Appeals-I GST Mumbai
Commissionerate. Residing at A/404, Poonam Apts,
Sardar Pratap Sing Complex, Jaidevsing Nagar, Subhash
Road, Near Cosmos High School, Bhandup(West),
Mumbai-400078. Cell:
9821385276,Email:[email protected]
57. Kalidas Kairamkonda, Aged 52 years,
son of ShriLaxminarayana Kairamkonda, working as
Superintendent of Central Tax, presently posted at Audit-1
GST Mumbai Commissionerate. Residing at 504, Nav
Chetana-B, Sec-3,CGS Colony, AntopHill,Mumbai-
400037. Cell: 9892741164,
email:[email protected].
58. Vivek S Gurjar, Aged 50 years, son of Shri Sadanand
Gurjar, working as Superintendent ofCentral Tax,
presently posted at Audit-1 GST Mumbai
Commissionerate. Residing at 2, Trimurthi Apartment,
Bakul Cross Street, Near Cross Garden, Bhayandar West
401101. Cell:9324595036,
Email: [email protected].
59. Hari Kumar Pillai, Aged 54 years, son of Shri
Ramakrishna Pillai,working as Superintendent of Central
Tax, presently posted at CGST Mumbai South
Commissionerate. Residing at 103, Karunamyee CHS,
NARESH NARESH
KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA
2025.09.16
AHUJA 11:28:44+05'30'
10
OA No.407/2020
Babrekar Nagar, Kandivli-W, Mumbai-400 067.
Cell:9819061565,Email: [email protected].
60. Shashi Kumar Singh, Aged 53 years, son of Shri Singh,
working as Superintendent of Central Tax, presently
posted at CGST Mumbai South Commissionerate.
Residing at C-2101, Royal Oasis, Nr. Billabong
International School, Jankalyan Nagar, Off. Marve Road,
Malad-West, Mumbai-400095.
61. Nirmal N. Raghani, Aged 52 years, son of Shri Naraindas
T. Raghani, Working as Superintendent of Central Tax,
presently posted at GST Thane Audit Commissionerate
and Residing at A-2/1202, Mohan Pride Co. Hsg. Soc.
Ltd., Wayale Nagar, Khadakpada, Kalyan(W)-421301.
Email: [email protected],Cell:9820888570.
62. Vikram Bharadwaja, Aged 53 years, son of Shri
Shriniwas, Working as Superintendent of Central Tax,
presently posted at GST Mumbal South Commissionerate,
Mumbal and residing at 26/502, MHADA Complex New
Link Road Oshiwara Andheri W, Mumbai-400053.
Email:[email protected], Cell: 9987295913.
63. Selvi Ganeshan, Aged 50 years, daughter of Shri
C.Subbaih Working as Superintendent of Central Tax,
presently posted at GST Mumbai Central
Commissionerate, Mumbai and Residing at Flat No.502,
Navchetna B-Wing, CGS Staff Quarter, Sector-3, Kane
Nagar, Antop Hill, Mumbai-400037.
Email: [email protected],Cell: 9969275229.
64. Arun Shankar Bhave, Aged 53 years, Son of Shri Shankar
Bhave, Working as Superintendent of Central Tax,
presently posted at Risk Management Centre, Mumbai
and Residing at 27/604, Mahada New Link Road,
Oshiwara, Andheri (W)
Email: [email protected],Cell: 9987022142.
65. Rajesh R Salian, Aged 50 years, Son of Shri B.Ramdas
Salian, Working as Superintendent of Central Tax,
presently posted at Risk Management Centre, Mumbai
and Residing at 25/1231, Sardar Nagar-II, Sion East,
Mumbai-400022. Email:[email protected], Cell:
9870954546.
NARESH NARESH
KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA
2025.09.16
AHUJA 11:28:44+05'30'
11
OA No.407/2020
66. Ashok Kumar Ramakrishnan, Aged 52 years, Son of Shri
P Ramakrishnan, Working as Superintendent of Central
Tax, presently posted at Risk Management Centre,
Mumbai and Residing at E-3/701, Brahmand CHS Ltd.,
Azad Nagar, Thane West 400607.Email:
[email protected],
Cell: 9987599501.
67. Gajanan R Joshi, Aged 57 years, son of Shri Ramchandra
Sadashiv Joshi, working as Superintendent of Central
Tax, presently posted at Risk Management Centre,
Mumbai and Residing at E 1904, Rissoina,
RunwalPearl,Thane-400607.
Email:[email protected], Cell: 9869470813.
68. Sridhar Venkatesh, Aged 56 years Son of Shri N.
Venkatesh Working as Superintendent of Central Tax,
presently posted at Risk Management Centre, Mumbai
and Residing at 202/63 The Pavilion,Matunga, Mumbai-
400019. Email:[email protected].
69. Ravindra K Rane, Aged 49 years, son of Shri Kashiram G.
Rane, Working as Superintendent of Central Tax,
presently posted at GST Thane Commissionerate, and
Residing at No.5, Yamuna CHS, Third Floor, Govind
Bachchhaji Road, Charai, Thane (W) 400601.
Email:[email protected], Cell:9167628138.
70. P Sharda Rao, Aged 52 years, daughter of Shri
Panduranga Working as Superintendent of Central Tax,
presently posted at PCCO, CGST Mumbai Zone, Mumbai
and residing at B/2, Aasavari, G Gupte Road, Vishnu
Nagar, Dombivili (West) PIN
421202.Email:[email protected],
Cell: 9769938406.
71. V.K.Anthony, Aged 53 years, son of Shri V.A.Kurian,
Working as Superintendent of Central Tax, presently
posted at GST Audit-I Commissionerate, and Residing at
B/404, Panchvan Complex, near Mary Immacülate girls
High School, I. C. Colony, Borivali (West), Mumbai 103.
Cell: 9930991219. Email: [email protected].
NARESH NARESH
KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA
2025.09.16
AHUJA 11:28:44+05'30'
12
OA No.407/2020
72. Harihar M. Zaavde, Aged 52 years, son of Shri Motiram
Bhaskar Zaavde, working as Superintendent of Central
Tax, presently posted at Thane Rural GST
Commissionerate and Residing at Malkauns, Plot No.21,
Vivek Anand Society, Kulgaon, Badlapur (East)-421503.
Cell: 8097022294,
Email: [email protected].
73. Ashok Gopalan, Aged 54 years, son of Shri PuthenVeetil
Gopalan, working as Superintendent of Central Tax,
presently posted at Settlement Commission, Mumbai and
Residing at B4-604, Safal Complex Sector 19A Nerul (E),
Navi Mumbai 400706. Email: [email protected],
Cell:9987332165.
74. Simran D Karamchandani, Aged 49 years, wife of Shri
Dinesh J Karamcchandani, working as Superintendent of
Central Tax, presently posted at GST Mumbai West
Commissionerate, Mumbai and Residing at 102/27,
Central Excise Quarters, New Link Road,
OshiwaraAndheri West, Mumbai-400 053.
Email:[email protected], Cell:9323197859.
75. Srinivasan N. Iyengar, Aged 52 years, son
ofShri.Narasimhan, working as Superintendent of Central
Tax, presently posted at GST Belapur Commissionerate,
Mumbai and Residing at Flat No.504, Deep Sagar CHS,
Plot No.25, Sector-19, Nerul East, Navi Mumbai-400706.
Email: [email protected],Cell:9892608804.
76. Anand N. Kollengode, Aged 55 years, son of Shri
Natarajan Narayan Kollengode working as Superintendent
of Central Tax, presently posted at GST Belapur
Commissionerate Mumbai and Residing at 101,
RatnasagarPlot 58, Opposite Gold Crest High School,
Sector 29, Vashi Navi Mumbai.
Email: [email protected], Cell: 9820157333.
77. Alok Prakash, Aged 52 years, son of Shri Shree Narayan
Sinha working as Superintendent of Central Tax, presently
posted at GST Belapur Commissionerate Mumbai and
Residing at A-402, Milloni CHS, Plot-109, Sec-27, Nerul,
Navi Mumbai-400706. Email:[email protected].
Cell No.9821589033.
NARESH NARESH
KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA
2025.09.16
AHUJA 11:28:44+05'30'
13
OA No.407/2020
78. Rajesh Thampy, Aged 52 years, son of Shri
Jayachandran Thampy, working as Superintendent of
Central Tax, presently posted at GST Belapur
Commissionerate, Mumbai and Residing at 504, Maitri
Tower, Plot No.2, Nr.CIDCO Office Sector 29, Nerul East,
Navi Mumbal-400706.
Email: [email protected],Cell:9869011385.
79. Jayant G. Shende, Aged 54 years, son of Shri Girish
Mahadev Shende, working as Superintendent of Central
Tax, presently posted at GST Belapur Commissionerate
Mumbai and Residing at G15, RH5, Sector 6, Vashi, Navi
Mumbai. Email: [email protected],
Cell:9869061514.
80. Kottapalli Rajshekar, Aged 49 years, son of Shri
Kottapalli Ramesh Babu working as Superintendent of
Central Tax, presently posted at GST Belapur
Commissionerate Mumbai and Residing at B-602, ARM
Enclave, Plot No.11, Sector-7, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai
410210.Email:[email protected], Cell:
9987332137.
81. Jolly V Koshi, Aged 55 years, daughter K.M. Thomas
working as Superintendent of Central Tax, presently
posted at Mumbai West Commissionerate and Residing at
E1/31, Pramukh Vijay, Vijay Nagar, Marol, Andheri East,
Mumbai 400059. Email: [email protected], Cell:
9819050149.
82. Shekar R Lad, Aged 51 years, son of Shri Ratnakar
Laxman Lad, working as Superintendent of Central Tax,
presently posted at GST Raigad Commissionerate,
Mumbai and residing A-10, Type-4, Ekta Vihar, Sector 25,
at CBD Belapur Navi Mumbal 400614.
Email:[email protected], Cell: 9819664242.
83. Mahendra P Patil, Aged 51 years, son of Shri Panditrao P.
Patil, working as Superintendent of Central Tax, presently
posted at GST Belapur Commissionerate Mumbai and
Residing at TYPE-4, C-22, Ekta Vihar, Sector 25, Belapur
CBD, Navi Mumbai-400614.
Email:[email protected], Cell:9769605861.
NARESH NARESH
KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA
2025.09.16
AHUJA 11:28:44+05'30'
14
OA No.407/2020
84. Reena George, Aged 51 years, wife of Shri P.George
Mathew, working as Superintendent of Central Tax,
presently posted at GST Belapur Commissionerate
Mumbai and Residing at B-35/7, Kendriya Vihar, Sector
11, Kharghar-410210. Email:[email protected],
Cell: 8451912808.
85. Shambhu Nath Singh, Aged 50 years, son of Shri Singh,
working as Superintendent of Central Tax, presently
posted at CGST Audit-III, Commissionerate, Mumbai and
Residing at Flat No. 3, Vishrantigruh, Plot No 56, Sector
19, Nerul East-400706. Cell: 9167565205.
86. Uma Shanker Singh, Aged 51 years, son of Shri Sadhu
Sharan Singh, working as Superintendent of Central Tax,
presently posted at GST Audit-III, Commissionerate,
Mumbai and Residing at Flat No. 201, Om Rudra, Plot No.
45, Sector-20, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai- 410210.
Email:[email protected],Cell: 9969438373.
87. Sanjay Kumar Choudhary, Aged 51 years,
son of Shri Choudhary, working as Superintendent of
Central Tax, presently posted at GST Raigad Audit
Commissionerate, Mumbai and residing at B. 406, Milloni
CHSL, Sector-27, Nerual (East), Navi Mumbai,
88. Sanjay Kumar Gupta, Aged 51 years, son Shri Doman
Sah, working as Superintendent of Central Tax, presently
posted at GST Raigad Audit Commissionerate Mumbai
and Residing at 4/56 Sector-19, Nerul East Navi Mumbai
400706.Email: [email protected],
89. Rajesh Mohanty, Aged 52 years, son of Shri Suresh
Chandra Mohanty, working as Superintendent of Central
Tax, presently posted at GST Raigad Audit
Commissionerate, Mumbai and Residing at D-25,type-IV,
Ekta Vihar sector-25, CBD Belapur Navi Mumbai.
Email:[email protected], Cell: 88980 08470.
90. Mini P Nelappana, Aged 52 years, daughter of Shri K.V.
Thomas Working as Superintendent of Central Tax,
presently posted at GST Mumbai East Commissionerate,
Mumbai and Residing at 1103/1104, AWING, maple Leaf,
Raheja Vihar, Powai, Mumbai 400072.
Email:[email protected], Cell:9820262128.
NARESH NARESH
KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA
2025.09.16
AHUJA 11:28:44+05'30'
15
OA No.407/2020
91. Geetha M. Nair, Aged 53 years, daughter of Shri
Gopalkrishnan Nair, working as Superintendent of Central
Tax, presently posted at GST Mumbai East
Commissionerate, Mumbai and Residing at D-301,
Saideep 2, Near Vivekanand School, Sindhi Society,
Chembur, Mumbai-400071.Email:
[email protected],
92. Sanjay Singh Pawar, Aged 53 years, son of Shri Gopal
Singh Pawar Working as Superintendent of Central Tax,
presently posted at GST Mumbai East Commissionerate,
Mumbai and Residing at Bunglow No.6, Near Anmol
Garden, Hajimalang Road, Nandivili Village,Kalyan (East)
Thane - 421301.
Email:[email protected],Cell:9867220332.
93. Rajashree R Shenoy, Aged 52 years, daughter of Shri
Prabhakar Vasudev Kamat, Working as Superintendent of
Central Tax, presently posted at GST Mumbai East
Commissionerate, Mumbai and Residing at B-60, Jalada
RBI Officers Quarters, P.Balu Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-
400025. Email:[email protected],
94. Dipti D Todankar, Aged 57 years, wife of Shri Dinesh
Todankar, working as Superintendent of Central Tax,
presently posted at GST Mumbai West Commissionerate
Mumbai and Residing at 1102-8, Silver Dunes, E. B.
Hatiskar Marg,Prabhadevi, Mumbai 400025.
Email: [email protected], Cell:9820831310.
95. Kumar S Krishnamurthy, Aged 49 years, son of Shri S
Krishnamurthy, Working as Superintendent of Central
Tax, presently posted at GST Mumbai East
Commissionerate, Mumbai, and Residing at Flat No.19,
Bldg.No.15, Radha Nagar CHS, Barave Road, Near
Khadakpada, Kalyan(West), Dist. Thane - 421301.
96. Palvinder Singh Dhami, Aged 56 years, son of Shri
Sarwan Singh Dhami,working as Superintendent of
Central Tax, presently posted at GST Thane Rural
Commissionerate, Mumbai and Residing at : Block-A,
451/901, Near Holy Family Convent, High School,
Ulhasnagar-421004. Email:
[email protected],Cell: 9890467112.
NARESH NARESH
KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA
2025.09.16
AHUJA 11:28:44+05'30'
16
OA No.407/2020
97. Sharmila Narendra Sawant, Age 53 years wife of Shri
Narendra VasudeoSawant, Working as Superintendent of
Central Tax presently posted at GST Thane Rural
Commissionerate, and Residing at Karkhanis, Residing at
407, A-2, Swami Dev Prakash Gardens, Sai Section,
Ambarnath East421501.
Email:[email protected], Cell:8169354713.
98. Chetan Manohar More, Aged 51 years, son of Shri
Manohar More, Working as Superintendent of Central Tax,
presently posted at GST Thane Rural Commissionerate,
and residing at 202, Achala, Swapndhara, Ne Tattydnyan
Vidyapeeth, G.B.Road, Thane-409610.
Email:[email protected], Cell: 9967438168.
99. Rammohan R. Adepu, Aged 51 years, son of Shri Adepu
Ramalingam, working as Superintendent of Central Tax,
presently posted at GST Mumbai South Commissionerate
and Residing at 602, NavChetana-B, Sector-3, CGS
Colony, Antop Hill, Mumbai-400037.
Email: [email protected],Cell:9867761882.
100. P. Manoj Raman, Aged 54 years, son of Shri P.I. Raman
working as Superintendent of Central Tax, presently
posted at GST Audit-III Commissionerate, Mumbai and
Residing at 4-C/603, Dreams Complex, LBS Marg,
Bhandup(West), Mumbai-400078.
101. M.I.Ramachandran, Aged 55 years, son of Shri M.Inneri,
working as Superintendent of Central Tax, presently
posted at Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Mumbai and
Residing at B-204, Riddhi Apartments, Saibaba Nagar,
Borivili(West), Mumbai-400092.
102. Manish Dinkar Joshi, Aged 52 years, son of Shri Dinkar
Govind Joshi Working as Superintendent of Central Tax,
presently posted at GST Mumbai East Commissionerate,
Mumbai and Residing at 17, 2nd Floor, Kotnath Bhuvan,
V.P.Road,Mulund West, Mumbai-400080.
103. Radha Aravindakshan, Aged 53 years, wife of Shri
K.Aravindakshan, Working as Superintendent of Central
Tax, presently posted at GST Mumbai East
Commissionerate, Mumbai and Residing at 1/C, 303,
Dhiraj Dreams, L.B.S. Marg, Bhandup (West), Mumbai -
400078.
NARESH NARESH
KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA
2025.09.16
AHUJA 11:28:44+05'30'
17
OA No.407/2020
104. Bindu Raman, Aged 51 years, daughter of Shri PI Raman,
working as Superintendent of Central Tax, presently
posted at GST Palghar Commissionerate, Mumbai and
Residing at 1/101, Brahmand Phase-V CHS, Azaad Nagar,
Off G.B. Road, Thane (West) - 400607.
Email: [email protected],Cell:9323735314.
105. Mohandas Ambat, Aged 51 years, son of Shri Ambat,
working as Superintendent of Central Tax, presently
posted at Thane CGST Commissionerate and Residing at
402/A-7, Rutu Enclave, G B Road, Thane West-400615.
Email: [email protected], Cell: 9867796981.
106. Pradeep Kumar Shankaran, Aged 55 years, son of
Shri Shankaran, working as Superintendent of Central
Tax, presently posted at Thane CGST Commissionerate
and Residing at D-2/302, Vedant Complex, Vartak Nagar,
Thane West, Pin-400606. Email:
[email protected], Cell: 9821184543.
107. Abhay ShantaramTendolkar, Aged 58 years, son of Shri
ShantaramTendolkar, working as Superintendent of
Central Tax, presently posted at Audit Thane CGST
Commissionerate and Residing at 102/B Shree Shailyam
Society, Shivai Nagar, Pokhran Road No.1, Thane West-
400606.Email: [email protected],
108. Rajesh V. Joshi, Aged 53 years, son of Shri Vinayak
Trimbak Joshi, working as Superintendent of Central Tax,
presently posted at Directorate General of Vigilance, West
Zonal Unit, Mumbai and residing at 1202, Vinayak
Blessings CHS Ltd., Above Bank of Baroda, V.B. Phadke
Marg Gavanpada, Mulund East, MUMBAI 400 081. Email:
[email protected], Cell: 9324408919.
109. Rajeev Anant Kulkarni, Aged 57 years, son of Shri Anant
Kulkarni working as Superintendent of Central Tax,
presently posted at GST Thane Commissionerate Mumbai
and Residing at CD-106/C-3 Shreerang Society,
Thane(W)-400601. Email: [email protected],
Cell: 9987070082.
NARESH NARESH
KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA
2025.09.16
AHUJA 11:28:44+05'30'
18
OA No.407/2020
110. Mohan Raghavan, Aged 53 years, son of Shri
V.P.Raghavan, working as Superintendent of Central Tax,
presently posted at Directorate of Revenue Intelligence,
Mumbai Zonal Unit, Mumbai and residing at RH-3, N-26,
Sector-6, Vashi, Navi Mumbai.
111. Deepak Lal Singh Jyala Aged 52 years, son of Shri Lal
Singh Jyala, working as Superintendent of Central Tax,
presently posted at Directorate of Revenue Intelligence,
Mumbai and residing at 05, Suryadarshan CHS, Plot
No.27, Sector 14, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703.
112. Bhrama Nand Sinha, Aged 53 years, son of Shri Daya
Nand Sinha working as Superintendent of Central Tax,
presently posted at GST Audit Raigad Commissionerate,
Mumbai and Residing at 405-B Wing, Milloni C.H.S., Plot
No.-109, Sector-27, Nerul (East), Navi Mumbai- 400 706
113. Deepak Shanbaug, Aged 56 years, son of Shri Shankar
Shanbaug working as Superintendent of Central Tax,
presently posted at Marine & Preventive Commissionerate
Mumbal and residing at A 204 Chitrakut Rawal pada
Dahisar East, Mumbai 400068.
114. Mahesh B Prabhu, Aged 52 years, son of Shri
Balachandra Prabhu, working as Superintendent of
Central Tax, presently posted at GST Audit-II
Commissionerate, Mumbai and residing at: F-2/102,
Valley Tower Annex, Aggarwal Estate, Manpada, Thane-
400610 Email:
... Applicants
Versus
1. Union of India, through
The Revenue Secretary to the Govt. of India,
Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue, North Block,
New Delhi-110 001.
2. The Chairman,
Central Board of Indirect Taxes (CBIC),
Ministry of Finance North Block, New Delhi-110001.
Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi 110 001.
NARESH NARESH
KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA
2025.09.16
AHUJA 11:28:44+05'30'
19
OA No.407/2020
3. The Principal Chief Commissioner of Central Excise,
Mumbai Zone-I, Cadre Controlling Authority,
115, M.K.Road, Central Excise Bldg., Churchgate,
Mumbai-400001.
4. The Secretary,
Ministry of Personnel, P G and Pensions,
Department of Personnel & Training,
North Block, New Delhi 110 001.
5. The Principal Chief Controller of Accounts
Central Board of Indirect Taxes, AGCR Building, 1st floor,
New Delhi-110 002.
... Official Respondents
6. Shri Rajan Mane
Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, Kolhapur GST
Commissionerate, at 5th floor, Vasant Plaza Complex,
Rajaram Road, Bagal Chowk, Kolhapur-416001.
Email: [email protected]
7. Shri Bijai R. Samad
Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, Aurangabad GST
Commissionerate, at N-5, Town Centre, CIDCO,
Aurangabad-431003.
Email:[email protected]
8. Shri Onil Shivdikar
Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, CESTAT, Mumbai,
at Jai Centre, 3rd, 4th & 5th floor, P D'Mello Road, Poona
Street, Masjid, Mumbai - 400009.
Email: [email protected]
9. Shri S.R.Somkuwar
Superintendent of Central Tax, Pune Customs
Commissionerate, at 41/A, ICE House, Sasoon Road, 'E'
Wing, 4th floor, Pune-411001.
Email: [email protected]
10. Shri Shirish J Bhadange
Superintendent of Central Tax, GST Audit Raigad
Commissionerate, at Plot No.1, Sector 17, Khandeshwar,
Navi Mumbai-410 206, Email: [email protected]
NARESH NARESH
KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA
2025.09.16
AHUJA 11:28:44+05'30'
20
OA No.407/2020
11. Shri Bawiskar Anil D
Superintendent of Central Tax, GST Audit Nasik,
Commissionerate, at KendriyaRajaswa Bhavan, Gadkari
Chowk, Nashik-422002.
Email: [email protected]
12. Shri Shinde Sanjay Raghunath
Superintendent of Central Tax, Audit Thane CGST
&C.Excise Commissionerate, at 9th Floor, Piramal
Chambers, Jijibhoy Lane, Lalbaug, Parel,
Mumbai -400 012.
13. Shri Vasant B Tuplondhe
Superintendent of Central Tax, Nasik GST
Commissionerate, at Plot No.155, Sector-P-34, NH,
Jaishtha&Vaishakh, CIDCO, Nashik - 422008.
14. Smt. Anita S. Bagade
Superintendent of Central Tax, Thane CGST &C.Excise
Commissionerate, at Navprabhat Chambers, 4th floor,
Ranade Road, Dadar, Mumbai 400 028.
... Private Respondents.
For Applicants: Mr. Kumar Parimal, Advocate
For Respondents: Mr. R.R. Shetty, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Sachin Patil, Advocate for R1 to 5.
Ms. Disha Wadekar, Advocate with
Ms. Varishtha Singh for R-10 to 14.
None for respondent no.6 to 9 & 13
ORDER
Per Hon'ble Mr. Ajay Pratap Singh, Member (Judicial):
The instant Original Application has come on being referred under Section 26 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 [for brevity herein after referred as Act, 1985] to the Third Member in view of difference of opinion between the two Hon'ble Members in their respective common order/Order NARESH NARESH KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA 2025.09.16 AHUJA 11:28:44+05'30' 21 OA No.407/2020 dated 03.07.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Member (Judicial) and Hon'ble Member (Administrative).
2. The order was reserved in the OA on 10.03.2025 by the Division Bench consisting of Hon'ble Shri Umesh Gajankush, Member (Judicial) and Hon'ble Shri Santosh Mehra, Member (Administrative). The Hon'ble Member (Judicial) of the said Division Bench recorded his findings and conclusion and dismissed the OA as no case is made out for interference in the OA. However, the Hon'ble Member (Administrative) has parly allowed the OA and recorded his concurrence in full with the first thirty six paragraphs of common order dated 03.07.2025 passed by Hon'ble Member (Judicial) but taken a different view with different conclusions of the order passed by Hon'ble Member (Judicial).
FACTS IN BREIF
3. Though, the Hon'ble Member (Administrative) has fully concurred with first-36 paragraphs of common order dated 03.07.2025 passed by Hon'ble Member (Judicial) but also recorded disagreement with the remaining paragraphs of said order i.e. 03.07.2025. Before adverting to the issue though no point of difference has been enumerated in the reference with regard to common order dated 03.07.2025 passed by Hon'ble Member (Judicial) and Hon'ble Member (Administrative), for the sake of convenience and clarity, briefly adumbrated facts as evident from the material placed on record in case in hand are as under -
3.1 Applicants were initially appointed on the post of Inspector and initial seniority fixed as per marks obtained in the selection. Applicants, while working on the initial post of Inspector were superseded by reserved category-junior employees and promoted from post of Inspector (Central Excise) to the post of Superintendent. The applicants also NARESH NARESH KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA 2025.09.16 AHUJA 11:28:44+05'30' 22 OA No.407/2020 later on promoted to the post of Superintendent but after junior-reserved category and applicants' seniority should have been assigned over and above junior-reserved candidates promoted earlier than applicants in the cadre of Superintendent by following the catch-up rule. The impugned promotion orders to the post of Assistant Commissioner (Customs & Excise), impugned draft seniority list dated 23.09.2019 of Superintendents as on 01.01.2019 is contrary to law laid down in case of M.Nagaraj & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2006) 8 SCC 212.
3.2 Respondents have not conducted any survey to collect quantifiable data to provide reservation in the matter of promotion or to grant consequential seniority and failed to show reasons to grant reservation in promotion to the post of Superintendents in Central Excise Deptt. now Goods and Services Tax and thus effecting reservation in promotion from post of Superintendents to Assistant Commissioner is illegal and contrary to Article 16(4A) & (4B) of the Constitution of India and law laid down in case of M.Nagaraj (supra).
3.3 Present OA is against illegal reservation in promotion in cadre of Superintendent/Assistant Commissioner in Central Excise Department to set aside promotion orders on the post of Assistant Commissioner and seniority list dated 23.09.2019 by respondents of the post of Superintendents to the extent it provides reservation in promotion and granted accelerated seniority and also to conduct DPC or Review DPC to the post of Assistant Commissioner based on seniority- cum-merit without providing any reservation in promotional posts with all consequential benefits from the date their juniors were promoted.
3.4 Per contra, official respondents filed reply and made averments that as per provisions of Constitution of India in public employment SC/ST candidates provided for 15% NARESH NARESH KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA 2025.09.16 AHUJA 11:28:44+05'30' 23 OA No.407/2020 reservation to SC and 7.5% to ST category and DoP&T vide O.M. dated 29.03.2007 addressed to all States/Union Territories and clarified that observation made in M. Nagaraj (supra) regarding creamy-layer amongst SC/ST are mere obiter-dicta and per-incuriam and do not flow from and cannot be reconciled with the nine-judge Bench decision in case of Indra Sawhney & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., 1992 Supp. (3) SCC 217. The reference to creamy layer in the concluding paragraph and other portions of the judgments does not relate to the SCs and STs. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of M.Nagaraj (supra) reiterated that state required to collect quantifiable data in the cadre showing backwardness of class and inadequacy in reservation to provide reservation in promotion. Consequent to amendment the DOP&T OM dated 11.07.2002 clarified that SC/ST candidates appointed by promotion on their own merit and owing to reservation will be adjusted against un-reserved points in reservation roster and not against reserved points.
3.5 Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 15.11.2017 in Jarnail Singh and Ors. Vs. Lachhmi Narain Gupta & Ors. [Jarnail Singh (1)] (2018) 10 SCC 396 decided to examine whether earlier decision in M. Nagaraj (supra) requires reconsideration or not on the issue as to whether test of backwardness would at all apply in case of SC/ST. Hon'ble Supreme Court 5-Judge Constitution Bench in Jarnail Singh & Ors. Vs. Lachhmi Narain Gupta & Ors. [Jarnail Singh (2)] (2022) 10 SCC 595 held that M. Nagaraj (supra) judgment does not need to be referred to seven-judge Bench and conclusion in M.Nagaraj (supra) that State has to collect quantifiable data showing backwardness of SC and ST being contrary to the nine-judge Bench in Indra Sawhney (1) (supra) held to be invalid to this extent. 3.6 Respondents have further averred in the reply that DOP&T vide OM dated 30.01.1997 provided for catch-up-rule NARESH NARESH KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA 2025.09.16 AHUJA 11:28:44+05'30' 24 OA No.407/2020 and subsequently the Constitution of India was amended retrospectively by 85th Amendment Act, 2001, Article 16 (4A) w.e.f. 17.06.1995 and catch-up rule repealed and OM dated 21.01.2002 issued to negate effects of Article 16 (4A) of the Constitution of India w.e.f. 17.06.1995 to allow the government servants belonging to SC/ST to retain the seniority in the case of promotion by virtue of rule of reservation. Thus, after issuance of O.M. dated 21.01.2002, OM dated 30.01.1997 stands withdrawn, the seniority of government servants shall be determined and revised as if that OM was never issued and as of now, catch-up-rule does not exist for determining the seniority. 3.7 In case of State of Tripura Vs. Jayant Chakraborty, vide decision dated 14.11.2017 matter referred to the Constitution Bench and respondents further submitted that after insertion of Article 16 (4A), the constitutional validity upheld in case of M. Nagaraj (supra) and catch-up- rule is against legislative intent for insertion of Article 16(4A). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of M. Nagaraj (supra) & B.K. Pavitra Vs. Union of India & Ors.[B.K.Pavitra(1)], reported in (2017) 4 SCC 620 already clarified that catch- up-rule is a judicially evolved concept arising out of service jurisprudence but cannot override constitutional amendment Article 16(4A) which provides consequential seniority to the SC/ST.
3.8 Respondents also stated in the reply that present OA is barred by limitation prescribed under Section 21 of Act, 1985 and representation does not cure limitation. The officers promoted to the grade of Assistant Commissioner vide impugned orders and also promoted during 1998 to 2006 as Superintendent based on all India seniority prior to decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of M. Nagaraj (supra), hence the question of review of promotion effected pursuant to guidelines by DOP"&T with regard to reservation by determining inadequacy in cadre based on collection of data NARESH NARESH KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA 2025.09.16 AHUJA 11:28:44+05'30' 25 OA No.407/2020 in the cadre. DOP&T OM dated 21.01.2002 also provides for consequential seniority to the reserved category candidates.
3.9 Respondents further stated in the written statement that promotion made to posts of Superintendent and Assistant Commissioner in Central Excise Department (now Central Goods & Service Tax) CGST & Central Excise is based on instructions of DOP&T on issue of reservation and consequential seniority under Article 16(4A) of the Constitution of India and impugned orders of promotions and consequential seniority list dated 25.09.2019 prepared in accordance with settled legal position.
3.10 Official respondents also filed additional affidavit stating that applicants are trying to unsettle the settled seniority position of Superintendents cadre, the impugned seniority cannot be upset and present OA is grossly barred by limitation.
3.11 Respondents have also averred that the higher post of Assistant Commissioner as on 04.01.2021 and 2118 number of additional posts have been created by respondents vide order dated 21.12.2013, available only upto 31.12.2021 out of which more than 1500 were lying vacant and shall lapse by virtue of remaining vacant on 31.12.2021.
4. Thereafter, on conclusion of the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties before the said Division Bench of the CAT Mumbai Bench, Mumbai, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) wrote an order dated 03.07.2025 based on law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Indra Sawhney (supra), Sudhakar Baburao Nangnure Vs. Nareshwar Raghunathrao Shende & Ors. (2020) 11 SCC 399, Chettian Veetil Ahmad Vs. Taluk Land Board (1980) 1 SCC 499, M. Nagaraj (supra), Jarnail Singh (1) (supra), Jarnail Singh (2) (supra) and placed reliance on paragraph NARESH NARESH KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA 2025.09.16 AHUJA 11:28:44+05'30' 26 OA No.407/2020 38 of Jarnail Singh (2) (supra) that before providing for reservation in promotions to a cadre, the State is obligated to collect quantifiable data regarding inadequacy of reservation of SCs/STs. Collection of information regarding inadequacy of representation of SCs/STs cannot be with reference to the entire service or class/group but it should be relatable to the grade/category of posts to which promotion is sought. Cadre, which should be the Unit for the purpose of collection of quantifiable data in relation to the promotional post(s), would be meaningless if data pertaining to representation of SC/ST is reference to entire service. So also relied paragraph 4 that there cannot be the test to proportion of SCs and STs to the population of India be the test for determining adequacy of representation in promotional posts. So also it is for the State to assess the inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs in promotional posts by taking into account relevant factors. In para 69, it has also been observed that State should justify reservation in promotion with respect to the cadre to which promotion is made to give correct picture of the inadequacy of representation of SCs/STs in the cadre of relation to which reservation in promotion is sought to be made, rosters are prepared cadre-wise and the cadre which is a part of a group is the unit and the data has to be collected with respect to each cadre and same is in consonance with law laid down in M. Nagaraj (supra) and Jarnail Singh (2) (supra) and individual case to be answered accordingly. So also considered principles laid down in case of State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Davinder Singh (2025) 1 SCC. Hon'ble Member (Judicial) observed that issue in case of Davinder Singh (supra) was related to issue of sub-classification whereas judgment in case of Jarnail Singh (2) (supra) was on the issue in respect of reservation in promotion and rejected the contention of applicants and placed reliance on majority decision by Third Member order dated 26.06.2024 in case of CAT Mumbai Bench in OA No.557/2023 Valerie Avinash NARESH NARESH KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA 2025.09.16 AHUJA 11:28:44+05'30' 27 OA No.407/2020 Dhepe vs. UOI & Ors. as correct position of law upholding order dated 02.04.2025 of Hon'ble Member (Administrative). The Hon'ble Member (Judicial) also considered that there is no challenge to the OM whereas impugned promotion orders and seniority list 23.09.2019 is based on said O.M. Hon'ble Member (Judicial) in his common order dated 03.07.2025 also considered in para 40, that official respondents have justified action of grant of reservation in promotion in year 2023 based on OM dated 12.04.2022 issued after judgment in case of Jarnail Singh (2) (supra) and OM dated 12.04.2022 still holds the field in light of law laid down in case of M. Nagaraj and Jarnail Singh (2) (supra). Hon'ble Member (Judicial) vide common order dated 03.07.2025 upheld methodology followed by respondents while dealing with and implementing law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Jarnail Singh (2) (supra) and based on OM dated 12.04.2022 to grant promotions in year 2023 in view of judgment in case of Jarnail Singh (2) (supra) in case of reservation in promotion. The Hon'ble Member (Judicial), vide common order dated 03.07.2025 dismissed the OA and upheld orders of promotion as well as impugned seniority list as respondents have correctly acted in light of OM dated 12.04.2022 by collection of quantifiable data in cadre for reservation in promotion. Hon'ble Member (Judicial) held -
43. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, no case is made out for interference in the impugned ad-hoc promotion orders and Provisional Seniority List dated 23rd September, 2019. Therefore, OA is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Pending MAs, if any, with no order as to costs."
[Emphasis supplied]
5. On receipt of aforesaid common order dated 03.07.2025 authored by Hon'ble Member (Judicial). The Hon'ble Member (Administrative) on receipt of pre-delivery order recorded respectful disagreement, however, points of difference not been recorded in this common order dated 03.07.2025. In his common order dated 03.07.2025 in paragraph no.3 Hon'ble NARESH NARESH KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA 2025.09.16 AHUJA 11:28:44+05'30' 28 OA No.407/2020 Member (Administrative) has stated that he fully concurred with the first 36 paras which finishes on page no. 103 of this pre-delivery order and also observed that first 36 paras upto page of 103 of the pre-delivery order can be construed to be part of his order also but the conclusions are at variance with those of the Hon'ble Member (J). Hon'ble Member (Administrative) expressed disagreement on the issue involved in the OA seeking direction to set aside seniority list dated 23.09.2019 of post of Superintendent and re-cast based on general seniority following catch-up rule and also quashed impugned promotion orders of Assistant Commissioner dated 23.02.2017 and 11.05.2018 and directed to consider for promotion as Assistant Commissioner on regular basis by conducting appropriate DPC based on seniority without providing reservation in promotion with all consequential benefits and not to provide reservation in promotion till requisite exercise as mandated in M.Nagaraj (supra) is satisfied. The Hon'ble Member (A) considered that crux of the matter is whether criteria laid down in M. Nagaraj(supra) whether inadequacy of representation and efficiency in administration have been adhered to or not in order to provide reservation in promotion and also to grant accelerated consequential seniority. The Hon'ble Member (Administrative) in para 15 of his order dated 03.07.2025 also considered Jarnail Singh(2)(supra) and stated that with respect to collection of data on the basis of cadre with respect to inadequate representation in promotion and observed that the contention of respondents not accepted as exercise as directed by M.Nagaraj (supra) and other judgments have not been carried out and respondents are not justified in dividing the posts between UR, SCs and STs etc. So also held that nothing is brought on record by respondents to show a proper exercise to determine the issue of efficiency of administration on the basis of APARs/ACRs and held that impugned orders of promotion and existing seniority list dated 23.9.2019 is not NARESH NARESH KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA 2025.09.16 AHUJA 11:28:44+05'30' 29 OA No.407/2020 in accordance with judgments of M.Nagaraj (supra) and other judgments and necessity for collection of quantifiable data and efficiency criteria for providing reservation in promotion. The Hon'ble Member (Administrative) expressed his disagreement as above and partly allowed the OA directing respondents not to implement any form of reservation in promotion or accelerated seniority in the cadre of Superintendent or Assistant Commissioner and quashed promotion orders (Annexure A-1 & A-2) and seniority list dated 23.09.2019 (Annexure A-3) directing respondents to grant promotions strictly on the basis of seniority-cum- suitability as per original seniority list in feeder cadre of Superintendent with all consequential benefits. Hon'ble Member (Administrative) dissented with the view expressed by Hon'ble Member (Judicial) and opined, which reads as under-
"27. I am of the considered view that the promotion orders and seniority list in question have been issued in contravention of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M. Nagraj vs. Union of India and other judgments, particularly with regard to the necessity for collection of quantifiable data, and efficiency criteria for providing reservation in promotion. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the O.A is partly allowed. It is hereby, ordered:
A. The impugned Promotion (Ad-hoc) Order dated 23.02.2017 (Annexure A1), the Promotion (Ad-hoc) Order dated 11.05.2018 (Annexure A2), and the Seniority List dated 23.09.2019 (Annexure A3), issued by the Respondents, are hereby quashed and set aside to the extent they:
a. Provide reservation in promotion without satisfaction of the Constitutional preconditions;
b. Grant accelerated seniority to SCs/STs candidates in violation of the catch-up rule.
B. The Respondents are also directed not to implement any form of reservation in promotion or accelerated seniority in the cadre of Superintendent or Assistant Commissioner unless and until all the Constitutional prerequisites as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court are demonstrably fulfilled.
NARESH NARESH
KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA
2025.09.16
AHUJA 11:28:44+05'30'
30
OA No.407/2020
C. To give the promotions strictly on the
basis of seniority cum suitability as per the original seniority list, irrespective of their castes/tribes status of the individuals, after conducting appropriate DPC/ Review DPC with all consequential benefits."
[Emphasis supplied]
6. Since different observations and findings recorded by both Hon'ble Members while deciding OA No.407/2020 by their separate orders, but points of difference has not been enumerated in the present reference and the reference being decided based on principle culled out from constitutional jurisprudence in reservation in public employment.
7. On receipt of aforesaid disagreement by following the principles of natural justice, learned counsel appearing for the parties were giving opportunity to address their arguments.
8. Having heard Shri Kumar Parimal, learned counsel for the applicants, Shri R.R. Shetty, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Sachin Patil, Advocate for official respondents and Ms. Disha Wadekar Advocate with Ms. Varishtha Singh Advocate for private respondents and also perused the material placed on record.
SUBMISSIONS
9. Shri Kumar Parimal, learned counsel for applicants supporting the view of Hon'ble Member (Administrative) and criticizing order passed by Hon'ble Member (Judicial) reiterated his submissions and can be summarized as under-
(i) Applicants were initially appointed on the post of Inspector (Central Excise) and reserved category - junior employees on the basis of reservation in promotion, promoted to the post of Superintendent and thereafter applicants also have been promoted on the posts of Superintendent - but respondents have not given benefits to the applicants of catch-up NARESH NARESH KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA 2025.09.16 AHUJA 11:28:44+05'30' 31 OA No.407/2020 rule/principle. The respondents also issued order dated 11.06.2018 and 23.02.2017 of promotion to the grade of Assistant Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise against temporary posts. During pendency of the OA also issued promotion orders vide office order dated 13.01.2023 and 01.11.2023 of Assistant Commissioner of Customs and Indirect Taxes. So also impugned draft seniority list of Superintendent under Chief Commissioner, CGST & CX, Mumbai Zone is contrary to law laid down in case of M. Nagaraj (supra), Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited Vs. Rajesh Kumar (2012) 7 SCC 1, B.K. Pavitra (1) (2017) 4 SCC 620 and Jarnail Singh (2) (supra), Mukesh Kumar Vs. State of Uttarakhand (2020 ) 3 SCC 1, S. Panneer Selvam Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2015 10 SCC 292.
(ii) The Constitution Bench in M. Nagaraj (supra) has clearly laid down certain conditions that there must be compelling reasons for making reservation in promotion and the State is not bound to make reservation for SC and ST in matters of promotion. Reservation in Article 16(4) and Article 16(4A) is enabling provision and the discretion of appropriate government is subject to existence of backwardness inadequacy of representation in public employment and efficiency of administration as required under Article 335 and to obliterate the creamy layer. The respondents have failed to identify and measure the backwardness and inadequacy and efficiency in administration. There is no collection of quantifiable data as to population of India on the backwardness of SCs and STs and the seven Judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Punjab & NARESH NARESH KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA 2025.09.16 AHUJA 11:28:44+05'30' 32 OA No.407/2020 Ors. vs. Davinder Singh & Ors. (2025) 1 SCC 1 has held that for collection of quantifiable data to determine inadequacy of representation, cadre as a Unit cannot be taken up. The respondents are bound to collect quantifiable data and take the total population of SCs and STs and its representation in the public employment, while determining the adequacy of the representation. The cadre cannot be taken as a Unit for determination of adequacy of representation of SCs and STs in public employment. So also the seven-judge, Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Davinder Singh (supra) observed that as applicability of quantifiable data on backwardness in so far SCs and STs and applicability of creamy layer principles even to SCs and STs is upheld in unanimously decision of five-Judge judgment of Constitution Bench in M.Nagaraj (supra) and respondents have issued impugned orders of promotion and seniority list without compliance of mandate of Hon'ble Supreme Court in M. Nagaraj (supra).
(iii) The Constitution Bench decision in M.Nagaraj (supra) mandates the State to demonstrate the collection of quantifiable data as determining factor for inadequacy in public employment, backwardness and overall administrative efficiency, there is no data collected by respondents to grant reservation in promotion to the posts of Assistant Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise and until and unless quantifiable data is collected principle of consequential seniority cannot be applied and there cannot be reservation in promotion to the posts of Assistant Commissioner and every time efficiency in NARESH NARESH KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA 2025.09.16 AHUJA 11:28:44+05'30' 33 OA No.407/2020 administration and exclusion of creamy layer to be examined to grant benefits of reservation in promotion.
(iv) The nine-Judge Bench decision in case of Indra Sawhney (supra) decided on 16.11.1992. Hon'ble Supreme Court in majority opinion held that reservation is permissible at the time of initial recruitment and not in promotion. By the 77th Amendment, Article 16(4-A) and 16(4-B) are only enabling provisions that the State is empowered to extant reservation. If the State has quantifiable data to show inadequacy of representation can make reservations in promotion keeping in mind maintenance of efficiency is as indicated by Article 335 of the Constitution of India.
(v) The Five-Judge Constitution Bench, judgment in case of M. Nagaraj (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the State concerned will have to show in each case the existence of the compelling reasons namely backwardness, inadequacy of representation and overall administrative efficiency before making provision for reservation in promotion. Article 16(4- A) is an enabling provision and State is not bound to make reservation for SCs/STs in matters of promotions. The official respondents failed to collect quantifiable data showing inadequacy of representation and in addition to compliance with Article 335 and State has to see ceiling limit of 50% and creamy layer.
(vi) In case of U.P. Power Corporation vs. Rajesh Kumar & Ors. (2012) 7 SCC 1, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Article 16(4-A) and 16(4-B) are enabling provision and State can make provision for NARESH NARESH KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA 2025.09.16 AHUJA 11:28:44+05'30' 34 OA No.407/2020 reservation in promotion on certain basis or foundation and in each case a fresh exercise in the light of the Constitution Bench in M. Nagaraj (supra) is mandatory requirement. Respondents have not carried out any exercise and there is no collection of data to show compelling reasons, hence the impugned orders of promotion as well as grant of consequential seniority in the cadre of Superintendent deserves to be quashed and set aside.
(vii) In B.K. Pavitra (1) Vs. Union of India & Ors.
(2017) 4 SCC 620, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that State has to place exercise undertaken for determination of inadequacy of representation and overall efficiency under Article 16(4-A) and roster promotee will not be entitled for consequential seniority who are otherwise junior and catch-up rule will be applicable and seniority to those promoted later cannot be denied seniority on account of reservation policy. In the present case there is no iota of evidence to show as to collection of quantifiable data of population of SCs and STs and consequential seniority based on roster promotee to juniors cannot be granted and catch-up-rule will apply.
(viii) The Five-Judge Constitution Bench judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Jarnail Singh (1) (supra). Their Lordships held that in M.Nagaraj (supra) the creamy layer test to SCs and STs in exercise of applications of the basic structure test to uphold the constitutional amendments to Article 16(4-A) and 15(4-B) and when applying the principles of reservation will be well within their jurisdiction to exclude the creamy layer from such NARESH NARESH KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA 2025.09.16 AHUJA 11:28:44+05'30' 35 OA No.407/2020 groups or sub-groups. In the nine-Judge Constitution Bench decision in case of Indra Sawhney (supra) the creamy layer principle is applied and creamy layer SEBCS are excluded to grant benefits of reservation. Respondents have not applied principle of creamy layer to exclude SCs and STs to provide reservation in promotion vide impugned orders and same are liable to be quashed and set aside as dictum of M.Nagaraj (supra) and Jarnail Singh (1) (supra) not been complied with.
(ix) In Jarnail Singh (1), Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that quantifiable data shall be collected by the State on the parameters as stipulated in M. Nagaraj (supra) on the inadequacy of the representation which can be tested by the Courts and the data should be relatable to the cadre concerned. The Union or State in the present case executives have not undertaken exercise to show compelling reasons determining adequacy of representation of SCs and STs by collection and analysis of quantifiable data in the cadre of Assistant Commissioners and impugned promotion orders deserve to be set aside as requisite exercise has not been carried out to show inadequacy of representation in the cadre.
(x) In case of Jarnail Singh (1), Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the judgment in M. Nagaraj (supra) does not need to be referred to a seven-judge Bench and conclusion in M.Nagaraj (supra) that the State has to collect quantifiable data showing backwardness of the SCs and STs being contrary to the nine-judge Bench in Indra Sawhney (1) (supra) held to be invalid to this extent.
NARESH NARESH
KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA
2025.09.16
AHUJA 11:28:44+05'30'
36
OA No.407/2020
(xi) Mukesh Kumar and Anr. vs. State of Uttarakhand
& Ors., reported in (2020) 3 SCC 1. Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Article 16(4) and 16(4-A) do not confer fundamental right to claim reservation in promotions being in nature of enabling provisions, vesting discretion on the State government to consider providing reservations, if circumstances so warrant. State cannot be directed to provide reservation for appointment in public employment. State is also not bound to provide reservation in promotion to SCs and STs. So also held that if the decision of the government is challenged in the Court, the State concerned shall have to place before the Court the requisite quantifiable data and satisfy that such reservation became necessary on account of inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs in a particular class or classes of posts without affecting general efficiency of administration by Article 335. The respondents in present case have not shown any material to show compelling reasons for extent of reservation.
(xii) Jarnail Singh (2) (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that constitution Bench in Jarnail Singh (1) had rejected the request for reconsideration of law laid down in case of M. Nagaraj (supra), Their Lordships held that in M. Nagaraj - it has been held that it is open to State to provide for reservation in promotion subject to limitation that there must exist compelling reasons for backwardness, inadequacy of representation in a class of post(s) keeping in mind the overall administrative efficiency. The appropriate Government has to apply the cadre strength as a unit in the operation of the roster in order to NARESH NARESH KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA 2025.09.16 AHUJA 11:28:44+05'30' 37 OA No.407/2020 ascertain whether a given class/group is adequately represented in the service and the collection of quantifiable data regarding inadequacy of representation as stipulated by M. Nagaraj (supra) is relatable to cadre concerned according to Jarnail Singh (1). There has to be some quantifiable data in cadre of Assistant Commissioner to show inadequacy of representation of SCs/STs to justify impugned orders.
(xiii) In Manoj Parihar and Others Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors. (2022) 14 SCC 72. Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the roster system is only for the purpose of ensuring that the quantum of reservation is reflected in the recruitment process and roster points do not determine seniority.
(xiv) The seven-Judge Constitution Bench judgment in case of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Davinder Singh & Ors (2025) 1 SCC 1. Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the observations in M. Nagaraj that adequate reservation of the class or group must be measured against the cadre is contrary to the plain language of Article 16(4) and 16 (4-A) and State must collect data on the inadequacy of representation in the services of the State. So also in paragraph 519 and 520.7, held that State must evolve a policy for identifying the creamy layer even from SCs and STs so as to exclude them from the benefit of affirmative action to achieve the real equality as enshrined in the constitution. So also held that the finding of M. Nagaraj (supra), Jarnail Singh (1) (supra) and Davinder Singh (2020) 8 SCC 1 to the effect that creamy layer principle is also applicable to SCs and STs lays down the correct position of law.
NARESH NARESH
KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA
2025.09.16
AHUJA 11:28:44+05'30'
38
OA No.407/2020
10. Shri R.R. Shetty, learned senior counsel with Shri Sachin Patil, Advocate for official respondents critizing order passed by Hon'ble Member (Administrative) and supporting order passed by Hon'ble Member (Judicial) argued and can be summarized as under -
(i) Clause 4A of Article 16 of the Constitution of India
contains an enabling provision to the
State/executives to make reservation in promotion subject to essential exercise to undertake the adequacy of representation and impact on efficiency in the administration. The respondents have collected quantifiable data in the cadre of Assistant Commissioner of Customs and Indirect Taxes in CBIT and Customs against existing posts and DPC was held and assessment of DPC provided data in the said cadre on the inadequacy of representation of SCs/STs employees and taken a conscious decision on inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs in the cadre in question. So also after analyzing the quantifiable data in the cadre being relevant and drawn conclusions to implement reservation in promotion following DOP&T OM dated 12.04.2012, satisfying the enabling provision for providing reservation as mandated by dictum of M. Nagaraj (supra) and clarified by Hon'ble Court in case of Jarnail Singh (2)(supra) and OM dated 12.04.2022, it is well settled in law that adequacy of representation has to be assessed with reference to the cadre, a benchmark on adequacy and not to be linked with population of SCs and STs as a measure of adequacy. The respondents have taken care of efficiency in administration and the eligible employee assessed on merit with respect to prescribed benchmark and officers graded fit and based on NARESH NARESH KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA 2025.09.16 AHUJA 11:28:44+05'30' 39 OA No.407/2020 vigilance status and ACRs/APARs for reckonable five years and also taken into account general service record and efficiency of administration not affected.
(ii) Following the mandate of Constitution Bench in case of M. Nagaraj (supra) and the three-Judge Bench decision in Jarnail Singh (2) (supra) and after carrying out requisite exercises, the respondents decided to implement reservation in promotion in the cadres of Superintendent and Assistant Commissioners with consequential seniority and in view of OM dated 12.04.2022. The consequential seniority does not require application of the creamy layer test, it is incidence of promotion. All the promotion orders issued after analysis of data in the cadre as to shortfall in the roster points for SCs and STs.
(iii) The seven-Judge Constitution Bench judgment in case of Davinder Singh (supra) was with reference, whether sub-classification of the SCs and STs for reservation is constitutionally permissible or not. Their Lordships in the said judgment observed that correctness of the view taken in Jarnail Singh (supra) is not questioned and law laid down is not attracted. So also law laid down in the present case not at all attracted.
(iv) The opinion of official respondents as regard to inadequacy of representation based on quantifiable data collected in the cadre and promotion orders issued based on benchmark of ACRs and merit taken care for efficiency in administration. There is neither any legal infirmity nor artibtrariness in the impugned orders issued in compliance of mandate in NARESH NARESH KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA 2025.09.16 AHUJA 11:28:44+05'30' 40 OA No.407/2020 M. Nagaraj (supra) and clarified in case of Jarnail Singh (1) & (2) (supra).
(v) The Division Bench of this Tribunal in All India Equality Forum Vs. Union of India & Ors. in OA No.332/2019 (Mumbai) vide Order dated 05.06.2024 and the majority opinion in case in similar terms of Valerie Avinash Dhepe & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., OA No.557/2023 (Mumbai) vide Order dated 26.06.2024 passed by Hon'ble Member (Administrative) held that post based roster is prepared in manner for filling up of the posts prescribed by Constitution Bench decision in R.K. Sabharwal (supra). The benchmark as to data collection is met as directed by dictum of M.Nagaraj and Jarnail Singh (2) (supra), the data in the cadre is also available with the authorities and adequacy of representation of SCs and STs has been correctly determined. The order dated 26.06.2024 passed by Hon'ble Member (A) in case of Valerie Avinash Dhepe (supra) has been held to be correct view in the Third Member reference decided vide order dated 02.04.2025. In view of law laid down in similar facts and legal issue in present case and to maintain consistency in the interpretation of law, this Bench is bound by orders passed in case of Valerie Avinash Dhepe (supra) and All India Equality Forum (supra) decided by the Division Bench of this Tribunal and in view of law laid down in case of Sub- Inspector Roop Lal and Anr. Vs. Lt. Governor & Ors. (2010) 1 SCC 644. Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Tribunal is bound by the precedent of a coordinate Bench of Tribunal. The legal issue and ratio laid down is binding on this Tribunal decided in similar terms in case of Avinash Dhepe (supra) NARESH NARESH KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA 2025.09.16 AHUJA 11:28:44+05'30' 41 OA No.407/2020 and All India Equality Forum (supra) hence the present OA deserves to be dismissed in light of order dated 03.07.2025 passed by Hon'ble Member (Judicial) and there is no infirmity in the impugned orders and the instant OA is devoid of merits.
(vi) The five-Judge Constitution Bench judgment in case of R.K. Sabharwal (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in cases of reservation in promotion to SCs and STs that when a percentage of reservation if fixed in respect of a particular cadre and roster points in reserved points to be taken that reserve point is to be filled from members of reserved categories and general category candidates cannot be considered for reserved posts and reserved category on own merit can compete for general category and their numbers cannot be added to working of percentage of reservation. The Government can make any provision for reservation of posts or appointments in favour of any OBCs under Article 16(4) subject to opinion of State that category is not adequately represented in the services under the State. So to reach on such opinion or conclusion after necessary exercise and providing the extent of percentage of posts reserved for the said category then the percentage has to be followed strictly.
(vii) R.K. Sabharwal (supra). Their Lordships further held that once the prescribed percentage of posts are filled the numerical test of adequacy is satisfied and the percentage of representation worked out in State Services of respective categories is fulfilled and same is in accordance with demographic estimate worked out in relation to their population and equality of NARESH NARESH KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA 2025.09.16 AHUJA 11:28:44+05'30' 42 OA No.407/2020 opportunity is assured to reserved as well as unreserved category.
(viii) Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of R.K. Sabharwal (supra) further held that as and when there is a vacancy whether permanent or temporary the same has to be filled from amongst the category to which the post belonged in the roster and this ensures neither shortfall nor excess in percentage of reservation. So far as present case is concerned respondents have issued promotion orders dated 13.01.2023 and 01.11.2023 and applicants have not impugned in this OA i.e. Office Order No.5/2023 dated 13.01.2023 and 13.11.2023 vide Office Order No.1`89/2023 and promotion to the grade of Assistant Commissioner of Customs and Indirect Taxes on purely ad hoc against temporary posts duly sanctioned as a result of cadre restructuring of CBIC in year 213 and additional 2118 posts created and temporary vacancies arisen to be filled on procedure akin to regular post and statutory rules i.e. Indian Revenue Services (Customs & Central Excise) Recruitment Rules, 2012 and extant instructions of DoP&T. Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, in Writ Petition No.1305/2023, Rajneesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. vs. Union of India. The Division Bench vide order dated 23.01.2024 has permitted to issue on ad hoc arrangements promotional orders subject to outcome of Jarnail Singh batch of cases on issue of reservation in promotion matters.
(ix) In Jarnail Singh & Ors. vs. Lachhmi Narain Gupta in Civil Appeal No.629/2022. Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that it will be open to the authorities to undertake the exercise in terms of this Court passed in Civil Appeal No.629/2022 titled NARESH NARESH KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA 2025.09.16 AHUJA 11:28:44+05'30' 43 OA No.407/2020 "Jarnail Singh & Ors. Vs. Lachhmi Narain Gupta & Ors. (Jarnail Singh (2) (2022) 10 SCC 595". The respondents have analyzed inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs employees in the cadre of Assistant Commissioner based on vacancies arising quantified on the basis of post based roster data in the cadre and found inadequate representation of SCs and STs in the cadre and issued promotion orders and applicants not impugned all promotion orders issued during pendency of this OA and the OA is devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed.
(x) Chairman & Managing Director, Indian Airlines Vs. Binod Kumar & Ors. (2001) 8 SCC 722.
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that once relief was not claimed challenging validity of Regulation 13(b) and relief granted by High Court in quashing Regulation 13(b) is set aside. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Mrs. Akella Lalitha Vs. Sri Konda Hanumantha Rao, 2022 Live Law (SC) 638. Their Lordships held that relief not found on pleadings should not be granted. If a Court considers or grants a relief for which no prayer or pleadings was made depriving the respondents of an opportunity to oppose or resist such relief would lead to miscarriage of justice (Para 1518). So far present case, applicants have not challenged OM No.36012/16/2019 dated 12.04.2022 issued to comply directions given by Hon'ble Supreme Court to ensure enabling provision requiring pre-requisite exercise is taken up to determine inadequacy in the cadre. So also applicants not challenged promotion orders dated 13.01.2023 and 0.11.2023 and no relief can be granted in this OA to the applicants. So also the NARESH NARESH KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA 2025.09.16 AHUJA 11:28:44+05'30' 44 OA No.407/2020 consequential seniority list impugned cannot be challenged without challenging promotion orders of affected parties and same is incidence of promotion.
11. Ms. Disha Wadekar, learned counsel with Ms. Varishtha Singh, Advocate for respondents no.10 to 14, criticizing Order dated 03.07.2025 passed by Hon'ble Member (Administrative) and supporting order dated 03.07.2025 passed by Hon'ble Member (Judicial) in this case, vociferously canvassed as under-
(i) Hon'ble Member (Judicial) vide common order dated 03.07.2025 in this case has considered the matter and based on factual aspects has passed said order in terms of majority opinion in case of Valerie Avinash Dhepe & Ors. Vs. Union of India, in OA No.557/2023 (Mumbai) decided by the Division Bench of this Tribunal that if roster has already been maintained with respect to the cadre and demonistrates inadequacy in SC/ST representation, the same is required to be treated as quantifiable data about inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs and roster maintained for each cadre shall demonstrate the inadequate representation of SCs and STs in the cadre. Based on directions issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court for collection of data in respect of inadequacy of representation of SC/ST and considering material produced on inadequacy of representation in the cadre of Assistnat Commissioner for SCs and STs employees, collected by Committee for filling up 2118 temporary posts filed as Annexure R/6 in the OA and this OA has rightly been dismissed by Hon'ble Member (Judicial).
(ii) Hon'ble Member (Administrative) vide common order dated 03.07.2025 has recorded concurrence with NARESH NARESH KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA 2025.09.16 AHUJA 11:28:44+05'30' 45 OA No.407/2020 first 36 paras finishes on page 103 of common order dated 03.07.2025 passed by Hon'ble Member (Judicial) but recorded different conclusions. The respondents have already placed on record Annexure R/6 with reply and demonstrated quantifiable data collected in the cadre and based on data the opinion formed to extent reservation and order dated 03.07.2025 by Hon'ble Member (Administrative) is contrary to record and without application of mind on data collected by respondents and considered by the Committee filed as Annexure R/6 with the reply dated 18.02.2021. The quantifiable data collected and the committee took note of the vacancies for 2014-15 and 2015-16 including carried forward vacancies. There is shortfall of SC/ST representation in the cadre. The zone of consideration is based on seniority list of feeder cadre of Superintendent of Central Excise, Customs (Pre,) and Customs Appraisers for period 1986-92, 1993-1997, 1998-2006, 1.8.1994 and 1.4.1997 to 31.12.2002 respectively and during pre- Nagaraj era and the impugned orders and draft seniority providing consequential seniority is in accordance with law and Hon'ble Member (Judicial) vide order dated 03.07.2025 rightly upheld the ad hoc promotion orders and provisional seniority list dated 23.09.2019.
(iii) Clause 4A of Article 16 of the Constitution of India contains an enabling provision to the State/executives to make reservation in promotion subject to essential exercise to undertake the adequacy of representation and impact on efficiency in the administration. The respondents have collected quantifiable data in the cadre of Assistant NARESH NARESH KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA 2025.09.16 AHUJA 11:28:44+05'30' 46 OA No.407/2020 Commissioner of Customs and Indirect Taxes in CBIT and Customs against existing posts and DPC was held and assessment of DPC provided data in the said cadre on the inadequacy of representation of SCs/STs employees and taken a conscious decision on inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs in the cadre in question. So also after analyzing the quantifiable data in the cadre being relevant and drawn conclusions to implement reservation in promotion following DOP&T OM dated 12.04.2012, satisfying the enabling provision for providing reservation as mandated by dictum of M. Nagaraj (supra) and clarified by Hon'ble Court in case of Jarnail Singh (2)(supra) and OM dated 12.04.2022, it is well settled in law that adequacy of representation has to be assessed with reference to the cadre, a benchmark on adequacy and not to be linked with population of SCs and STs as a measure of adequacy. The respondents have taken care of efficiency in administration and the eligible employee assessed on merit with respect to prescribed benchmark and officers graded fit and based on vigilance status and ACRs/APARs for reckonable five years and also taken into account general service record and efficiency of administration not affected.
(iv) Following the mandate of Constitution Bench in case of M. Nagaraj (supra) and the three-Judge Bench decision in Jarnail Singh (2) (supra) and after carrying out requisite exercises, the respondents decided to implement reservation in promotion in the cadres of Superintendent and Assistant Commissioners with consequential seniority and in view of OM dated 12.04.2022. The consequential seniority does not require application of the creamy NARESH NARESH KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA 2025.09.16 AHUJA 11:28:44+05'30' 47 OA No.407/2020 layer test, it is incidence of promotion. All the promotion orders issued after analysis of data in the cadre as to shortfall in the roster points for SCs and STs.
(v) The seven-Judge Constitution Bench judgment in case of Davinder Singh (supra) was with reference, whether sub-classification of the SCs and STs for reservation is constitutionally permissible or not. Their Lordships in the said judgment observed that correctness of the view taken in Jarnail Singh (supra) is not questioned and law laid down is not attracted. So also law laid down in the present case not at all attracted.
(vi) The opinion of official respondents as regard to inadequacy of representation based on quantifiable data collected in the cadre and promotion orders issued based on benchmark of ACRs and merit taken care for efficiency in administration. There is neither any legal infirmity nor artibtrariness in the impugned orders issued in compliance of mandate in M. Nagaraj (supra) and clarified in case of Jarnail Singh (1) & (2) (supra).
(vii) The Division Bench of this Tribunal in All India Equality Forum Vs. Union of India & Ors. in OA No.332/2019 (Mumbai) vide Order dated 05.06.2024 and the majority opinion in case in similar terms of Valerie Avinash Dhepe & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., OA No.557/2023 (Mumbai) vide Order dated 26.06.2024 passed by Hon'ble Member (Administrative) held that post based roster is prepared in manner for filling up of the posts prescribed by Constitution Bench decision in R.K. Sabharwal (supra). The benchmark as to data NARESH NARESH KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA 2025.09.16 AHUJA 11:28:44+05'30' 48 OA No.407/2020 collection is met as directed by dictum of M.Nagaraj and Jarnail Singh (2) (supra), the data in the cadre is also available with the authorities and adequacy of representation of SCs and STs has been correctly determined. The order dated 26.06.2024 passed by Hon'ble Member (A) in case of Valerie Avinash Dhepe (supra) has been held to be correct view in the Third Member reference decided vide order dated 02.04.2025. In view of law laid down in similar facts and legal issue in present case and to maintain consistency in the interpretation of law, this Bench is bound by orders passed in case of Valerie Avinash Dhepe (supra) and All India Equality Forum (supra) decided by the Division Bench of this Tribunal and in view of law laid down in case of Sub- Inspector Roop Lal and Anr. Vs. Lt. Governor & Ors. (2010) 1 SCC 644. Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Tribunal is bound by the precedent of a coordinate Bench of Tribunal. The legal issue and ratio laid down is binding on this Tribunal decided in similar terms in case of Avinash Dhepe (supra) and All India Equality Forum (supra) hence the present OA deserves to be dismissed in light of order dated 03.07.2025 passed by Hon'ble Member (Judicial) and there is no infirmity in the impugned orders and the instant OA is devoid of merits.
(viii) The five-Judge Constitution Bench judgment in case of R.K. Sabharwal (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in cases of reservation in promotion to SCs and STs that when a percentage of reservation if fixed in respect of a particular cadre and roster points in reserved points to be taken that reserve point is to be filled from members of reserved categories and general category candidates cannot NARESH NARESH KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA 2025.09.16 AHUJA 11:28:44+05'30' 49 OA No.407/2020 be considered for reserved posts and reserved category on own merit can compete for general category and their numbers cannot be added to working of percentage of reservation. The Government can make any provision for reservation of posts or appointments in favour of any OBCs under Article 16(4) subject to opinion of State that category is not adequately represented in the services under the State. So to reach on such opinion or conclusion after necessary exercise and providing the extent of percentage of posts reserved for the said category then the percentage has to be followed strictly.
(ix) R.K. Sabharwal (supra). Their Lordships further held that once the prescribed percentage of posts are filled the numerical test of adequacy is satisfied and the percentage of representation worked out in State Services of respective categories is fulfilled and same is in accordance with demographic estimate worked out in relation to their population and equality of opportunity is assured to reserved as well as unreserved category.
(x) Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of R.K. Sabharwal (supra) further held that as and when there is a vacancy whether permanent or temporary the same has to be filled from amongst the category to which the post belonged in the roster and this ensures neither shortfall nor excess in percentage of reservation. So far as present case is concerned respondents have issued promotion orders dated 13.01.2023 and 01.11.2023 and applicants have not impugned in this OA i.e. Office Order No.5/2023 dated 13.01.2023 and 13.11.2023 vide Office Order No.1`89/2023 and promotion to the grade of NARESH NARESH KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA 2025.09.16 AHUJA 11:28:44+05'30' 50 OA No.407/2020 Assistant Commissioner of Customs and Indirect Taxes on purely ad hoc against temporary posts duly sanctioned as a result of cadre restructuring of CBIC in year 213 and additional 2118 posts created and temporary vacancies arisen to be filled on procedure akin to regular post and statutory rules i.e. Indian Revenue Services (Customs & Central Excise) Recruitment Rules, 2012 and extant instructions of DoP&T. Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, in Writ Petition No.1305/2023, Rajneesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. vs. Union of India. The Division Bench vide order dated 23.01.2024 has permitted to issue on ad hoc arrangements promotional orders subject to outcome of Jarnail Singh batch of cases on issue of reservation in promotion matters.
(xi) In Jarnail Singh & Ors. vs. Lachhmi Narain Gupta in Civil Appeal No.629/2022. Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that it will be open to the authorities to undertake the exercise in terms of this Court passed in Civil Appeal No.629/2022 titled "Jarnail Singh & Ors. Vs. Lachhmi Narain Gupta & Ors. (Jarnail Singh (2) (2022) 10 SCC 595". The respondents have analyzed inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs employees in the cadre of Assistant Commissioner based on vacancies arising quantified on the basis of post based roster data in the cadre and found inadequate representation of SCs and STs in the cadre and issued promotion orders and applicants not impugned all promotion orders issued during pendency of this OA and the OA is devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed.
NARESH NARESH
KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA
2025.09.16
AHUJA 11:28:44+05'30'
51
OA No.407/2020
THE CHALLENGE
12. The applicants, in present OA have challenged the validity of Office order dated 23.02.2017 (Annexure A-1) and dated 11.05.2018 (Annexure A-2) whereby officers have been promoted to the grade of Assistant Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise on adhoc basis against 2118 temporary posts created as a result of restructuring in year 2013 and also impunged combined draft seniority list of Superintendents as on 01.01.2019 (Annexure A-3) under Mumbai cadre, Central.
13. The validity of orders has been challenged on the ground that exercise determining inadequacy of representation on the basis of population of SCs and STs by collection of quantifiable data, backwardness impact on overall efficiency in light of Article 335 and exclusion of creamy layer amongst SCs and STs, had not been preceded before implementation of roster in promotion and the seniority list has been issued without following catch-up rule.
ANALYSIS
14. Notebly, the terms of reference is not carved out in the dissenting Original Order dated 03.07.2025 in OA No.407/2020 by Hon'ble Member (Adminsitrative). Threfore, the issue "Whether impugned orders to the extent of reservation in promotion have been issued in accordance with the dictum in M.Nagaraj (supra) and Indra Sawhney (supra) or not? as crops up for consideration, is dwell upon on the basis of settled legal preposition.
CONSTITUTIONAL JURISPRUDENCE IN RESERVATION A. Indra Sawhney and Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in 1992 Supp (3) Supreme Court Cases 217.
The matter was heard by the nine-judge Constituition Bench and by a 6:3 decision the constitutionality, validity and NARESH NARESH KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA 2025.09.16 AHUJA 11:28:44+05'30' 52 OA No.407/2020 enforceability of the impugned OM dated 13.08.1990, subject to certain conditionalities and pre-requisites, was upheld. The leading judgment by Hon'ble Justice Shri B.P. Jeevan Reddy for Hon'ble Justice Shri M.H. Kania, C.J., Hon'ble Justice Sh. N.N. Venkatachaliah, Hon'ble Justice Shri A.M. Ahmadi, Hon'ble Justice RAtnavel Pandian and Hon'ble Justice Shri P.B. Sawant concurring. Relevant paragraph 859 and 860 reads as under -
"859. We may summarise our answers to the various questions dealt with and answered hereinabove:
(1) (a) It is not necessary that the 'provision' under Article 16(4) should necessarily be made by the Parliament/Legislature.
Such a provision can be made by the Executive also. Local bodies, Statutory Corporations and other instrumentalities of the State falling under Article 12 of the Constitution are themselves competent to make such a provision, if so advised. (Paras 735-737)
(b) An executive order making a provision under Article 16(4) is enforceable the moment it is made and issued. (Paras 738-740) (2) (a) Clause (4) of Article 16 is not an exception to clause (1). It is an instance and an illustration of the classification inherent in clause (1). (Paras 741-742)
(b) Article 16(4) is exhaustive of the subject of reservation in favour of backward class of citizens, as explained in this judgment. (Para
743)
(c) Reservations can also be provided under clause (1) of Article 16. It is not confined to extending of preferences, concessions or exemptions alone. These reservations, if any, made under clause (1) have to be so adjusted and implemented as not to exceed the level of representation prescribed for 'backward class of citizens' -- as explained in this Judgment. (Para 745) (3) (a) A caste can be and quite often is a social class in India. If it is backward socially, it would be a backward class for the purposes of Article 16(4). Among non-Hindus, there are several occupational groups, sects and denominations, which for historical reasons, are socially backward. They too represent backward social collectivities for the purposes of Article 16(4). (Paras 746 to 779)
(b) Neither the Constitution nor the law prescribes the procedure or method of identification of backward classes. Nor is it possible or advisable for the court to lay down any such procedure or method. It must be left to the authority appointed to identify. It can adopt such method/procedure as it thinks convenient and so long as its survey covers the entire populace, no objection can be taken to it. Identification of the backward classes can certainly be done with reference to castes among, and along with, other occupational groups, classes and sections of people. One can start the process either with occupational groups or with castes or with some other groups. Thus one can start the process with the castes, wherever they are found, apply the criteria (evolved for determining backwardness) and find out whether it satisfies the criteria. If it does -- what emerges is a "backward class of citizens" within the meaning of and for the purposes of Article 16(4). Similar process can be adopted in the case of other occupational groups, communities and classes, so as to cover the entire populace. The central idea and overall objective should be to consider all NARESH NARESH KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA 2025.09.16 AHUJA 11:28:44+05'30' 53 OA No.407/2020 available groups, sections and classes in society. Since caste represents an existing, identifiable social group/class encompassing an overwhelming minority of the country's population, one can well begin with it and then go to other groups, sections and classes. (Paras 780 and 785).
(c) It is not correct to say that the backward class of citizens contemplated in Article 16(4) is the same as the socially and educationally backward classes referred to in Article 15(4). It is much wider. The accent in Article 16(4) is on social backwardness. Of course, social, educational and economic backwardness are closely inter-twined in the Indian context. (Paras 786-789)
(d) 'Creamy layer' can be, and must be excluded. (Paras 790-793)
(e) It is not necessary for a class to be designated as a backward class that it is situated similarly to the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes. (Paras 794 and 797)
(f) The adequacy of representation of a particular class in the services under the State is a matter within the subjective satisfaction of the appropriate Government. The judicial scrutiny in that behalf is the same as in other matters within the subjective satisfaction of an authority. (Para 798) (4) (a) A backward class of citizens cannot be identified only and exclusively with reference to economic criteria. (Para 799)
(b) It is, of course, permissible for the Government or other authority to identify a backward class of citizens on the basis of occupation- cum-income, without reference to caste, if it is so advised. (Para
800) (5) There is no constitutional bar to classify the backward classes of citizens into backward and more backward categories. (Paras 801 to 803) (6) (a) and (b) The reservations contemplated in clause (4) of Article 16 should not exceed 50%. While 50% shall be the rule, it is necessary not to put out of consideration certain extraordinary situations inherent in the great diversity of this country and the people. It might happen that in far-flung and remote areas the population inhabiting those areas might, on account of their being out of the mainstream of national life and in view of the conditions peculiar to end characteristic of them need to be treated in a different way, some relaxation in this strict rule may become imperative. In doing so, extreme caution is to be exercised and a special case made out. (Paras 804 to 813)
(c) The rule of 50% should be applied to each year. It cannot be related to the total strength of the class, category, service or cadre, as the case may be. (Para 814)
(d) Devadasan [T. Devadasan v. Union of India, (1964) 4 SCR 680 :
AIR 1964 SC 179 : (1965) 2 LLJ 560] was wrongly decided and is accordingly overruled to the extent it is inconsistent with this judgment. (Paras 815 to 818) (7) Article 16(4) does not permit provision for reservations in the matter of promotion. This rule shall, however, have only prospective operation and shall not affect the promotions already made, whether made on regular basis or on any other basis. We direct that our decision on this question shall operate only prospectively and shall not affect promotions already made, whether on temporary, officiating or regular/permanent basis. It is further directed that wherever reservations are already provided in the matter of promotion -- be it Central Services or State Services, or for that matter services under any Corporation, authority or body falling under the definition of 'State' in Article 12 --
such reservations may continue in operation for a period of NARESH NARESH KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA 2025.09.16 AHUJA 11:28:44+05'30' 54 OA No.407/2020 five years from this day. Within this period, it would be open to the appropriate authorities to revise, modify or re-issue the relevant rules to ensure the achievement of the objective of Article 16(4). If any authority thinks that for ensuring adequate representation of 'backward class of citizens' in any service, class or category, it is necessary to provide for direct recruitment therein, it shall be open to it to do so. (Ahmadi, J expresses no opinion on this question upholding the preliminary objection of Union of India). It would not be impermissible for the State to extend concessions and relaxations to members of reserved categories in the matter of promotion without compromising the efficiency of the administration. (Paras 819 to 831) (8) While the rule of reservation cannot be called anti-meritarian, there are certain services and posts to which it may not be advisable to apply the rule of reservation. (Paras 832 to 841) (9) There is no particular or special standard of judicial scrutiny applicable to matters arising under Article 16(4). (Para 842) (10) The distinction made in the impugned Office Memorandum dated September 25, 1991 between 'poorer sections' and others among the backward classes is not invalid, if the classification is understood and operated as based upon relative backwardness among the several classes identified as Other Backward Classes, as explained in paras 843-844 of this Judgment. (Para 843-844) (11) The reservation of 10% of the posts in favour of 'other economically backward sections of the people who are not covered by any of the existing schemes of the reservation' made in the impugned Office Memorandum dated September 25, 1991 is constitutionally invalid and is accordingly struck down. (Para 845) (13) The Government of India and the State Governments have the power to, and ought to, create a permanent mechanism -- in the nature of a Commission -- for examining requests of inclusion and complaints of over-inclusion or non-inclusion in the list of OBCs and to advise the Government, which advice shall ordinarily be binding upon the Government. Where, however, the Government does not accept the advice, it must record its reasons therefor. (Para 847) (14) In view of the answers given by us herein and the directions issued herewith, it is not necessary to express any opinion on the correctness and adequacy of the exercise done by the Mandal Commission. It is equally unnecessary to send the matters back to the Constitution Bench of five Judges. (Paras 848 to 850).
[Emphasis supplied] B. The five-Judge Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of R.K. Sabharwal and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. (1995) 2 SCC 745. Their Lordships were seisin with the issue related to the reservation in promotion in roster system taking into consideration entire cadre strength to determine limit as per judgement in case of Indra Sawhney (supra). Their Lordships in paragraph 4 and 5 observed and to appreciate the controversy reproduced as under -
NARESH NARESH
KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA
2025.09.16
AHUJA 11:28:44+05'30'
55
OA No.407/2020
"4. When a percentage of reservation is fixed in respect of a particular 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 reserve categories and the candidates belonging to the general category are not entitled to be considered for the reserved posts. On the other hand the reserve category 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 citizens which, in the opinion of the State is not adequately represented 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 adequately represented in the State Services. While doing so the State Government 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 reservation 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 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 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 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 be 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. We, therefore, see no force in the first contention raised by the learned counsel and reject the same.
5. We see considerable force in the second contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The reservations provided under the impugned Government instructions are to be operated in accordance with the roster to be maintained in each Department. The roster is implemented in the form of running account from year to year. The purpose of "running account" is to make sure that the Scheduled Castes/Schedule Tribes and Backward Classes get their percentage of reserved posts. The concept of "running account" in the impugned instructions has to be so interpreted that it does not result in excessive reservation. "16% of the posts ..." are reserved for members of the Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes. In a lot of 100 posts those falling at Serial Numbers 1, 7, 15, 22, 30, 37, 44, 51, 58, 65, 72, 80, 87 and 91 have been reserved and earmarked in the roster for the Scheduled Castes. Roster points 26 and 76 are reserved for the members of Backward Classes. It is thus obvious that when recruitment to a cadre starts then 14 posts earmarked in the roster are to be filled from amongst the members of the Scheduled Castes. To illustrate, first post in a cadre must go to the Scheduled Caste and NARESH NARESH KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA 2025.09.16 AHUJA 11:28:44+05'30' 56 OA No.407/2020 thereafter the said class is entitled to 7th, 15th, 22nd and onwards up to 91st post. When the total number of posts in a cadre are filled by the operation of the roster then the result envisaged by the impugned instructions is achieved. In other words, in a cadre of 100 posts when the posts earmarked in the roster for the Scheduled Castes and the Backward Classes are filled the percentage of reservation provided for the reserved categories is achieved. We see no justification to operate the roster thereafter. The "running account" is to operate only till the quota provided under the impugned instructions is reached and not thereafter. Once the prescribed percentage of posts is filled the numerical test of adequacy is satisfied and thereafter the roster does not survive. The percentage of reservation is the desired representation of the Backward Classes in the State Services and is consistent with the demographic estimate based on the proportion worked out in relation to their population. The numerical quota of posts is not a shifting boundary but represents a figure with due application of mind. Therefore, the only way to assure equality of opportunity to the Backward Classes and the general category is to permit the roster to operate till the time the respective appointees/promotees occupy the posts meant for them in the roster. The operation of the roster and the "running account" must come to an end thereafter. The vacancies arising in the cadre, after the 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. For example the Scheduled Caste persons holding the posts at roster points 1, 7, 15 retire then these slots are to be filled from amongst the persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes. Similarly, if the persons holding the post at points 8 to 14 or 23 to 29 retire then these slots are to be filled from among the general category. By following this procedure there shall neither be shortfall nor excess in the percentage of reservation."
[Emphasis supplied] C. The Government of India introduced the Bill passed as the Constitution (Seventy-Seventh Amendment) Act, 1995 and came into force on the same day i.e. 17.06.1995-
"Amendment of article 16.-In article 16 of the Constitution, after clause (4), the following clause shall be inserted, namely:-
"(4A) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision reservation classes of are posts not in the in matters services of under promotion the State to in any favour class of or the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes which, in the opinion of the State, adequately State".
[Emphasis supplied] D. The Constitution (Eighty-first Amendment) Act, 2000 "Amendment of article 16: In article 16 of the Constitution, for clause (4A), the following clauses shall be inserted, namely: -
NARESH NARESH KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA 2025.09.16 AHUJA 11:28:44+05'30' 57 OA No.407/2020 "(4B) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from considering any unfilled vacancies of a year which are reserved for being filled up in that year in accordance with any provision for reservation made under clause (4) or clause (4A) as a separate class of vacancies to be filled up in any succeeding year or years and such class of vacancies shall not be considered together with the vacancies of the year in which they are being filled up for determining the ceiling of fifty per cent reservation on total number of vacancies of that year".
[Emphasis supplied] E. The Constitution (Eighty-fifth Amendment) Act, 2001.
(i) Amendment in Article 16 reads as under -
(1) It shall be deemed to have come into force on the 17th day of June, 1995.
(2) Amendment of article 16.-In article 16 of the Constitution, in clause (4A), for the words "in matters of promotion to any class", the words "in matters of promotion, with consequential seniority, to any class"
shall be substituted."
[Emphasis supplied] F. The Five-Judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of M.Nagaraj and Others vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2006) 8 SCC 212. Their Lordships considered issue related to implementation of reservation in promotion. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced hereunder:-
"122. We reiterate that the ceiling limit of 50%, the concept of creamy layer and the compelling reasons, namely, backwardness, inadequacy of representation and overall administrative efficiency are all constitutional requirements without which the structure of equality of opportunity in Article 16 would collapse.
123. However, in this case, as stated above, the main issue concerns the "extent of reservation". In this regard the State concerned will have to show in each case the existence of the compelling reasons, namely, backwardness, inadequacy of representation and overall administrative efficiency before making provision for reservation. As stated above, the impugned provision is an enabling provision. The State is not bound to make reservation for SCs/STs in matters of promotions. However, if they wish to exercise their discretion and make such provision, the State has to collect quantifiable data showing backwardness of the class and inadequacy of representation of that class in public employment in addition to compliance with Article 335. It is made clear that even if the State has compelling reasons, as stated above, the State will have to see that its reservation provision does not lead to excessiveness so as to breach the ceiling limit of 50% or obliterate the creamy layer or extend the reservation indefinitely.
NARESH NARESH
KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA
2025.09.16
AHUJA 11:28:44+05'30'
58
OA No.407/2020
124. Subject to the above, we uphold the constitutional validity of the Constitution (Seventy-seventh Amendment) Act, 1995; the Constitution (Eighty-first Amendment) Act, 2000; the Constitution (Eighty-second Amendment) Acat, 2000 and the Constitution (Eighty-fifth Amendment) Act, 2001."
[Emphasis supplied] What comes out loud and clear from the conclusion in the case of M.Nagaraj (supra) that the Article 16(4A) and 16(4B) of the Constitution of India is an enabling provision and if the State wish to exercise their discretion to make reservation for SCs/STs in matters of promotion, the State has to collect quantifiable data showing backwardness of the class and inadequacy of representation of that class in public employment in addition to compliance with Article 335 and reservation provision does not lead to excessiveness so as to breech the ceiling limit of 50% as was in case of R.K. Sabharwal (supra) which was a case of promotion and the issue in the case was operation of roster system and the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated that the entire cadre strength should be taken into account to determine whether reservation upto the required limit had been reached.
G. The five-Judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Jarnail Singh and Others vs. Lachhmi Narain Gupta and Others [Jarnail Singh (1)] decided on 26.09.2018, reported in (2018) 10 SCC 396. Their Lordships was dealing with reference order by a two-Judge Bench in case of State of Tripura Vs. Jayant Chakraborty (2018) 1 SCC 146 and a second reference order dated 15.11.2017 by a three-Judge Bench in State of Maharasthra Vs. Vijay Ghogre (2018) 17 SCC 261, referred the correctness of the decision in M. Nagaraj Vs. Union of India (supra) to a Constitution Bench. The controversy in these matters revolved around the interpretation of Article 16 (4-A) (4-B), 335, 341, 342 of the Constitution of India. Their Lordships concluded in paragraph 36 as under -
"36. Thus, we conclude that the judgment in Nagaraj does not need to be referred to a seven-Judge Bench. However, the NARESH NARESH KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA 2025.09.16 AHUJA 11:28:44+05'30' 59 OA No.407/2020 conclusion in Nagaraj that the State has to collect quantifiable data showing backwardness of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, being contrary to the nine-Judge Bench in Indra Sawhney (1) is held to be invalid to this extent."
[Emphasis supplied] H. The three-Judge Bench judgment in Jarnail Singh and Others Vs. Lachhmi Narain Gupta and Others [Jarnail Singh (2)], decided on January 28, 2022 reported in (2022) 10 SCC
595. Their Lordships were dealing with matters arising from some High Courts where reservation in promotion provided by Central Government and the State Governments to SCs and STs have been assailed as being violative of law laid down in case of M. Nagaraj (supra). The common issues raised and six points formulated for determination. The relevant paragraph 11 reads as under -
"11. After considering the issue identified by the learned Attorney General and other learned counsel and hearing them, the following six points are formulated for determination:
11.1 (1) What is the yardstick by which, according to M. Nagraj, one would arrive at quantifiable data showing inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs in public employment?
11.2(2) What is the unit with respect to which quantifiable data showing inadequacy of representation is required to be collected?
11.3(3) Whether proportion of the population of SCs and STs to the population of India should be taken to be the test for determining adequacy of representation in promotional posts for the purpose of Article 16(4-A)? 11.4(4) Should there be a time period for reviewing inadequacy of prospectively?
11.5(5) Whether the judgment in M.Nagraj can be said to operate prospectively?
11.6 (6) Whether quantifiable data showing inadequacy of representation can be collected on the basis of sampling methods, as held by this Court in B.K. Pavitra vs. Union of India [B.K. Pavitra]."
(1) Yardstick for arriving at quantifiable data
17. Determination of inadequate representation of SCs and STs in services under a State is left to the discretion of the State, as the determination depends upon myriad factors which this Court cannot envisage. A conscious decision was taken by this Court in M. Nagaraj [M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 1013] and Jarnail Singh [Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta, (2018) 10 SCC 396 : (2019) 1 SCC (L&S) 86] to leave it to the States to fix the criteria for determining inadequacy of representation. The submission of the learned Attorney General for India that this Court has to lay down the yardstick for measuring adequacy of representation did not yield a favourable result as this Court in Jarnail Singh [Jarnail NARESH NARESH KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA 2025.09.16 AHUJA 11:28:44+05'30' 60 OA No.407/2020 Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta, (2018) 10 SCC 396 : (2019) 1 SCC (L&S) 86] found it befitting for the States to have the liberty to evaluate the representation of SCs and STs in public employment. Laying down of criteria for determining the inadequacy of representation would result in curtailing the discretion given to the State Governments. In addition, the prevailing local conditions, which may require to be factored in, might not be uniform. Moreover, in M. Nagaraj [M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 1013] , this Court made it clear that the validity of law made by the State Governments providing reservation in promotions shall be decided on a case-to-case basis for the purpose of establishing whether the inadequacy of representation is supported by quantifiable data. Therefore, we are of the opinion that no yardstick can be laid down by this Court for determining the adequacy of representation of SCs and STs in promotional posts for the purpose of providing reservation.
(2) Unit for collecting quantifiable data
21. In M. Nagaraj [M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212 :
(2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 1013] , this Court observed that the appropriate Government has to apply cadre strength as a unit in the operation of the roster in order to ascertain whether a given class/group is adequately represented in the service. Cadre strength as a unit also ensures that the upper ceiling limit of 50% is not violated.
Following the law laid down in R.K. Sabharwal [R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab, (1995) 2 SCC 745 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 548] , this Court in M. Nagaraj [M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 1013] further held that the roster has to be post-specific and not vacancy based.
22. In M. Nagaraj [M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212 :
(2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 1013] , this Court held that it is open to the State to provide for reservation in promotions subject to limitation that there must exist compelling reasons for backwardness, inadequacy of representation in a class of post(s) keeping in mind the overall administrative efficiency. While referring to the roster, this Court observed that the appropriate Government has to apply the cadre strength as a unit in the operation of the roster in order to ascertain whether a given class/group is adequately represented in the service. Collection of quantifiable data regarding inadequacy of representation as stipulated by M. Nagaraj [M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 1013] is relatable to the cadre concerned, according to Jarnail Singh [Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta, (2018) 10 SCC 396 : (2019) 1 SCC (L&S) 86] .
36. In R.K. Sabharwal [R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab, (1995) 2 SCC 745 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 548] , this Court held that the right to be considered for appointment can only be claimed in respect of a post in a cadre and that the concept of "vacancy" has no relevance in operating the percentage of reservation. It was further held that the cadre strength is always measured by the number of posts comprising the cadre.
38. In the Office Memorandum dated 2-7-1997, the Union of India set out the principles for making and operating post-based rosters, in which it has been expressly stated that cadre is to be construed as the number of posts in a particular grade. It is made clear that rosters have been prepared grade-wise which are reviewed on a yearly basis and that reservation in promotions is implemented on the basis of these rosters, which operate grade-wise. In M. Nagaraj [M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 1013] , this Court approved that the percentage of NARESH NARESH KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA 2025.09.16 AHUJA 11:28:44+05'30' 61 OA No.407/2020 reservation in promotions was to be applied to the entire cadre strength, as held in R.K. Sabharwal [R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab, (1995) 2 SCC 745 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 548] . While doing so, this Court in M. Nagaraj [M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 1013] made it clear that the unit for operation of the roster would be the cadre strength. Before providing for reservation in promotions to a cadre, the State is obligated to collect quantifiable data regarding inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs. Collection of information regarding inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs cannot be with reference to the entire service or "class"/"group" but it should be relatable to the grade/category of posts to which promotion is sought. Cadre, which should be the unit for the purpose of collection of quantifiable data in relation to the promotional post(s), would be meaningless if data pertaining to representation of SCs and STs is with reference to the entire service."
(3) Proportionate representation as test of adequacy
39. In R.K. Sabharwal [R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab, (1995) 2 SCC 745 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 548] , it was observed that State Governments may take the total population of a particular Backward Class and its representation in the State services for the purpose of coming to a conclusion that there is inadequate representation in the State services.
41. This Court in Jarnail Singh [Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta, (2018) 10 SCC 396 : (2019) 1 SCC (L&S) 86] found no fault with M. Nagaraj [M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 1013] regarding the test for determining the adequacy of representation in promotional posts in the State. While emphasising the contrast in the language used between Article 330 and Articles 16(4-A) and 16(4-B) of the Constitution, this Court declined the invitation of the learned Attorney General for India to hold that the proportion of SCs and STs to the population of India should be the test for determining inadequacy of representation in promotional posts. Therefore, we are not persuaded to express any opinion on this aspect. It is for the State to assess the inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs in promotional posts, by taking into account relevant factors.
(4) Time period for review
43. We are not inclined to express any view on discontinuation of reservations in totality, which is completely within the domain of the legislature and the executive. As regards review, we are of the opinion that data collected to determine inadequacy of representation for the purpose of providing reservation in promotions needs to be reviewed periodically. The period for review should be reasonable and is left to the Government to set out. (5) Prospective operation of the judgment in M. Nagaraj [M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 1013]
45. This Court upheld the validity of Article 16(4-A) in M. Nagaraj [M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 1013] on 19-10-2006 and observed that reservation in promotions in public services can be made, subject to collection of quantifiable data by the State showing backwardness of the class and inadequacy of representation of that class in public employment, in addition to compliance with Article 335 of the Constitution. Reservation in promotions provided by various State Governments and the Central Government have been challenged in the High Courts on the ground of non-compliance with the NARESH NARESH KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA 2025.09.16 AHUJA 11:28:44+05'30' 62 OA No.407/2020 requirement of collection of quantifiable data showing backwardness of the class and inadequacy of representation. It is relevant to mention at this stage that collection of quantifiable data regarding backwardness of SCs and STs is no more required in view of the judgment of this Court in Jarnail Singh [Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta, (2018) 10 SCC 396 : (2019) 1 SCC (L&S) 86] . In respect of the data relating to inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs, the High Courts have adjudicated writ petitions which are the subject-matter of special leave petitions pending in this Court.
62. This Court in Golak Nath [Golak Nath v. State of Punjab, (1967) 2 SCR 762 : AIR 1967 SC 1643] and Ashok Kumar Gupta [Ashok Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P., (1997) 5 SCC 201 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1299] , referred to above, has laid down that Article 142 empowers this Court to mould the relief to do complete justice. To conclude this point, the purpose of holding that M. Nagaraj [M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 1013] would have prospective effect is only to avoid chaos and confusion that would ensue from its retrospective operation, as it would have a debilitating effect on a very large number of employees, who may have availed of reservation in promotions without there being strict compliance of the conditions prescribed in M. Nagaraj [M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 1013] . Most of them would have already retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. The judgment of M. Nagaraj [M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 1013] was delivered in 2006, interpreting Article 16(4-A) of the Constitution which came into force in 1995. As making the principles laid down in M. Nagaraj [M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212 :
(2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 1013] effective from the year 1995 would be detrimental to the interests of a number of civil servants and would have an effect of unsettling the seniority of individuals over a long period of time, it is necessary that the judgment of M. Nagaraj [M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 1013] should be declared to have prospective effect."
[Emphasis supplied] Their Lordships in case of Jarnail Singh (2) (supra) directed the Union of India to give particulars about contemporaneous cadre wise data, considered for determination of inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs for providing reservation in promotions and further observed that it will be open to the authorities to undertake the exercise in terms of the judgment titled Jarnail Singh vs. Lachhmi Narain Gupta & Ors. (2022) 10 SCC 595.
NARESH NARESH
KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA
2025.09.16
AHUJA 11:28:44+05'30'
63
OA No.407/2020
I. The Seven-Judge Constitution Bench judgment in case
of State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Davinder Singh & Ors, reported in (2025) 1 SCC 1. Their Lordships was seisin with the reference whether sub-classification of the Scheduled Castes for reservation is constitutionally permissible. The Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services ) Act, 2006 to provide for reservation in services for the members of the SC and BC. Section 4(5) provided 50% of the vacancies of the quota reserved for SCs in direct recruitment shall be offered to Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs, if available, as a first preference from the SCs Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana declared Section 4(5) unconstitutional relying on the judgment of the Constitution Bench in case of E.V.Chinnaiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2005) 1 SCC 394. On 27.08.2020 in State of Punjab vs. Davinder Singh (2020) 8 SCC 1, a Constitution Bench held that the judgment in E.V. Chinnaiah (supra) requires to be revisited by a large Bench of Seven- Judges because it failed to consider the significant aspects bearing the issue. Their Lordships were considering the reference restricted to the issue of whether the judgment of this Court in E.V. Chinnaiah (supra) requires to be reconsidered since the High Court had held that the Punjab Act and Haryana Notifications (by which Scheduled Castes in the State were classified into two categories, A & B for the purposes of reservation in direct recruitment for government jobs within quota reserved for SCs) were unconstitutional solely being contrary to law laid down in case of E.V. Chinnaiah (supra).
ADEQUACY OF REPRESENTATION
15. The reference being decided based on the basis of principles culled out from the dictum of M. Nagaraj (supra) and Indra Sawhney (supra). Essentially applicants challenging exercise which respondents are required to undertake for determining the adequacy of representation and impact on efficiency of administration.
NARESH NARESH
KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA
2025.09.16
AHUJA 11:28:44+05'30'
64
OA No.407/2020
16. Clause (4) of Article 16 contains an enabling provision to empower the State to make reservation in appointment or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which in the opinion of State is not adequately represented in the service under the State. Clause (4-A) has enabling provision and empowers the appropriate Government/executives to provide for reservation in promotion with consequential seniority in posts or classes of posts in service under State in favour of SCs and STs. Clause (4-A) of Article 16 also provides "which in the opinion of the State are not adequately represented in the service under the appropriate Government".
17. Their Lordships in Indra Sawhney (supra) held that the opinion of the appropriate Government/executive on the factors determining the adequacy of representation of SCs and STs in the public services of the State is a matter which forms a part of subjective satisfaction of the State and also emphasized that when an authority is vested with the power to form an opinion, it is not open for the Courts to substitute its own opinion for that of authority, nor can the opinion of the authority be challenged on grounds of propriety or sufficiency.
18. In M. Nagaraj (supra) Their Lordships dealing with the parameters governing the assessment of the adequacy of representation or of the impact on efficiency of administration. Their Lordships in para 45, 49 and 102 held that it is the State who is in the best position to define and measure merit in whatever ways it to be relevant to public employment and reservation in Article 16(4) and Article 16(4-A) is enabling and discretion is to be subjective satisfaction of the existence of backwardness, inadequacy of representation in public employment and the inadequacy has to exist factually. Their Lordships also held in para 49 that the inadequacy has to factually exist and resultantly now judicial review comes in. Their Lordships further emphasized that however, whether reservation in a given case is desirable or not, as a policy is not NARESH NARESH KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA 2025.09.16 AHUJA 11:28:44+05'30' 65 OA No.407/2020 for the courts to decide as long as parameters mentioned in Article 16(4) and 16(4-A) are maintained. The five-Judge Constitution Bench held that Article 16(4-A) is an enabling provision and the State/executive is not bound to make reservation for SCs and STs in promotions, but if it decides to implement reservation in promotion, it must collect quantifiable data on three factors (i) the backwardness of class; (ii) the inadequacy of the representation of that class in public employment; and (iii) the general efficiency of service as mandated by Article 335 would not be affected. The aforesaid principles governing enabling provision is expressly evident from dictum in the constitution Bench decision in M. Nagaraj (supra).
19. Now dealing with the submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties on the material underlying collection of data by the executives in the case in hand on the adequacy of representation and impact on efficiency.
20. Reverting to the case in hand to scrutinize the quantifiable data, if any collected by the Union/Executive in this case to satisfy the requirement of inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs and impact on the efficiency of administration to satisfy this Tribunal that reservation in promotion to SCs and STs in the cadre of Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise now Central Goods Service Tax (CGST) and Central Excise became necessary.
21. Shri Rahul K. Dhumal & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. in OA No.638/2017 vide order dated 05.06.2024 the Division Bench of this Tribunal, decided the identical legal issue on scrutinizing the sanctioned strength, men on roll and vacant points in the roster maintained in accordance with dictum in case of R.K. Sabharwal (supra). This Hon'ble Tribunal in case of Rahul K. Dhumal (supra) already decided the similar matter and upheld the exercise taken by the official respondents as to NARESH NARESH KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA 2025.09.16 AHUJA 11:28:44+05'30' 66 OA No.407/2020 collection, analysis of quantifiable data regarding inadequacy of representation of SCs/STs in the cadre and there was shortfall of their representation even after impugned orders of promotion and while granting reservation in promotion, the benchmark for promotion for reserved category is the same as that of general categlry, hence, there is no fall in the efficiency in the administration.
22. In case of Valerie Avinash Dhepe , OA No.557 of 2023, decided vide order dated 26.06.2024 by Hon'ble Member (Administrative) of Division Bench of this Tribunal and Third Member reference made thereafter vide order dated 02.04.2025, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) has agreed with findings and conclusion of Hon'ble Member (Administrative) that in view of the settled legal position it would suffice if the post based roster is prepared and maintained of filling up of the posts as prescribed by the Constitution Bench decision in case of R.K. Sabharwal (supra), the data benchmark would be met for post based roster as per dictum of M.Nagaraj (supra) clarified in Jarnail Singh (2) (supra) and the data in cadre is always in possession of the appointing authority to apply and to determine inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs in a particular cadre and take decision to provide for adequate representation to them in the cadre and dismissed the O.A.
23. Applicants have challenged order dated 23.02.2017 and 11.05.2018, whereby promotion from the grade of Superintendent of Central Excise, Customs (Preventive) and Customs Appraisers to grade of Assistant Commissioner of Customs and Excise have been made based on decision to extend the reservation in promotion to the grade of Assistant Commissioner of Customs and Excise. On the inadequacy of the representation, which emerges out from the exercise taken by respondents, Union of India/executives in this case can be summarized as under -
NARESH NARESH
KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA
2025.09.16
AHUJA 11:28:44+05'30'
67
OA No.407/2020
23.1 As evident from the material placed on record as
Annexure R-6, by the respondents in reply to show, the exercise undertaken prior to issuance of impugned orders of promotion dated 23.02.2017 and 11.05.2018. The committee met on 14.02.2017, 15.02.2017 and 20.02.2017 and took note of the 467 temporary posts for vacancy for year 2014-2015 and 682 temporary posts for vacancy year 2015-2016 of Assistant Commissioner (including carry forward vacancies) and also perused the collected quantifiable data in the cadre of Assistant Commissioner. The quantifiable data collected for vacancies year 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 for promotion+temporary posts of Assistant Commissioner reproduced for ready reference as -
"Vacancy year 2014-15:-
S.No. Detail Vacancy 1 Carried forward vacancies of 2013-14 170 2 Vacancies equivalent to DR requisition to 230 UPSC 3 Vacancies against Retirement/ 67 VRS/Demise (In AC Temporary) 4 Total (1+2+3) 467 5 Add: Carried forward vacancies of SC/ST 56 of Vacancy Year 2013-14 (All beong to Central Excise as per DPC Minutes i.e. SC-51, ST-05) 6 Grand Tota (4+5) 523 "Vacancy year 2015-16:- S.No. Detail Vacancy 1 Carried forward vacancies of 2014-15 137 2 Vacancies equivalent to DR requisition to UPSC 200 3 Vacancies against Retirement/ VRS/Demise (In 291 AC Temporary) 4 Total (1+2+3) 628 5 Add: Carried forward vacancies of SC/ST of 56
Vacancy Year 2013-14 (All beong to Central Excise as per DPC Minutes i.e. SC-51, ST-05) 6 Add: Carried forward vacancies SC/ST of vacncy year 2014-2015 Central Excise: SC-29, ST-14 Customs Preventive: SC-7, ST(-1) Customs Appraisers: SC-3, ST-2 Total (SC-39, ST-15) 7 Grand Tota (4+5+6) 738 [Emphasis supplied] NARESH NARESH KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA 2025.09.16 AHUJA 11:28:44+05'30' 68 OA No.407/2020 23.2 On analysis of the said series of quantifiable data collected relates to carry-forward vacancies for year 2013-2014, vacancies to direct recruitement and also against retirement. So also as far as representation of SCs and STs in the cadre of Asstt. Commissioner, analysed the collected quantifiable data as to carried forward vacancies of SC/ST of vacancy year 2013- 2014 total carried forward vacancies for SC-51 and ST-05 for the year 2013-2014 and quantified in the cadre as 56.
23.3 So far as exercise related to collecting data for vacancy- year 2015-2016 in the table already extracted hereinabove. The clear analysis of quantifiable data shown + related to the SCs/STs, there are carried forward vacancies of SCs/STs of year 2014-2015 also apart from the year 2013-2014. The carried forward vacancies for SCs/STs of vacancy year 2014- 2015 collected as quantifiable data as under -
Central Excise: SC-29, ST-14 Customs Preventive: SC-7, ST (-1) Customs Appraisers : SC-3, ST-2 And total for SC 39 and ST 15 23.4 Undisputedly, there is no excess representation for SC and ST as provided in roster for SC-15% quota and ST 7.5% quota in the cadre of Assistant Commissioner. These temporary posts of Assistant Commissisoner to be filled up in accordance with extent Recruitment Rules- IRS (Customs and Central Excise) Group 'A' Recruitment Rules, 2016 as well as Rules 2012 by promotion in Grade VI (Junior Time Scale) in the ratio of 13:2:1 from three feeder cadres of Group 'B' officers - viz- Superintendent of Central Excise, Superintendent of Custsoms (Preventive) and Customs Appraisers.
23.5 In case of M. Nagaraj (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court also considered and referred to law laid down in case of R. K. Sabharwal (supra) in post based roster. Their Lordships NARESH NARESH KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA 2025.09.16 AHUJA 11:28:44+05'30' 69 OA No.407/2020 observed in para 7 that as and when there is vacancy, whether permanent or temporary in a particular post the same has to be filled from the category to which the post belonged in the roster and this procedure ensured there shall neither be shortfall nor excess in the percentage of reservation. Accordingly, based on the post based roster in the cadre of Asstt. Commissioner for promotion, the category-wise quantifiable data for SC-51 vacancies of year 2013-2014 and for ST-05. Based on the roster maintained and vacancy position for year 2014-2015 and year 2015-2016. The quantifiable data for each cadre, quantified after detail exercise, reproduced as under -
"Vacancy year 2014-15
S.No. Feeder Cadre General SC ST Total
1 Superintendent 294 57+51* 29+05* 380+56*
of Central
Excise
2 Superintendent 45 9 4 58
of Customs
(Preventive)
3 Appraisers of 23 4 2 29
Customs
Total 362 70 + 35+5* 467+56*
51*
*The Back-log Reserved Quota vacancies of Vacancy year 2013-24.
[Emphasis supplied]
Vacancy year 2015-16
S. Feeder Cadre General SC ST Total
No.
1 Superintendent 396 77+51*+29* 38+05*+14* 511+56*+43*
of Central
Excise
2 Superintendent 61 12+7* 6 + (-1)* 79 + 06*
of Customs
(Preventive)
3 Appraisers of 29 6+3* 3 + 2* 38 + 05*
Customs
Total 486 95+51*+39* 47+5*+15* 628+56*+54*
*The Back-log Reserved Quota vacancies of Vacancy year 2013-24. The Back-log Reserved Quota vacancies of Vacancy year 2013-24.
[Emphasis supplied] 23.6 The Committee has analyzed the quantifiable data to fill up 2118 temporary posts created for Assistant Commissioner as a result of cadre restructuring of year 2013, w.e.f. 15.10.2014 to fill up the posts to meet the revenue target.
23.7 As evident from the vacancies available to be filled up based on post based roster, there is short fall of 70 posts for NARESH NARESH KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA 2025.09.16 AHUJA 11:28:44+05'30' 70 OA No.407/2020 SC for vacancy year 2014-2015 and 51 for SC and 5 posts for ST carried forward for year 2013-14, and for the year 2015- 2016 posts carried forward as backlog-reserved quota vacancies of vacancy year 2013-2014 SC-39 and ST-15.
23.8 The official respondents have analysed the series of data as evident from the documents Annexure CPR-7 page 739 to 784 of CP No.14 of 2013, related to this case. Respondents have analysed data across each feeder cadres Central Excise, Customs Preventive, Customs Appraisers in the cadre of Asstt. Commissioner. The promotion roster for 2118 temporary posts of grade of Asstt. Commissioner, prepared and analysed by the respondents to arrive at determining inadequacy of representation in each cadre of employees of SCs and STs, for ready reference reproduced as under -
PR Roster (2118 AC Temporary posts) for the vacancy year 2020 Total UR SC ST CX CP CA CX CP CA CX CP CA a No. of post 2118 1334 205 102 258 40 20 129 20 10 and share of entitlement b Working 1390* 800 147 58 216 34 19 84 20 12 Strength c Vacant 728 534 58 44 42 6 1 45 0 -2 posts
(i) The officers under CX, CP and CA under UR category includes 180 SC and 119 ST category officers promoted on own merit.
(ii) It is also certified that the roster has been prepared in view of the guidelines contained in DoP&T OMs issued in No.36012/2/296 Sl.No.30(9) dated 02.07.1997 and No.36.012/2/16/2019-Estt.(Res.) dated 12.04.2022."
PR Roster (2118 AC Temporary posts) for the vacancy year 2021 Total UR SC ST CX CP CA CX CP CA CX CP CA a No. of post 2118 1334 205 102 258 40 20 129 20 10 and share of entitlement b Working 891* 520 103 34 138 13 13 61 6 3 Strength c Vacant 1227 814 102 68 120 27 7 68 14 7 posts
(i) The officers under CX, CP and CA under UR category includes 164 SC and 111 ST category officers promoted on own merit.
(ii) It is also certified that the roster has been prepared in view of the guidelines contained in DoP&T OMs issued in No.36012/2/296 Sl.No.30(9) dated 02.07.1997 and No.36.012/2/16/2019-Estt.(Res.) dated 12.04.2022."
[Emphasis supplied]
NARESH NARESH
KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA
2025.09.16
AHUJA 11:28:44+05'30'
71
OA No.407/2020
23.9 What comes out loud and clear that as per promotion
roster prepared for filling up 2118 temporary posts created and the roster prepared based on post based roster and vacancies calculated based on vacant roster points for reserved categorires for SCs and STs, the same has to be filled by reserved category employees from feeder cadres of CX, CP and CA and in each cadre there is shortage of representation of SCs and STs employees is matter of record, as evident from the quantifiable data. So far as promotion orders dated 23.02.2016, 11.05.2018, 13.01.2023 and 03.11.2023 from feeder cadres of CX, CP and CA and exercise undertaken shows that there is shortfall of representation of SCs and STs and analysis of data submitted by the respondents prior to determination of inadequacy of represenetation to SCs and STs, the quantifiable data so far promotion to grade of Asstt. Commissioner, there was shortfall of their representation and after conducting requisite exercise relatable to cadre concerned roster prepared and there is no infirmtity in the exercise of power to extend reservation in promotion.
23.10 The aforesaid promotion roster as extracted hereinabove has been prepared based on law laid down by a Constitution Bench in case of R.K. Sabharwal (supra) reservation in promotion be also on the basis of post based roster instead of vacancy based and it is well settled legal preposition that the collection of quantifiable data to be collected for analysis for taking decision to determine inadequacy of representation in the cadre specific for the post in question and overall representation not exceeding the ceiling limit, shows the inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs. The data as collected and extracted based on detail exercise and analysis is clear indication as to the inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs in grade of Assistant Commissioner of Customs and Indirect Taxes (Group-A) in the CBIT and Customs and in the CBIT and Customs against NARESH NARESH KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA 2025.09.16 AHUJA 11:28:44+05'30' 72 OA No.407/2020 temporary basis. During pendency of this OA, the Office Orders dated 13.01.2023 and 01.11.2023 also have been issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India to promote officers in Annexure-I, II and III to the grade of Assistant Commissioner of Customs and Indirect Taxes and applicants have chosen not to challenge the same and no relief can be granted on this count also.
24. Having considered in detail the exercise undertaken by the executives/respondents in the case in hand based on material record and analysed the relevant data and hold that the compelling reasons which M. Nagaraj (supra) require appropriate Government/executives to demonstrate have been established and there is inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs in the cadre of Assistant Commissioner and respondents were justified in assessing the inadequacy of representation with reference to a benchmark in the cadre on adequacy. On creation of additional 2118 temporary posts and shortfall in the cadre of Assistant Commisssioner is not disputed.
25. Thus, there is no infirmity in determination of adequacy of representation of SCs and STs on collection of quantifiable data as to the cadre of Assistant Commissioner in accordance with dictum of M.Nagaraj (supra).
EFFICIENCY IN ADMINISTRATION
26. There is another facet in the enabling provision under clause (4-A) of Article 16 of Constitution of India and as per dictum in the Constitution Bench decision in case of M. Nagaraj (supra) - if State seeks to make reservation for SCs and STs in promotion - the general efficiency of service as mandated by Article 335 of Constitution of India would not be affected. The NARESH NARESH KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA 2025.09.16 AHUJA 11:28:44+05'30' 73 OA No.407/2020 principle governing approach as respondents to show in present case the existence of compelling reasons inadequacy of representation and overall administrative efficiency before making provision for reservation. The Union or State has to also show by collection of quantifiable data of the class as to inadequacy of representation as already discussed in preceding paragraph in addition to compliance with Article 335 of the Constitution of India.
26.1 The justification for the efficiency in the administration of government is to use a merit based approach and fulfilling benchmark criteria is centered around Article 335 of Constitution of India, reads as "335. Claims of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to services and posts The claims of the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes shall be taken into consideration, consistently with the maintenance of efficiency of administration, in the making of appointments to services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State:
[In Article 335 of the Constitution, the following proviso shall be inserted at the end] Provided that nothing in this article shall prevent in making of any provision in favour of the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes for relaxation in qualifying marks in any examination or lowering the standards of evaluation, for reservation in matters of promotion to any class or classes of services or posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State."
[Emphasis supplied] 26.2 In the case at hand as evident from the record that the DPC has considered the relevant OMs and assessed the suitability of officers for extending reservation in promotion based on service records and ACRs for five years and made own assessment based on benchmark 'Good' for Assistant Commissioner and prescribed benchmark and accordingly NARESH NARESH KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA 2025.09.16 AHUJA 11:28:44+05'30' 74 OA No.407/2020 assessed for promotion and officers assessed as unfit not been included in the select panel. The material placed for assessing fitness as Annexure R-6 and also as Annexure CPR-4 from page 520 to 705 filed by respondents, and based on prescribed benchmark criteria for all employees being same. There is no relaxation to reserved category employees and efficiency of administration not been adversely impacted.
THE ISSUE OF CREAMY LAYER
27. So far as the issue related to the concept of creamy layer whether applicable to the SCs and STs. The Tribunal is bound by the nine-Judge Bench judgment of the Constitution Bench in case of Indra Sawhney (supra) and followed in case of M. Nagaraj (supra) clarified in Jarnail Singh (2) (supra). Their Lordships clearly held in majority in Indra Sawhney (1) (supra) in paragraph 792 that the test or requirement of social and educational backwardness cannot be applied to SCs and STs when individually fall within the express Backward Classes of Citizens and SCs and STs are a separate class by themselves and creamy layer principle is not applicable in the incident of promotion and protection of consequential seniority also an incidence of service as to incidence of promotion.
27.1 Their Lordships in case of B.K. Pavitra (2) & Others Vs. Union of India, reported in (2019) 16 SCC 129 in paragraph 138 to 148 has also dealt the issue related to concept of creamy layer in reservation in promotion to SCs and STs and NARESH NARESH KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA 2025.09.16 AHUJA 11:28:44+05'30' 75 OA No.407/2020 Hon'ble Court examined in light of the nine-Judge Bench decision of majority in Indra Sawhney (1) and also in case of M. Nagaraj (supra) and in paragraph 148 held as under:-
"148.......This being the true constitutional position, the protection of consequential seniority as an incident of promotion of the creamy layer test. Articles 16(4-A) and 16(4- B) were held to not obliterate any of the constitutional limitations and to fulfill the width test. In the above view of the matter, it is evident that the concept of creamy layer has no application in assessing the validity of the Reservation Act, 2018 which is designed to protect consequential seniority upon promotion of persons belonging to the SCs and STs."
[Emphasis supplied] 27.2 Thus, having considered and of the opinion that principles laid down by Indra Sawhney (supra) on exclusion of creamy layer apply only to OBCs and not been extended to SCs and STs. So also no question arose in M. Nagaraj (supra) on exclusion of creamy layer in respect of SCs and STs. Their Lordships in the constitution Bench decision in case of Jarnail Singh (1) dealt with competence of the Parliament to enact a law in relation to creamy layer and did not lay down preposition on its exclusion.
CONSEQUENTIAL SENIORITY
28. In case of Jarnail Singh (2) (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has given guidelines to implement mandate of Article 16(4), 16(4-A) and 16(4-B) of the Constitution of India. Undisputedly, the post based roster is being maintained in the manner of filling up of the posts in promotion also as prescribed by constitution Bench decision in R.K. Sabharwal (supra). The quantifiable data to be collected based in the cadre as per post the post based roster maintained as laid down in para 121 of the dictum in the case of M.Nagaraj (supra) and clarified in NARESH NARESH KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA 2025.09.16 AHUJA 11:28:44+05'30' 76 OA No.407/2020 para 17-18 of Jarnail Singh (2) (supra). The cadre has been held to be the unit and the quantifiable data in possession with the respondents. The respondents are maintaining post based roster as per mandate of Hon'ble Supreme Court and the applicants have failed to challenge the promotion orders in the cadre of Superintendent. The executives/Union or State has the requisite data and sufficient material to determine inadequacy of representation for SCs and STs to be analysed in the cadre. The Constitution (Eighty-fifth Amendment) Act, 2001 came into effect from 17.06.1995 to grant consequential benefits on promotion to SCs and STs as to consequential seniority on their promotion on the basis of rule of reservation following mandate of M.Nagaraj (supra) and R.K. Sabharwal (supra), the impugned draft seniority list of Superintendent, Mumbai Zone as on 01.01.2019 had been issued and the zone of consideration for promotion to the post of Assistant Commissioner also based on seniority list of feeder cadre of Superintendents as on for period 1986-92 for CX, for period 1993-97 for CX and for period 1998-2006 for CP, for period from 1.8.1994 and for CA for period 1.4.1997 to 31.12.2002 as evident from Annexure R-6 and dictum in M. Nagaraj (supra) is applicable prospectively. The amendment to Article 16 (4-A) is to provide consequential seniority in case of promotion by virtue of rule of reservation. The words "in the matters of promotion, with consequential seniority to any class" were substituted in clause (4-A) of Article 16 for words "in matters of the promotion to any class". The Article 16(4-A) vested the consequential seniority on promotion to reserved category candidates fulfilling data requirement to determine adequacy in the cadre specific based on the post based roster and dictum of M.Nagaraj (supra). So also OM dated 21.01.2002, seniority of SC/ST on promotion by virtue of reservation and clarified by Jarnail Singh (2) (supra). Their Lordships in case of B.K. Pavitra (2) (supra) has held that reservation adopts the principle that consequential NARESH NARESH KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA 2025.09.16 AHUJA 11:28:44+05'30' 77 OA No.407/2020 seniority is not an additional benefit but an incidence and consequence of the promotion which is granted to SCs and STs.
CONCLUSION
29. For all the reasons stated supra and having considered quantifiable data to determine adequacy of representation in the cadre and benchmark for suitability is same for all, hence the issue is decided in favour of the respondents and against the applicants. I concur with the conclusion arrived at by Hon'ble Member (Judicial) that the applicants are not entitled for the relief sought in OA No.407/2020.
30. Consequently, OA No.407/2020 liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No costs.
31. Reference is accordingly answered.
(Ajay Pratap Singh)
Member (J)
na/
NARESH NARESH
KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA
2025.09.16
AHUJA 11:28:44+05'30'