Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Bharati M Bakhtiani vs M/O Finance on 3 July, 2025
1 OA No.407/2020
Central Administrative Tribunal
Mumbai Bench, Mumbai
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.407/2020
Date this Thursday the 03rd day of July, 2025.
Order reserved on: 10.03.2025
Order pronounced on:03.07.2025
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. UMESH GAJANKUSH, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
HON'BLE MR. SANTOSH MEHRA, MEMBER (ADMINISTRATIVE)
1. Bharati M. Bakhtiani, Aged 52 years, wife of Shri Mahesh
M Bakhtiani., 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]
Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi
Deepti Ganesh DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone=
270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S=
Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4,
CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi
Reason: I am the author of this document
Munarshi Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
Cell:9820309890.
2 OA No.407/2020
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.
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,
Dombivili East, 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 1206 Buttercup,
Hiranandani Meadows, Glady Alwares Road, Thane West:
Email:[email protected]. Cell:7506818750.
8. Bhatt Sunil Kumar Pramodrai, Aged 52 years, son of
Shri Bhatt Pramod Amratlal, working as Superintendent of
Central Tax, presently posted at CPC, Chief
Deepti Ganesh
Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone=
270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S=
Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4,
CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi
Reason: I am the author of this document
Commissioner Office, Mumbai Zone, Mumbai
Munarshi
and residing at 1401 Krishna Heights
Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
Plot No.31A, Sector 36, Kamothe, Navi Mumbai - 410 209.
Email:[email protected], Cell:9987332006.
3 OA No.407/2020
9. Paresh Anand Pednekar, Aged 52 years, son of Shri Anand
Pednekar, Working as Superintendent of Central Tax,
Presently posted at CGST Audit-II Commissionerate,
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 Shridhar Mandlekar, working as Superintendent of
Central Tax, presently posted at GST Raigad
Commissionerate, Mumbai and Residing At 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.
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],
Deepti Ganesh
Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone=
270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S=
Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4,
CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi
Reason: I am the author of this document
Cell:9820798835.
Munarshi Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
4 OA No.407/2020
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,
Deepti Ganesh
Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone=
270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S=
Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4,
CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi
Reason: I am the author of this document
Nerul-East Navi Mumbai 400706.
Munarshi
Cell 9930291572, Email: [email protected].
Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
5 OA No.407/2020
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.
Email: [email protected]. Cell: 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]. Cell: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 at 1002, 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.
Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi
Deepti Ganesh DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone=
270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S=
Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4,
CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi
Reason: I am the author of this document
Munarshi
24. Rajesh Ramekar, Aged 50 years, son of Shri Madhusudan
Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
Ramekar, working as Superintendent of Central Tax,
presently posted at Audit Thane Commissionerate,
6 OA No.407/2020
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 Girikunj CO-OP Hsg
Society Sector 8B, CBD Belapur Navi Mumbai-400614.
Email: [email protected], Cell: 7021679509.
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
Deepti Ganesh
Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone=
270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S=
Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4,
CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi
Reason: I am the author of this document
Residing at B/4, Neusey Cottage, Sri Krishna Nagar,
Munarshi
Borivali East, Mumbai-400066.
Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
Email:[email protected], Cell:9833874040.
7 OA No.407/2020
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 56 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/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, Mumbai
Commissionerate, Mumbai and residing at Flat No. 103, C.
Ex. Bldg. no. 26, B. T. Marg, Opp. Meera Tower, Oshiwara,
Andheri-West, Mumbai-400053.
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
Deepti Ganesh
Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone=
270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S=
Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4,
CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi
Reason: I am the author of this document
Borivili West, Mumbai 400103.
Munarshi
Email:[email protected], Cell:9867724886.
Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
8 OA No.407/2020
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
Deepti Ganesh
Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone=
270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S=
Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4,
CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi
Reason: I am the author of this document
Mumbai-400068. Email: [email protected],
Munarshi
Cell:9967591230.
Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
9 OA No.407/2020
40. Sujatha Surendran, Aged 52 years, daughter of
Shri V.Ramakrishnan, working as Superintendent of Central
Tax, presently posted at GST Mumbai West
Commissionerate, Mumbai and residing at 701, Acme Elite,
Poonam Nagar, Andheri East Mumbai 400093.
Email:[email protected], Cell: 9833446203.
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, Patliputra Nagar, 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, Oshiwara Mhada, New Link Road,
Andheri (W), Mumbai-400 053.
Email: [email protected], Cell: 9821305075.
44. Susan Fernandes, Aged 51 years, 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.
Deepti Ganesh
Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone=
270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S=
Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4,
CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi
Reason: I am the author of this document
Email: [email protected], Cell: 9869431894.
Munarshi Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
45. Meritta Suni, Aged 51 years, daughter of Shri Thomas
Mathew, working as Superintendent of Central Tax,
10 OA No.407/2020
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 at A-12, High Rise CHS,
L.M. Road, Opp. Mary Immaculate 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.
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.
Deepti Ganesh
Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone=
270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S=
Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4,
CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi
Reason: I am the author of this document
50. Anil Ramlal Purba, Aged 54 years, son of Shri Ramlal Purba
Munarshi
Working as Superintendent of Central Tax, presently posted
Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
at Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Adjudication,
Mumbai and Residing at C-5/9/2:1, Neelkanth Apartments
11 OA No.407/2020
Sector-4 CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai - 400 614,
Email:[email protected], Cell:9867724933 AND
9969181187
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. Telecom Factory,
Deonar, Mumbal-400088.
Email: [email protected], Cell:9820098356.
52. Konar Murugan S, Aged 52 years,
son of Shri Konar Masanam 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.
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
Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi
Road No.2, Thane (West)-400610.
Deepti Ganesh DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone=
270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S=
Email: [email protected], Cell:9892210399.
Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4,
CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi
Reason: I am the author of this document
Munarshi Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
12 OA No.407/2020
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 Shri Laxminarayana 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, Antop Hill,Mumbai-400037.
Cell: 9892741164, email:[email protected].
58. Vivek S Gurjar, Aged 50 years, son of Shri Sadanand Gurjar,
working as Superintendent of Central 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
Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi
Pillai, working as Superintendent of Central Tax, presently
Deepti Ganesh DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone=
posted at CGST Mumbai South Commissionerate. Residing
270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S=
Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4,
CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi
Reason: I am the author of this document
Munarshi Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
at 103, Karunamyee CHS, Babrekar Nagar, Kandivli-W,
Mumbai-400 067. Cell: 9819061565,
13 OA No.407/2020
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.
Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi
64. Arun Shankar Bhave, Aged 53 years, Son of Shri Shankar
Deepti Ganesh DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone=
Bhave, Working as Superintendent of Central Tax, presently
270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S=
Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4,
CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi
Reason: I am the author of this document
Munarshi Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
posted at Risk Management Centre, Mumbai and Residing
at 27/604, Mahada New Link Road, Oshiwara, Andheri (W)
14 OA No.407/2020
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.
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, Runwal Pearl,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], Cell: 9867799288
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
Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi
No.5, Yamuna CHS, Third Floor, Govind Bachchhaji Road,
Deepti Ganesh DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone=
Charai, Thane (W) 400601.
270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S=
Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4,
CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi
Reason: I am the author of this document
Munarshi Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
Email: [email protected], Cell:9167628138.
15 OA No.407/2020
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].
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 Puthen Veetil
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
Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi
of Central Tax, presently posted at GST Mumbai West
Deepti Ganesh DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone=
Commissionerate, Mumbai and Residing at 102/27, Central
270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S=
Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4,
CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi
Reason: I am the author of this document
Munarshi Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
Excise Quarters, New Link Road, Oshiwara Andheri West,
16 OA No.407/2020
Mumbai-400 053. Email: [email protected],
Cell:9323197859.
75. Srinivasan N. Iyengar, Aged 52 years, son of
Shri.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, Ratnasagar Plot 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.
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.
Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi
Deepti Ganesh DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone=
79. Jayant G. Shende, Aged 54 years, son of Shri Girish
270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S=
Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4,
CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi
Reason: I am the author of this document
Munarshi Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
Mahadev Shende, working as Superintendent of Central
Tax, presently posted at GST Belapur Commissionerate
17 OA No.407/2020
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.
Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi
Email:[email protected], Cell:9769605861.
Deepti Ganesh DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone=
270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S=
Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4,
CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi
Reason: I am the author of this document
Munarshi Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
84. Reena George, Aged 51 years, wife of Shri P. George
Mathew, working as Superintendent of Central Tax,
18 OA No.407/2020
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,
Cell: 9869163582.
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],
Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi
Cell: 9867409560.
Deepti Ganesh DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone=
270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S=
Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4,
CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi
Reason: I am the author of this document
Munarshi Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
89. Rajesh Mohanty, Aged 52 years, son of Shri Suresh Chandra
Mohanty, working as Superintendent of Central Tax,
19 OA No.407/2020
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.
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],
Cell: 9819603076.
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
Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi
Commissionerate, Mumbai and Residing at B-60, Jalada RBI
Deepti Ganesh DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone=
Officers Quarters, P.Balu Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-
270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S=
Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4,
CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi
Reason: I am the author of this document
Munarshi Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
400025. Email: [email protected],
Cell:9892041816.
20 OA No.407/2020
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, Email id: [email protected],
Cell: 9833651606.
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.
97. Sharmila Narendra Sawant, Age 53 years wife of
Shri Narendra Vasudeo Sawant, 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 East 421501. Email:[email protected],
Cell:8169354713.
Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi
Deepti Ganesh DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone=
98. Chetan Manohar More, Aged 51 years, son of Shri Manohar
270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S=
Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4,
CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi
Reason: I am the author of this document
Munarshi Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
More, Working as Superintendent of Central Tax, presently
21 OA No.407/2020
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, Nav Chetana-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. Email: [email protected],
Cell: 9892305966.
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.
Email:[email protected], Cell: 9833965688.
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,
Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi
V.P.Road, Mulund West, Mumbai-400080.
Deepti Ganesh DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone=
Email: [email protected], Cell:8600168728.
270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S=
Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4,
CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi
Reason: I am the author of this document
Munarshi Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
22 OA No.407/2020
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.
Email:[email protected], Cell:7021522995.
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 Shantaram Tendolkar, Aged 58 years, son of
Shri Shantaram Tendolkar, working as Superintendent of
Central Tax, presently posted at Audit Thane CGST
Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi
Commissionerate and Residing at 102/B Shree Shailyam
Deepti Ganesh DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone=
Society, Shivai Nagar, Pokhran Road No.1, Thane West-
270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S=
Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4,
CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi
Reason: I am the author of this document
Munarshi Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
400606. Email: [email protected],
Cell: 9821771497.
23 OA No.407/2020
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.
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. Email: [email protected],
Cell: 9987332002.
111. Deepak LalSingh Jyala Aged 52 years, son of Shri Lalsingh
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.
Email: [email protected], Cell: 7045154316.
Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi
112. Bhrama Nand Sinha, Aged 53 years, son of Shri Daya Nand
Deepti Ganesh DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone=
Sinha working as Superintendent of Central Tax, presently
270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S=
Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4,
CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi
Reason: I am the author of this document
Munarshi Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
posted at GST Audit Raigad Commissionerate, Mumbai and
Residing at 405-B Wing, Milloni C.H.S., Plot No.-109, Sector-
24 OA No.407/2020
27, Nerul (East), Navi Mumbai- 400 706 Email:
[email protected]. Cell: 9869780861.
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.
Email: [email protected], Cell: 9821426032.
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:
[email protected], Cell:95949644774.
... Applicants
(By Advocate Mr. R.G.Walia)
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.
3. The Principal Chief Commissioner of Central Excise,
Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi
Deepti Ganesh DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone=
270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S=
Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4,
CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi
Reason: I am the author of this document
Munarshi Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
Mumbai Zone-I, Cadre Controlling Authority,
115, M.K.Road, Central Excise Bldg., Churchgate,
25 OA No.407/2020
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
Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi
Superintendent of Central Tax, Pune Customs
Deepti Ganesh DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone=
Commissionerate, at 41/A, ICE House, Sasoon Road, 'E'
270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S=
Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4,
CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi
Reason: I am the author of this document
Munarshi Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
Wing, 4th floor, Pune-411001.
Email: [email protected]
26 OA No.407/2020
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]
11. Shri Bawiskar Anil D
Superintendent of Central Tax, GST Audit Nasik,
Commissionerate, at Kendriya Rajaswa 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.
Email: [email protected].
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.
Email: [email protected].
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.
Email: [email protected].
... Private Respondents.
(By Advocate: Mr. R.R.Shetty, Senior counsel along with
Shri Sachin Patil for official respondents, Shri P.J. Prasadrao and
Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi
Deepti Ganesh DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone=
270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S=
Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4,
CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi
Reason: I am the author of this document
Munarshi Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
Ms. Disha Wadekar for Private Respondents No.6 to 14 and
Shri Kumar Piyush Pushkar for Intervenors)
27 OA No.407/2020
ORDER
Per: Umesh Gajankush, Member (J)
In the present OA, an issue has been raised in respect of grant of reservation in promotion and consequential seniority by challenging the impugned promotion (ad-hoc) order dated 23rd February, 2017 (Assistant Commissioner), impugned promotion (ad-hoc) order dated 11th May, 2018 (Assistant Commissioner) and impugned Seniority List dated 23rd September, 2019 by the applicants.
2. Brief facts of the case are that applicants were initially appointed on the post of Inspector through the Staff Selection Commission and their initial seniority was fixed as per the marks obtained by them in the said Selection Process.
2.1. It is submitted that they were superseded by the juniors (by the Reserved Candidates) at the relevant time of promotion, from the post of Inspector (Central Excise) to the post of Superintendent. However, the applicants also stood promoted to the reserved candidates' further promotion to the Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Deepti Ganesh DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi post of Superintendent. Thus, their seniority should have been Reason: I am the author of this document Munarshi Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 fixed over and above by following Catch-Up-Rule/Principle 28 OA No.407/2020 while issuing of the impugned Promotion Order dated 23rd February, 2017 of Assistant Commissioner/Superintendent's Cadre. However, the same have been illegally and maliciously ignored while issuing the said impugned order. 2.2 It is stated that the Seniority List in the post of Inspector (Central Excise) (which is one of the feeder posts for promotion to the post of Superintendent) was also issued on 29th June, 2000 and the applicants and many other General candidates are shown senior to many SC/ST employees/candidates. It is stated that the next promotion/ placement from the post of Inspector (Central Excise) is to the post of Superintendent and the same is granted on the basis of Seniority-cum-Fitness. In Government jobs/services, the relevant provision under the Constitution for providing reservation is Article 16(4) and 16(4)(A) and (B). The aforesaid Article 16(4)(A) and (B) are enabling provisions and it does not provide for any constitutional guarantee for providing reservation in the matter of employment and other related Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Deepti Ganesh DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Munarshi aspects i.e. promotion and seniority. There are no fundamental Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 rights to "Accelerated Seniority". The provisions in this respect 29 OA No.407/2020 under the Constitution is very clear in as much as the state has to first reach a definite opinion that Citizen of India, who are stated to be backward are not adequately represented in the services before providing any reservation in the matter of employment etc. 2.3 It is further submitted that the respondents have not conducted any survey to collect quantifiable data to provide reservation in the matter of promotion or consequential seniority. The respondents have also failed to identify the backwardness of the classes of employees so as to show justifiable reasons for granting reservation in the matter of promotion. Thus, the reservation effected and provided in the Central Excise Department (now Goods and Services Tax) by the respondents from the post of Inspector (Central Excise) to the post of Superintendent and also in the post of Assistant Commissioner is illegal and unconstitutional.
2.4 It is stated that reservation cannot be provided by the respondents in the category of Superintendent and Assistant Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Deepti Ganesh DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Munarshi Commissioner of the Central Excise Department and the Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 promotions have to be purely based on seniority or merit as the 30 OA No.407/2020 case may be. Thus, all promotions which are being reviewed and infact "Catch-up-Rule/Principle" should have been applied by the respondents themselves i.e Zonal Level in the post of Superintendent and also on All India Basis by the Board. It is submitted that the SC/ST reservation is continued in an illegal manner and are taking away the legal rights of seniority and promotion of the general candidates (applicants) in the post of Superintendent and Assistant Commissioner. The right of the general candidates to get promoted in accordance with the seniority is seriously jeopardized by the illegal continuation of the unconstitutional reservation by the respondents with Accelerated Seniority. A junior SC/ST employee who has put in much less number of years of service are granted promotion and seniority without legally justifying or applying reservation in the matter of promotion. Due to the aforesaid illegal action of the respondents, the general candidates suffer irreparable loss. The SC/ST employees are being granted benefit of reservation and are infact granted promotion by a backdoor method as Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Deepti Ganesh DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Munarshi reservation is illegally continued in the Central Excise Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 31 OA No.407/2020 Department in the post of Superintendent and Assistant Commissioner (All India).
2.5 It is further stated that the respondents have totally violated the law with regard to Catch-Up-Rule/Principle as laid down in the case of S. Panneer Selvam & Ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors, (2015) 10 SCC 292 by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The applicants submit that it is clear that reservation in the matter of promotion in the post of Superintendent have already cost them monetarily as juniors have already promoted before them due to pure illegal reservation. However, once the applicants were promoted to the post of Superintendent they have/had a right to be placed over their erstwhile juniors and that they are bound to be considered and promoted before them from the post of Superintendent for which no reservation can be applied.
2.6 To support the aforesaid contention, the applicants have placed on record the impugned promotional orders and the Chart prepared by the applicants. According to which, junior persons have superseded their seniors as Assistant Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Deepti Ganesh DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Munarshi Commissioner due to illegal reservation and illegal grant of Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 accelerated seniority to them. All officials, whose names figure 32 OA No.407/2020 as SC/ST employees/candidates and promoted purely due to reservation against illegal reservation towards the SC/ST posts were promoted against SC/ST vacancies in the cadre of Superintendent (Central Excise) also purely due to reservation. Thus, while preparing the impugned Seniority List dated 23rd September, 2019, it was the duty of the respondents to have applied the Catch-up-Rule/Principle and restore the seniority of erstwhile senior employees over and above persons/officials, who were promoted purely due to reservation. 2.7 It is submitted that some of the applicants have made representation raising the issue of a reservation and Catch-up-
Rule/Principle vide representation dated 16th April, 2018 and 28th October, 2020. However, no reply has been received by the applicants till date. The respondents continue to grant reservation in the matter of promotion without first issuing a proper Seniority List in the Central Excise Department in the cadre of Superintendent Zonal or All India i.e. after applying the Catch-up-Rule/Principle. In fact, All India Seniority List has not Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Deepti Ganesh DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Munarshi been issued since the year 2006 which is absolutely shocking and Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 33 OA No.407/2020 most unfortunate. Therefore, OA may be allowed by granting reliefs prayed for.
3. After notice, the official respondents have filed their reply and contested the OA by stating as under: -
3.1 The Constitution of India allowed concept of providing reservation to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for initial appointment through Direct Recruitment as well as ensured timely promotions in Group 'B', 'C' & 'D'. As per the provisions in the Constitution, the Scheduled Castes were provided 15% reservation and the Scheduled Tribes were provided 7 ½ % in appointments and promotions. The concept of maintaining Roster to determine the vacancies was also introduced.
3.2 In the case of Indra Sawhney & Ors., Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in 1992 SCC (L&S) Supp 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that reservation in promotion for SCs & STs were not permissible under the provisions of the Constitution.
Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 Further, they also held that the number of vacancies would not exceed 50% of the total vacancies. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in 34 OA No.407/2020 the case of Union of India Vs. Virpal Singh Chauhan, (1995) 6 SCC 684, Ajit Singh-II Vs. State of Punjab, (1999) 7 SCC 209 and some other cases held that if an SC/ST candidate was promoted earlier than his senior general candidate, by virtue of the rule of reservation roster, and the senior general candidate was promoted subsequently to the said higher grade, the senior general candidate would regain his seniority over such previously promoted SC/ST candidates.
3.3 In order to address these issues, the Parliament passed four amendments by way of 77th, 81st, 82nd and 85th Amendment to the Constitution wherein the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court were reversed. These amendments were challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the ground that these altered the basic structure of the Constitution. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of M. Nagaraj & Others v/s Union of India & Others, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 61/2002 vide their decision dated 19.10.2006 upheld all these four amendments.
Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 3.4 The DoP&T vide O.M. No. 36036/2/2007-Estt. (Res.) dated 29.03.2007 addressed to the Chief Secretaries of all the 35 OA No.407/2020 States / Union Territories referred to the above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and clarified that DoP&T has been advised that the observations made in M. Nagaraj's (supra) case regarding creamy layer amongst the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are mere obiter dicta, per in curium and do not flow from, and cannot be reconciled with the 9-Judges Bench Judgement of the Supreme Court in the matter of Indra Sawhney (supra). The reference to creamy layer in the concluding paragraph and other portions of the judgement does not relate to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
3.5 It is further stated that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M. Nagaraj & Ors. (supra) was reiterated in Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited Vs. Rajesh Kumar & Others, (2012) 7 SCC 1, S. Paneer Selvam (supra), etc. and the individual States were required to collect quantifiable data showing backwardness of the class and inadequacy in reservation to provide reservation in promotion.
Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 3.6 Consequent to the amendments to the Constitution, the DoP&T vide O.M. No. 36028/17/2001-Estt. (Res.) dated 36 OA No.407/2020 11.07.2002 clarified that SC/ST candidates appointed by promotion on their own merit and owing to reservation or relaxation of qualifications will be adjusted against un-reserved points of the reservation roster and not against reserved points.
Subsequently vide O.M. No. 36028/17/2001-Estt.(Res.) dated 31.01.2005, it was clarified that the OM took effect from 11.07.2002 and that concept of own merit did not apply to the promotions made by non-selection method.
3.7 It is submitted that DoP&T vide O.M. No. 36012/45/2005-Estt. (Res.) dated 10.08.2010 intimated that the Madras Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 900/2005 in the case of S. Kalugasalamoorthy v/s Union of India & Others, set aside the OM dated 31.01.2005 and held that when a person is selected on the basis of his own seniority, the scope of considering and counting him against quota reserved for SCs does not arise. On appeal, the Hon'ble Madras High Court in W.P. No. 15926 of 2007 filed by Union of India v/s S. Kalugasalamoorthy, upheld Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi the decision of the Madras Bench of this Tribunal. Deepti Ganesh DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Munarshi Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 37 OA No.407/2020 3.8 Consequence to the above decision, the DoP&T vide the above said O.M. dated 10.08.2010 withdrew the O.M. dated 31.01.2005 and clarified that SC/ST candidates appointed by promotion on their own merit and seniority and not owing to reservation or relaxation of qualifications will be adjusted against unreserved points of reservation roster, irrespective of the fact whether the promotion is made by selection method or non-selection method and these orders will take effect from 02.07.1997.
3.9 It is further stated that subsequent to the issue of the above said O.M. dated 10.08.2010, the same was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Civil Writ Petition No. 13218 of 2009 in the case of Shri Lachhmi Narain Gupta v/s Jarnail Singh & Ors. The Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana vide their judgement dated 15.07.2011, quashed the DoP&T O. M. dated 10.08.2010.
3.10 Against the said decision of the Hon'ble High Court Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 of Punjab & Haryana, an SLP No. 30621/2011 was filed by Jarnail Singh & Ors against Lachhmi Narain Gupta & Ors., before the 38 OA No.407/2020 Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Union of India also filed SLP No. 6915/2014 in the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide their Interim Order dated 03.02.2015 passed as under:-
"......Let the matter be listed in the second week of March 2015 on a non-miscellaneous day. Status quo existing as on today in respect of the promotional matters that are convened by the impugned judgment shall be maintained till the next date of hearing".
3.11 The DoP&T vide the above O.M. dated 30.09.2016 clarified that till such time that the SLP(s) are decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while considering promotion, the DoP&T O.M. dated 10.08.2010 and Railway Board circular dated 14.09.2010 are not to be relied upon.
3.12 Further, the DoP&T vide O.M. No. 36012/11/2016- Estt.(Res-1)(Pt-II) dated 15.06.2018 issued implementation of Interim Orders /directions in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 30621/2011 arising out of final judgement and order dated 15.07.2011 in CWP No. 13218/2009 passed by the Hon'ble High Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Court of Punjab & Haryana and Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. Deepti Ganesh DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Munarshi Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 31288/2018 arising out of Hon'ble Delhi High Court judgement 39 OA No.407/2020 dated 23.08.2017 and other related court cases. It was informed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 15.11.2017 in SLP(C) No. 28306/2017 has decided to refer to a Constitution Bench to examine whether its earlier decision in M. Nagraj (supra) requires reconsideration or not, inter alia, on the issue as to whether test of backwardness would at all apply in cases of SC and ST.
3.13 It is further stated that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 30621/2011 had passed the following Order on 17.05.2018 :-
"....It is directed that the pendency of the Special Leave Petition shall not stand in the way of Union of India taking steps for the purpose of promotion from 'reserved to reserved' and 'unreserved to unreserved' and also in the matter of promotion on merits ..."
3.14 It is further stated that in the matter related to SLP(C) No. 31288/2017, connected to Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 28306/2017, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under
on 05.06.2018:
Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30' ".....Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned ASG has referred to order dated 17.05.2018 in SLP(C) No. Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 30621/2011. It is made clear that the Union of India is not debarred from making promotions in accordance with 40 OA No.407/2020 law, subject to further orders, pending further consideration of the matter. Tag to SLP(C) No. 30621 of 2011".
3.15 The DoP&T vide the above O.M. dated 15.06.2018 directed the Cadre Controlling Authorities to carry out promotions in accordance with the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court mentioned in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the said O.M. and the promotion orders must clearly mention the stipulation that the promotion shall be subject to further orders which may be passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
3.16 It is submitted that subsequently, vide decision dated 26.09.2018, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) No. 30621/2011 and related cases held as under :-
".......Thus, we conclude that the judgement in Nagaraj (supra) does not need to be referred to seven-Judge Bench.
However, the conclusion in Nagaraj (supra) that the State has to collect quantifiable data showing backwardness of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, being contrary to the nine-Judge Bench in Indra Sawheny (1) (supra) is held to be invalid to this extent".
3.17 It is stated that since the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not passed any subsequent order and in view of the above Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Deepti Ganesh DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Munarshi Location:
directions, the respondents are following the DoP&T O.M. dated Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 41 OA No.407/2020 15.06.2018 while conducting promotions, subject to final decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in these matters. 3.18 It is further stated that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v/s Virpal Singh Chauhan in C.A. No. 9272-73 of 1995 [1995] SCC (6) 684 considered the nature of rule or reservation in promotions in the Railway Service and the rule concerning the determination of seniority between general candidates and belonging to reserved classes in the promoted category.
3.19 It is submitted that consequent to the above decision, the DoP&T issued O.M. No. 20011/1/96-Estt(D) dated 30.01.1997 which provided for the Catch-up Rule as under :-
".....Provided that if a candidate belonging to the Scheduled Caste or the Scheduled Tribe is promoted to an immediate higher post/grade against a reserved vacancy earlier than his senior general/OBC candidate who is promoted later to the said immediate higher post/grade, the general/OBC candidate will regain his seniority over such earlier promoted candidate of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribe in the immediate higher post/grade."
3.20 It is further submitted that subsequently, the Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Deepti Ganesh DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Munarshi Location:
Constitution was amended retrospectively by Constitution Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 42 OA No.407/2020 (eighty-fifth) Amendment Act, 2001 and the catch-up-rule was repealed. The DoP&T issued a circular to this effect vide OM No. 20011/1/2001-Estt.(D) dated 21 January, 2002.
It is stated that in view of above instructions issued by DoP&T vide OM No. 20011/1/2001-Estt.(D) dated 21st January, 2002 stating that their OM dated 30.1.1997 stands withdrawn, the seniority of Government servants shall be determined and revised as if that OM was never issued. Therefore, as of now, Catch-up rule does not exist for determining the Seniority.
3.21 It is further submitted that with regard to Paras 2 & 3 of the OA, it is submitted that no comments are offered as the same pertains to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. However, regarding para 3, it is submitted that the OA is barred by limitation in terms of the provisions of Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, as discussed below:
According to Section 21 in the Administrative Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Deepti Ganesh DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Tribunals Act, 1985:
Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Munarshi Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 43 OA No.407/2020
21. Limitation.-
(1) A Tribunal shall not admit an application, -
(a) in a case where a final order such as is mentioned in clause
(a) of sub-section (2) of section 20 has been made in connection with the grievance unless the application is made, within one year from the date on which such final order has been made;
3.22 It is further stated that the Original Application has been filed to challenge the promotion orders dated 23.02.2017 and 11.05.2018 in the grade of Assistant Commissioner after the expiry of prescribed time limit of one year. The OA merits dismissal on this ground alone. Further, it is submitted that the applicants cannot take recourse to the fact that they had submitted representations which were not considered and decided, as the said representations were not against the promotions orders issued by the Ministry but were with regard to the implementation of CBEC's letter F.No. 10C18/3/2017- Ad.IIB dated 27.10.2017 on the issue of own merit concept and not revision of seniority on the basis of catch-up rule as Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Deepti Ganesh DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi contended by them in the present OA. It is also pertinent to Reason: I am the author of this document Munarshi Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 mention here that the said representations received from 34 44 OA No.407/2020 officers including some of the applicants in the present OA, were considered by the competent authority and vide letter F.No. II/26(CON)-04/2018 dated 04.05.2018, replies were circulated to all the officers working within the cadre control of Mumbai Zone through their controlling officers.
3.23 It is further stated that officers who have been promoted to the grade of Assistant Commissioner vide the impugned order dated 23.02.2017 were promoted to the grade of Superintendent and were appearing in the All-India Seniority List during the period 1998 to 2006, prior to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M. Nagaraj(supra). Since the promotions were effected prior to 2006, the question of review of their promotion to the grade of Superintendent does not arise. Further, their promotions were carried out on the basis of guidelines issued by the DoP&T with regard to reservation.
4. Further Additional-Affidavit dated 26th October, 2021 was filed by the official respondents stating that: Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi
Deepti Ganesh DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S=
4.1 At the very outset, it is submitted that the Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Munarshi Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 respondents are seeking to raise some preliminary issues which 45 OA No.407/2020 go to the root of the question of very maintainability of the Original Application before this Hon'ble Tribunal and therefore the present Additional Affidavit is filed. The respondents further submit that the short issue in question for consideration before this Tribunal on the face of the record appears to be a very simple issue of applying catch-up principle in the seniority list of the Superintendents based on the Judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M. Nagaraj(supra) and Jarnail Singh & Others Vs. Lachhmi Narain Gupta & Ors., (1) reported in (2018) 10 SCC 396. It is the contention of the applicants, who are all direct recruits in the post of Inspector and have been promoted to the post of Superintendent from time to time between 2007 and 2014, that upon their promotion to the post of Superintendent, the catch-up rule should apply and they should upstage the seniority of SC/ST/reserved candidates, who were promoted prior to them despite being junior to the applicants based on reservation in promotion. The respondents are enclosing herewith table which is marked as Annexure R-3 to Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Deepti Ganesh DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Munarshi show that the applicants, who are 114 in number are persons Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 who are recruited as direct recruit Inspectors and 4 out of them 46 OA No.407/2020 were promoted to the post of Superintendent in 2007, 5 in 2008,
5 in 2009, 16 in 2010, 6 in 2011, 10 in 2012, 28 in 2013 and 40 in 2014. The respondents, therefore, submit that the cause of action of these applicants have arisen in various years between 2007 and 2014, whereas seniority list in the rank of Superintendents have been issued from time to time on various dates which are set out in a table hereunder:
Details of Seniority List of Superintendents issued by Mumbai Cadre Control SI. Year of Date of Remarks No. Seniority List issue 1 01.01.2009 05.01.2009 Last officer promoted on 24.12.2008 2 01.01.2010 29.04.2010 Last officer promoted on 01.01.2010 3 01.01.2012 08.02.2012 Last officer promoted on 30.06.2011 4 01.04.2013 07.10.2013 Last officer promoted on 19.04.2012 (updated upto 30.09.2013) 5 01.01.2019 23.09.2019 Last officer promoted on 10.03.2017.* (updated as on 31.08.2019) * Promotions made thereafter are on ad-hoc basis in terms of Modification Order dated 03.04.2017 of Hon'ble Tribunal, Mumbai Bench in OA No.588/2014.
4.2 It is submitted that from a careful perusal of the Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Deepti Ganesh DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi various dates on which the seniority list have been issued, the Reason: I am the author of this document Munarshi Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 cause of action of the applicants to have the catchup principle 47 OA No.407/2020 implemented in consonance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court initially in the case of M. Nagaraj (supra) and thereafter in the case of Jarnail Singh, has therefore arisen between 2008 and 2015 whereas the O.A. is filed by them in 2020 to unsettle the settled seniority positions purportedly on the ground that a Judgment has been rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court on October, 2018 in the case of Jarnail Singh Vs. Lachhmi Narain Gupta (supra) whereas the respondents respectfully submit that the law on this question is not Judge made law but Law enacted by the Parliament and therefore the judgment is not prospective and the limitation, therefore, will apply from the date of completion of one year from the point in time where a seniority list has been issued after the promotion of the applicants to the post of Superintendent. It is also submitted that there is no general direction given in the case of M. Nagaraj (supra) or in the case of Jarnail Singh (supra) to re-visit all the seniority list where promotions have been granted based on reservation by applying the catch-up principle. Each person, Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Deepti Ganesh DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Munarshi who seeks the said relief, has to therefore essentially invoke the Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 jurisdiction on the court of the relevant jurisdiction within the 48 OA No.407/2020 period of limitation prescribed under the law, which in the case of Administrative Tribunals Act happens to be one year from the date of cause of action.
4.3 It is further submitted that the respondents are also seeking to refer to and rely upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K. Meghachandra Singh & Ors. Vs. Ningam Siro & Ors., AIR Online 2019 SC 1515 decided on 19th November, 2019 in which the entire application of relief granted by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Ors.
Vs. N.R. Parmar, (2012)13 SCC 340 was sought to be universally implemented across all states and the Union Government in all Departments and erroneously so cannot be altered at the instance of the present applicants. The respondents respectfully submit that the applicants have to essentially get over the period of limitation about which the Hon'ble Apex Court has been extremely strict especially when the attempt to unsettle the settled seniority position after long lapse of time. The persons Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi who have invoked the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Tribunal in the Deepti Ganesh DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Munarshi Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 present O.A. are those who are hit by the sit back theory and are 49 OA No.407/2020 the indolent persons who have slept over their alleged rights for long periods in time stretching from 13 years to 5 years and that seniority list cannot be upset after such long lapse of time. The present O.A. is, therefore, liable to be dismissed on the grounds of being grossly barred by limitation and suffering from latches and being an attempt to unsettle the settled seniority positions.
5. Also it has been submitted that the latest order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 28.01.2022 in the case of Jarnail Singh & Ors (supra) makes it clear that all promotions granted prior to the rendering of the judgment in the case of M. Nagaraj & Ors (supra) on 19.10.2006, cannot be undone, meaning thereby the benefits which flowed from the said promotions cannot also be touched.
6. It is further stated that the Hon'ble Apex Court vide judgment dated 28.01.2022 in the matter of Jarnail Singh (supra) has held that M. Nagraj judgment will have prospective effect only. Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held that the State/ Centre Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 can implement the reservation policy subject to collection of quantifiable data regarding inadequacy of SC/ST candidates.50 OA No.407/2020
DoPT vide O.M. dated 12.04.2022 has also circulated the crux of the aforementioned Supreme Court judgment, for strict compliance while granting promotions. The OM further stipulates that Jarnail Singh (supra) batch of cases are still pending in Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and thus any promotion order issued shall be subject to outcome of Supreme Court judgment in the said batch of cases. Accordingly, the Department is in the process of collection of quantifiable data regarding inadequacy of SC/ST candidates, by following said DoPT O.M. dated 12.04.2022.
7. The Private respondents no.10 to 14 have also filed separate reply contesting the OA stating that :
7.1 In order to understand the existing law of the land on reservations in promotions by way of consequential seniority, it is pertinent to understand the manner in which the legal journey and the litigative logjam over the last two decades has prevailed:
i. The Parliament enacted the 77th Amendment to the Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Deepti Ganesh DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Constitution of India 1950 ("Col") in 1995, by way of adding Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Munarshi Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 Article 16(4A) which allowed the State to make provision for 51 OA No.407/2020 reservation in matters of promotion. As the reservation in promotion was constitutionally recognized, it led to a situation where reserved category candidates, who were promoted over general class, became their senior due to earlier promotion. To overcome this situation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court evolved the rule of Catch-up in "Union of India Vs. Virpal Singh Chauhan, 1995 (6) SCC 684", which was later on approved by Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab, 1996 (2) SCC 715 (Ajit Singh -I).
ii. Thereafter, a three-Judge Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Jagdish Lal & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors. 1997 (6) SCC 538 held that the promoted reserved category candidates are entitled to seniority, in the promoted posts and not as per the feeder cadre (Consequential Seniority). The DoPT vide OM dated 13th August, 1997 issued instructions for enforcement of the provisions of the Constitution (77th Amendment) Act, 1995 Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi thereby providing for reservation in promotion for the SCs Deepti Ganesh DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Munarshi Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 and STs. Subsequently, a Constitution Bench of this Court 52 OA No.407/2020 in the case of Ajit Singh & Ors. (II) Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. 1996(2) SCC 715 overruled the judgment in the case of Jagdish Lal and upheld the principle, viz., "Catch-Up-Rule", as postulated in the judgment in the case of Virpal Singh Chauhan and Ajit Singh - I. iii. The Parliament enacted the 85th Amendment to the Constitution of India on 04th January, 2002, wherein "consequential seniority" as against "catch-up-rule" was required to be applied for granting reservation in promotions to the reserved category employees. Hence, the 85th Amendment has overruled Ajit Singh & Ors. (II)(supra) and abolished the Catch-up-Rule which was a judicial invention.
iv. Pursuant to the 85th amendment to the Constitution of India, the Department of Personnel and Training ("DoPT") issued Office Memorandum vide No. 20011/1/2001 dated 21st January, 2002, directing all Ministries and also their Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 departments to take necessary action for giving. 53 OA No.407/2020 consequential seniority and benefits to SC/ST Govt. servants.
v. The vires of the 85th Amendment, inter-alia, was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. A Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M. Nagaraj Vs. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 212 ("Nagaraj"), upheld the 77th and 85th Amendment while mandating that it is the duty of the State to prove in each case the existence of compelling reasons for determining "inadequacy of representation", "backwardness" and "overall efficiency"
before making any provision for reservation in promotion.
vi. A Bench of two learned judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court doubted the correctness of Nagaraj(supra) and while consideration to the validity of Nagaraj(supra) was pending, the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 14th November, 2017 in State of Tripura vs. Jayanta Chakraborty, C.A. Nos. 4562-4564 of 2017, was pleased to Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 refer the issue to the Chief Justice of India for reference to a constitution bench. By the Judgement dated 26.09.2018 54 OA No.407/2020 passed by the constitution bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta (2018) 10 SCC 396 it was held that there was no need to prove backwardness as a pre-condition for reservations as held in Nagaraj (supra) and hence to that extent Nagaraj (supra) and subsequent judgments following Nagaraj (supra) in that regard were overruled. Hence, the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the 85th Amendment and the grant of consequential seniority in promotion.
7.2. It is further submitted that the assertion of the applicants that Union of India has not made any specific provision in consonance with Article 16(4A) of Constitution of India is erroneous and misleading. That pursuant to the 85th Amendment, the DoPT issued OM dated 21st January, 2002 under the subject "Seniority of SC, ST Government servants on promotion by virtue of the rule of reservation/roster" whereby it was decided that SC/ST Government servants shall, on their Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi promotion by virtue of rule of reservation/roster, be entitled to Deepti Ganesh DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Munarshi Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 consequential seniority.55 OA No.407/2020
7.3. If is further stated that the DoPT is the nodal department which formulates policies on service matters and issues instructions from time to time to be followed by Departments of the Central Government. The Applicants as well as the Private Respondents are Central government employees and their promotions are governed by the circulars issued by the Department of Personnel and Training from time to time.
7.4. Respondents further stated that the most recent Office Memorandum issued by the Department of Personnel and Training dated 15.06.2018 is in consonance with the series interim orders dated 17.05.2018 and 05.06.2018 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jarnail Singh SLP(supra) and other connected matters. This DOPT OM dated 15.06.2018 gives directions to carry out promotions based on existing seniority/select lists and that every promotion order is subject to further orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
7.5 The Respondents further submit that the Applicants Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 have intentionally and mischievously suppressed and concealed the interim order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jarnail Singh 56 OA No.407/2020 SLP dated 17.05.2018 (supra). The Applicants have misrepresented the position of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Jarnail Singh by conveniently concealing interim orders which are not favourable to them.
7.6 It is further submitted that during the pendency, the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the Union of India to take steps for promotion from "reserved to reserved" and "unreserved to unreserved" qua its order dated 17.05.2018;
"...It is directed that the pendency of this Special Leave Petition shall not stand in the way of Union of India taking steps for the purpose of promotion from 'reserved to reserved' and 'unreserved to unreserved' and also in the matter of promotion on merits.
(emphasis supplied) 7.7 It is further stated that the Hon'ble Supreme Court by an order dated 05.06.2018 was pleased to tag the above Special Leave Petition with SLP (C) No. 30621 / 2011 - Jarnail Singh & Ors. Vs. Lachhmi Narain Gupta & Ors. while issuing the following directions:Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi
"....Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned Deepti Ganesh DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Munarshi Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 ASG has referred to order dated 17.05.2018 in SLP (C) No. 30621/2011. It is made clear that the Union of 57 OA No.407/2020 India is not debarred from making promotions in accordance with law, subject to further orders, pending further consideration of the matter. Tag to SLP (C) No.30621 of 2011." (emphasis supplied) 7.8 It is further submitted that pursuant to the above two interim orders dated 17.05.2018 and 05.06.2018 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jarnail Singh SLP (supra) and connected matters, the Department of Personnel and Training, Establishment (Reservation - I) Section, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Government of India, issued an Office Memorandum dated 15.06.2018 with directions to implement the above two interim orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court :
"...4. The cadre controlling authorities of Central Govt. Ministries, Departments and Union Territories are to carry out promotions in accordance with the directions of the Hon'ble Court mentioned in paragraphs 2 and 3 above based on existing seniority/select lists.
5. Every promotion order must clearly mention the stipulation that the promotion shall be subject to further orders which may be passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court".
7.9 It is submitted that the Applicants have challenged Deepti Ganesh Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, the impugned Promotion (Ad-Hoc) order dt. 23.02.2017 CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Munarshi Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 (Assistant Commissioner) passed by the Respondent and 58 OA No.407/2020 impugned Promotion (Ad-Hoc) order dt. 11.05.2018 (Assistant Commissioner) and the impugned seniority list dt. 23.09.2019 without any foundation and have agitated the dispute without any lawful and substantial reasons and grounds. 7.10 The contentions of the Applicants that the reservation applied in Ad-Hoc promotions is illegal is being denied by the official Respondents. The Respondents submit that the ad-hoc promotions are legal and valid in light of pending litigations and administrative exigency. Para 15 of the DPC meeting minutes held on 14th, 15th and 20th February, 2017 for promotion to the cadre of Asst. Commissioner in CBEC, notes that:
"....A reference was made to Department of Legal Affairs(DoLA) for seeking its advice whether ad hoc promotion to the grade of Assistant Commissioner can be carried out as per existing Seniority List subject to the outcome of pending court cases on the subject and as per DoP&T O.М. по. 28036/8/87- Estt(D) dated 30.03.1988. The para 3(i) of the abovementioned O.M. states that there may be a need to make appointment on ad-hoc basis where there is an injunction by a court/Tribunal directing that the post may not be filled Deepti Ganesh Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, on a regular basis and if the final judgement of the Court/Tribunal is not expected early and the post also CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Munarshi Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 cannot be kept vacant."59 OA No.407/2020
(emphasis supplied) 7.11. It is submitted that the Department is following due process of law by promoting eligible officers to the post of Assistant Commissioner on an Ad-hoc basis. The act of promoting reserved category candidates by the promotion orders dated 23.02.2017 and 11.05.2018 and the existing seniority list dated 23.09.2019 are all in accordance with the interim orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jarnail Singh SLP (supra) before which the issue of construction and validity of existing Rules on reservation in promotion are still pending and awaiting the final decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
7.12 It is further submitted that this Tribunal will appreciate the fact that, the State or say the Central Government, has not laid out any application of "catch-up-rule" principles in the Service Rules governing the incumbents working under its control. Thus, the corollary emanating from the submission supra, is that unless there is a provision of "catch-up rule" in the service Rules governing the Service conditions, the said "catch-
Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh MunarshiDeepti Ganesh DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Munarshi Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30' up rule" principle cannot be brought into operation. Conversely, Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 60 OA No.407/2020 the concept of "consequential seniority" has been laid down in the Service Rules, by the State i.e. the Central Government, through the promulgation of the said concept of "consequential seniority" through the issuance of DOPT OM dated: 21.01.2002 read with DoPT O.M dated: 11.11.2010.
8. In the present case, after starting of the final arguments, MA No.109/2025 has been filed by the Intervenors seeking intervention stating that:
(1) That the captioned matter is pending adjudication before this Hon'ble Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal seeking application of Catch-Up rule at the post of Superintendent.
Further, the applicants have prayed for non-implementation of reservation in promotion or accelerated seniority in the cadre of Superintendent and Assistant Commissioner unless the criteria laid down in M. Nagraj (supra) is followed. In interim, the applicants sought a stay on reservation in the matter of promotion for the purpose of promotion to the post of Assistant Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 Commissioner.61 OA No.407/2020
(2) That the Hon'ble Tribunal vide interim order dated 04.01.2021 had directed the respondents not to grant reservation in promotion to the post of Assistant Commissioner till further Orders. Relevant paragraph of the Order is as follows:
"...In view of the Apex Court judgements in M. Nagraj (supra). Indra Sawhney(supra) & S. Panneerselvam (supra), the balance of convenience also lies in favour of the applicants.
Hence the respondents are directed not to grant reservation in promotions to the post of Asst. Commissioner till further orders".
(3) That thereafter, the respondent granted promotion to various officers who were eligible till 2023 as per Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2018) 16 SCC 299 (automatic vacation of stay after the expiry of a period of six months unless extended by a speaking Order). On 29.02.2024, a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court overruled the Asian Resurfacing (supra) in High Court Bar Association Allahabad v. State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., Criminal Appeal No.3589 of 2023. Since then, Respondent Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Deepti Ganesh DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= has not convened any DPC for the promotion of Superintendent Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Munarshi Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 62 OA No.407/2020 to the post of Assistant Commissioner, and the process of promotion is in limbo.
(4) That it is axiomatic to mention here that there are more than 1400 positions lying vacant at the level of Assistant Commissioner. Still, the officers are denied their due promotion which they earn once/twice in their lifetime by putting their sweat and blood. Respondent has conducted DPC as per the DoPT guidelines for other positions/departments but is handicapped as per their interpretation of the Order dated 04.01.2021. The relevant paragraph of D.O. No. A.32012/35/2023-Ad.IIIA dated 10.10.2024 issued by Mr. Alok Shukla, CBITC, Dept of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Gol is produced herein for ready reference:
"....2. As per DoPT's guidelines, it is imperative that all DPCs up to the vacancy year 2025 be completed by the end of the calendar year 2024, except in cases where DPC could not be held on account of pending litigation".
(5) That applicants/intervenors/affected officers have Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 submitted several representations before the concerned authority requesting to hold the DPC at the earliest as eligible 63 OA No.407/2020 officers are waiting for their promotion for more than one year. However, all such efforts turned futile.
9. Therefore, on the basis of the aforesaid, said Intervenors have prayed for the following reliefs:
"Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to:
a) Allow the application seeking intervention of the applicants in OA No. 407 of 2020; and/or,
b) Order the Respondent to conduct DPC and grant promotion to the eligible officers (Superintendent) to the post of Assistant Commissioner, subject to the outcome of the captioned case; and/or,
c) Order the Respondent to grant ad hoc promotion to the eligible Superintendent to the post of Assistant Commissioner; and/or,
d) Clarify that DPC can be held and Promotion may be granted to the eligible officers (Superintendent) to the post of Assistant Commissioner, as per the guidelines of Hon'ble Apex Court and all such promotions shall be subject to the outcome of the present OA No. 407 of 2020;
and/or,
e) Clarify that the Order dated 04.01.2021 does not Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
dissuade the respondent from granting promotion to the eligible officers (Superintendent) to the post of Assistant Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 Commissioner; and/or, 64 OA No.407/2020
f) Pass any other order/direction which this Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper in favour of the applicants/intervenors and against the respondents in the facts and circumstances of the case."
10. Shri R.G. Walia, learned counsel for the applicants during the course of arguments relied on the judgment in the case of M. Nagraj & Ors (supra) and while referring to paragraph number 112 contended that the Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically observed that "nothing in this article" in Article 16(4) represents a legal device allowing positive discrimination in favour of a class. Therefore, Article 16(4) relates to "a class apart". Article 16(4), therefore, creates a field which enables a State to provide for reservation provided there exists backwardness of a class and inadequacy of representation in employment. These are compelling reasons. They do not exist in Article 16(1). It is only when these reasons are satisfied that a State gets the power to provide for reservation in matters of employment. Therefore, Article 16(1) and Article 16(4) operate in different fields. Backwardness and inadequacy of Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Deepti Ganesh DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Munarshi representation, therefore, operate as justifications in the sense Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 that the State gets the power to make reservation only if 65 OA No.407/2020 backwardness and inadequacy of representation exist. These factors are not obliterated by the impugned amendments.
"Further, referring to paragraph number 117 of the judgment, it is contended that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that "the judgment in Indra Sawhney (supra) does not deal with constitutional amendments". In our present judgment, we are upholding the validity of the constitutional amendments subject to the limitations. Therefore, in each case the Court has got to be satisfied that the State has exercised its opinion in making reservations in promotions for SCs and STs and for which the concerned State will have to place before the Court the requisite quantifiable data in each case and satisfy the Court that such reservations became necessary on account of inadequacy of representation of SCs/ STs in a particular class or classes of posts without affecting general efficiency of service as mandated under Article 335 of the Constitution".
11. Further, he has relied on the case of Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited Vs. Rajesh Kumar & Others, (2012) 7 SCC 1. Placing reliance on para 81(vii) in which it is observed Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Deepti Ganesh DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, that "if the appropriate Government enacts a law providing for CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Munarshi Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 reservation without keeping in mind the parameters in Article 66 OA No.407/2020 16(4) and Article 335, then this Court will certainly set aside and strike down such legislation". Further, reliance is being placed on para 83 in which it is observed that "In the said Suraj Bhan Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2011) 1 SCC 467 case, the State Government had not undertaken any exercise as indicated in M. Nagraj (supra). The two-Judges Bench has noted three conditions in the said judgment. It was canvassed before the Bench that exercise to be undertaken as per the direction in M. Nagraj (supra) was mandatory and the State cannot, either directly or indirectly, circumvent or ignore or refuse to undertake the exercise by taking recourse to the Constitution (Eighty-Fifth Amendment) Act providing for reservation for promotion with consequential seniority. While dealing with the contentions, the two-Judges Bench opined that the State is required to place before the Court, the requisite quantifiable data in each case and to satisfy the Court that the said reservation became necessary on account of inadequacy of representation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates in a Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Deepti Ganesh DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Munarshi particular class or classes of posts, without affecting the general Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 efficiency of service.67 OA No.407/2020
12. Further, reliance has been placed on the judgment in the case of Suresh Chand Gautam Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (2016) 11 SCC 113. By referring para number 47 in which, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to observed that the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that a command should be issued to the State of Uttar Pradesh to collect the data as enshrined in the Constitution Bench decision in M. Nagaraj (supra) so that benefit of reservation in promotion can be given. The relief sought may appear innocuous or simple but when the Court thinks of issue of a writ of mandamus, it has to apprise itself of an existing right or a power to be exercised regard being had to the conception of duty. The concept of power coupled with duty is always based on facts. If we keenly scrutinize the relief sought, the prayer is to issue a mandamus to the State and its functionaries to carry out an exercise for the purpose of exercising a discretion. To elucidate, the discretion is to take a decision to have the reservation, and to have reservation there is a necessity for collection of data in accordance with the Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Deepti Ganesh DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Munarshi principles stated in M. Nagaraj (supra) as the same is the Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 condition precedent. Further referring to para 48, in the Hon'ble 68 OA No.407/2020 Supreme Court has observed that "be it clearly stated, the Courts do not formulate any policy, remains away from making anything that would amount to legislation, rules and regulation or policy relating to reservation. The Courts can test the validity of the same when they are challenged. The court cannot direct for making legislation or for that matter any kind of sub-ordinate legislation. We may hasten to add that in certain decisions directions have been issued for framing of guidelines or the court has itself framed guidelines for sustaining certain rights of women, children or prisoners or under-trial prisoners. The said category of cases falls in a different compartment. They are in different sphere than what is envisaged in Article 16 (4-A) and 16 (4-B) whose constitutional validity have been upheld by the Constitution Bench with certain qualifiers. They have been regarded as enabling constitutional provisions. Additionally, it has been postulated that the State is not bound to make reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in matter of promotions. Therefore, there is no duty. In such a situation, Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Deepti Ganesh DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Munarshi to issue a mandamus to collect the data would tantamount to Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 asking the authorities whether there is ample data to frame a rule 69 OA No.407/2020 or regulation. This will be in a way, entering into the domain of legislation, for it is a step towards commanding to frame a legislation or a delegated legislation for reservation".
13. Further, reliance has been placed on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in the case of All India Equality Forum & Others Vs. Union of India, through its Secretary & Ors., 2017 SCC Online Del 10081 dated 23rd August, 2017. While referring to para 35 in which it is observed that "Resultantly, prayers (a) and (c), in the writ petition, succeed. The impugned Office Memorandum No 36012/18/95-Estt. (Res) Pt. II, dated 13th August, 1997, issued by the DOPT, is quashed and set aside. The respondents are restrained from granting any reservation, in promotion, to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, in exercise of the power conferred by Article 16 (4A) of the Constitution of India, without, in the first instance, carrying out the necessary preliminary exercise of acquiring quantifiable data indicating inadequacy of Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi representation, of the said categories, in service, and evaluating Deepti Ganesh DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Munarshi Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 the situation by taking into consideration the said data, along 70 OA No.407/2020 with the competing considerations of backwardness and overall efficiency in administration, and arriving at an empirical decision on the basis thereof".
14. Further reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jarnail Singh & Others Vs. Lachhmi Narain Gupta & Ors. (II), (2022) 10 SCC 595 dated 28th January, 2022. Referring to para 17, it is contended that the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to observe in the said paragraph that "Moreover, in M. Nagaraj (supra), 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.
Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
15. On the basis of aforesaid arguments, it is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that in the 71 OA No.407/2020 present case also prior to issuance of impugned promotion orders neither the quantifiable data was collected nor there is any statutory rule or provision granting reservation in promotion nor any exercise was carried out by the official respondents as per the observations and preposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and, therefore, the impugned promotion orders are illegal, arbitrary and liable to be set aside.
16. Learned counsel for the applicant further contended that in the case of Himanshu Verma Vs. Union of India passed in OA No.203/200285/2018 decided on 22nd January, 2020, CAT, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur Circuit Sitting at Bilaspur decided similar issue holding that the private respondents of the said OA have been promoted as Superintendent ahead of the applicants based on reservation in promotion. Therefore, their seniority in the Superintendent Grade should be decided as per the catch-up rule as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Virpal Chauhan (supra). Aforesaid order was subject matter of Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi challenge before the Hon'ble High Court of Chattisgarh, Bilaspur Deepti Ganesh DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Munarshi Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 in (WP) No.2227/2020 in the case of Union of India Vs. Himanshu 72 OA No.407/2020 Verma & Ors, and the Hon'ble High Court was pleased to dismiss the aforesaid WP observing that since no quantifiable data has been collected to confer any consequential seniority on promotion in the reserved slot to the Members of SCs/STs in terms of Article 16(4) A, but for issuance of Office Memorandum dated 21st January, 2022, which is neither a law nor an executive order and, therefore, the said WP was dismissed.
17. The aforesaid was further the subject matter of challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.27/2021 in the case of Union of India Vs Himanshu Verma and the said SLP was dismissed on 02nd August, 2021 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and since the applicants of the aforesaid case are serving in the same department i.e. Central Excise and Central Tax and holding the post of Superintendent and, therefore, also OA is liable to be allowed.
18. Further, it is contended on behalf of the applicants that in case of (1) B.K. Pavitra & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 reported in (2017) 4 SCC 620, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that consequential seniority may be provided subject to 73 OA No.407/2020 determination of inadequacy of representation, backwardness and overall efficiency is mandatory for exercising power under Article 16 (4-A). Mere fact that there is no proportionate representation in promotional posts for reserved category candidates, not by itself sufficient to grant consequential seniority to promotes who are otherwise junior. In absence of the above mandatory exercise prior to exercising power under Article 16(4-A), "catch-up" rule fully applies and consequential seniority cannot be provided for.
19. Further reliance is being placed on the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and Ors. Vs. Davinder Singh & Ors., reported in 2025 (1) SCC (1) Constitution Bench to contend that the case of Jarnail Singh (2) (Supra) is impliedly overruled. By way of written arguments, learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the order passed by this Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Arvind Kumar Ranjan Vs. Union of India & Ors. in OA Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi No.876/2023 decided on 11th March, 2025 in which while taking Deepti Ganesh DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Munarshi Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 note of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case 74 OA No.407/2020 of Devinder Singh (supra), it is held that the State should take the total population of a particular Backward Class and its representation in its State Services while determining adequacy of representation.
Therefore, OA may be allowed and the impugned promotion orders and seniority list may kindly be set aside.
20. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel Shri R.R. Shetty along with Shri Sachin Patil vehemently argued that there is no ground available to interfere in the impugned ad-hoc promotion orders and the Seniority List dated 23rd September, 2019. Learned Senior Counsel also relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M. Nagraj Vs. Union of India, 2006 (8) SCC 212 and contended that the 85th constitutional amendment by which Article 16(4A) was inserted in the Constitution of India retrospectively w.e.f. 17th June, 1995 providing reservation in promotion with consequential seniority has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is further Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 contended that thereafter reference made in respect of correctness of the decision in M. Nagraj (supra) to a Constitution Bench was 75 OA No.407/2020 decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jarnail Singh & Others Vs. Lachhmi Narain Gupta & Ors., (2018) 10 SCC 396 concluding that the judgment in M. Nagraj (supra) does not seems to be referred to a 7- Judges Bench. However, the conclusion in M. Nagraj (supra) that the State has to collect quantifiable data showing backwardness of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes, be a contrary to the 9 Judges Bench in Indra Sawhney(supra) is held to be in valid to that extent.
21. Further, in the case of Jarnail Singh & Others Vs. Lachhmi Narain Gupta & Ors., (2022) 10 SCC 595, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering and referring to all previous judgments determined the points raised in the said judgments in respect of quantifiable data showing inadequacy of representation of SC/ST in the public employment. The method of collecting quantifiable data and applicability of the judgment of M. Nagraj (supra) is prospectively. It is contended that thereafter, Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT) has Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi issued OM dated 12th April, 2022. It is further contended that by Deepti Ganesh DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Munarshi Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 way of Additional affidavit dated 26th October, 2021 on the basis 76 OA No.407/2020 of factual averments, the impugned action has been justified.
Learned counsel also submitted that the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant in the case of Devinder Singh (supra) is not applicable in the present case.
22. It is submitted that in pursuance of OM dated 12th April, 2022, the department has granted ad-hoc promotions subject to outcome of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jarnail Singh (supra). It is contended that the aforesaid OM even was not challenged by the applicants in the present OAs.
23. It is further submitted that the judgment passed in the case of Mahinder Singh and Himanshu Verma Vs. Union of India (supra) is of no consequence as they are relating to a situation as prevailing prior to rendering of the judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jarnail Singh (2)(supra).
It is further contended that the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jarnail Singh (2) (supra) has not been Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 overruled by any court and reliance in one para of the judgment para in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Devinder Singh (supra) 77 OA No.407/2020 which says that the cadre is not the unit into which one has to go into for the purpose of sub-categorization in reservation, cannot apply to the facts of the present case which is clearly a case of grant of reservation in promotion.
24. Further, the learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the order of this Bench of the Tribunal in OA No.332/2019 in the case of All India Equality Forum through Its President (Naval Civilian -Branch) Vs. Union of India & Ors.
and OA No.638/2017 in the case of Shri Rahul K Dhumal & Ors.
Vs. Union of India & Ors. decided on 05th June, 2024 and submitted that by a detailed order, the aforesaid OAs were dismissed.
25. Learned counsel for respondents' number 10 to 14, Ms. Wadekar in addition to the stand of the official respondents vehemently argued that consequential seniority cannot be challenged without challenging reservation in promotion. It is submitted that the consequential seniority is merely an incident Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30' of benefit of reservation in promotion and not an independent Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 benefit itself. To support the aforesaid contention, she has relied 78 OA No.407/2020 upon paras Nos.138 & 139 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.K. Pavitra & Ors. Vs. Union of India (2) reported in (2019) 7 SCR 1086.
26. It is further contended that although heavy reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the applicants in the case of Himanshu Verma Vs. Union of India (supra) which was decided by the Central Administrative Tribunal in favour of the said applicants and said order was confirmed in the Writ Petion by the Hon'ble High Court of Chattisgarh, Bilaspur Bench and further SLP against the said order was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, the correct position has not been placed on record on behalf of the applicants as in the case of Shri Kripanand Bharati & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors., SLP (Civil) 16800/2021, the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Himanshu Verma & Ors. (supra) is challenged and the aforesaid SLP is tagged with Civil Appeal No.629/2022 and other Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi connected cases vide order dated 03rd September, 2024 by the Deepti Ganesh DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Munarshi Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and, therefore, according to the 79 OA No.407/2020 learned counsel for private respondents', the contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicants on the basis of judgment of the Himanshu Verma's case (supra) is not tenable as matter is sub-judice before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is further contended that through reply, all these respondents have justified the action of grant of impugned ad-hoc promotion and the Seniority list dated 23rd September, 2019.
27. Shri P.J. Prasadrao also supported the arguments raised by the official respondents and other private respondents.
28. All the learned counsels for the respondents on the basis of reply and the arguments as advanced, prayed for dismissal of the OA.
29. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of the record, before adverting to the rival contentions, it would be necessary to reproduce the relevant paragraphs of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following cases which covers issue raised in the present OA.
Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh MunarshiDeepti Ganesh DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Munarshi Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 80 OA No.407/2020
i) In the case of Indra Sawhney & Ors., Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in 1992 SCC (L&S) Supp 1. Similar question was considered by the Constitution Bench in respect of OMs.
"Q1(a) Whether the 'provision' in Article 16(4) must necessarily be made by the Parliament/Legislature? Para 170. The next submission that the provision for reservation of appointments or posts under Article 16(4) can be made only by a legislation and not by an executive order is unsustainable. This contention as a matter of fact has already been answered in (1) M.R. Balaji Vs. State of Mysore, 1963 Supp 1 SCR 439 and (2), Comptroller & Auditor General v. Mohan Lal Mehrotra .
Para 171. In passing, it may be stated that this Court while reversing the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in favour of the appellant State of Punjab v. Hira Lal, (1970) 3 SCC 567 upheld the reservation which was made not by a legislation but by an executive order. See also Mangal Singh v. Punjab State, AIR 1968 Punj 306 .
Para 172. Agreeing with the reasonings of Balaji, I hold that the provision or reservation in the "Services under the State"
under Article 16(4) can be made by an executive order. Para 392. This question has been examined by Brother Judges and they have held that the reservations can be provided by the Parliament, State Legislatures, statutory rules as well as by way of Executive Instructions issued by the Central Government and the State Governments from time to time. The Executive Instructions can be issued only when there are no statutory provisions on the subject. Executive Instructions can also be issued to supplement the statutory provisions when those provisions are silent on the Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
subject of reservations. These propositions of law are unexceptionable and I reiterate the same. I, however, make it Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 clear that any Executive Instruction [issued under Article 16(4), 73 or 162] providing reservations, which goes contrary 81 OA No.407/2020 to statutory provisions or the rules under Article 309 or any other statutory rules, shall not be operative to the extent it is contrary to the statutory provisions/rules.
Para 526. The language of Article 16(4) is very clear. It enables the State to make a "provision" for the reservation of appointments to the posts. The provision may be made either by an Act of legislature or by rule or regulation made under such Act or in the absence of both, by executive order. Executive order is no less a law under Article 13(3) which defines law to include, among other things, order, bye-laws and notifications. The provisions of reservation under Article 16(4) being relatable to the recruitment and conditions of service under the State, they are also covered by Article 309 of the Constitution. Article 309 expressly provides that until provision in that behalf is made by or under an Act of the appropriate legislature, the rules regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to services under the Union or a State may be regulated by rules made by the President or the Governor as the case may be. Further, wherever the Constitution requires that the provisions may be made only by an Act of the legislature, the Constitution has in express terms stated so. For example, the provisions of Article 16(3) speak of the Parliament making a law, unlike the provisions of Article 16(4) which permit the State to make "any provision". Similarly, Articles 302, 304 and 307 require a law to be enacted by the Parliament or a State legislature as the case may be on the subjects concerned. These are but some of the provisions in the Constitution, to illustrate the point.
Para 735. Shri K.K. Venugopal, learned counsel for the petitioner in writ petition No. 930 of 1990 submits that the "provision" contemplated by clause (4) of Article 16 can be Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 made only by and should necessarily be made by the legislative wing of the State and not by the executive or any other authority. He disputes the correctness of the holding in 82 OA No.407/2020 Balaji negativing an identical contention. He submits that since the provision made under Article 16(4) affects the fundamental rights of other citizens, such a provision can be made only by the Parliament/Legislature. He submits that if the power of making the "provision" is given to the executive, it will give room for any amount of abuse. According to the learned counsel, the political executive, owing to the degeneration of the electoral process, normally acts out of political and electoral compulsions, for which reason it may not act fairly and independently. If, on the other hand, the provision is to be made by the legislative wing of the State, it will not only provide an opportunity for debate and discussion in the legislature where several shades of opinion are represented but a balanced and unbiased decision free from the allurements of electoral gains is more likely to emerge from such a deliberating body. Shri Venugopal cites the example of Tamil Nadu where, according to him, before every general election a few communities are added to the list of backward classes, only with a view to winning them over to the ruling party. We are not concerned with the aspect of what is ideal or desirable but with what is the proper meaning to be ascribed to the expression 'provision' in Article 16(4) having regard to the context. The use of the expression 'provision' in clause (4) of Article 16 appears to us to be not without design. According to the definition of 'State' in Article 12, it includes not merely the Government and Parliament of India and Government and Legislature of each of the States but all local authorities and other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India which means that such a measure of reservation can be provided not only in the matter of services under the Central and State Governments but also in the services of local and other authorities referred to in Article
12. The expression 'Local Authority' is defined in Section 3(31) of the General Clauses Act. It takes in all municipalities, Panchayats and other similar bodies. The Deepti Ganesh Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi expression 'other authorities' has received extensive attention from the court. It includes all statutory authorities Reason: I am the author of this document Munarshi Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 and other agencies and instrumentalities of the State Government/Central Government. Now, would it be 83 OA No.407/2020 reasonable, possible or practicable to say that the Parliament or the Legislature of the State should provide for reservation of posts/appointments in the services of all such bodies besides providing for in respect of services under the Central/State Government? This aspect would become clearer if we notice the definition of "Law" in Article 13(3)(a). It reads:
"13(3) In this article, unless the context otherwise requires-
(a) "law" includes any Ordinance, order, bye-law, rule, b regulation, notification, custom or usage having in the territory of India the force of law; ..."
Para 736. The words "order", "bye-law", "rule" and "regulation" in this definition are significant. Reading the definition of "State" in Article 12 and of "law" in Article 13(3)(a), it becomes clear that a measure of the nature contemplated by Article 16(4) can be provided not only by the Parliament/Legislature but also by the executive in respect of Central/State services and by the local bodies and "other authorities" contemplated by Article 12, in respect of their respective services. Some of the local bodies and some of the statutory corporations like universities may have their own legislative wings. In such a situation, it would be unreasonable and inappropriate to insist that reservation in all these services should be provided by Parliament/Legislature. The situation and circumstances of each of these bodies may vary. The rule regarding reservation has to be framed to suit the particular situations. All this cannot reasonably be done by Parliament/Legislature.
Para 737. Even textually speaking, the contention cannot be accepted. The very use of the word "provision" in Article 16(4) is significant. Whereas clauses (3) and (5) of Article 16 and clauses (2) to (6) of Article 19 use the word "law", Article 16(4) uses the world "provision". Regulation of Deepti Ganesh Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, service conditions by orders and rules made by the executive was a well-known feature at the time of the framing of the CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Munarshi Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 Constitution. Probably for this reason, a deliberate departure has been made in the case of clause (4). Accordingly, we hold, 84 OA No.407/2020 agreeing with Balaji, that the "provision" contemplated by Article 16(4) can also be made by the executive wing of the Union or of the State, as the case may be, as has been done in the present case. Balaji has been followed recently in Comptroller and Auditor-General of India v. Mohan Lal Mehrotra. With respect to the argument of abuse of power by the political executive, we may say that there is adequate safeguard against misuse by the political executive of the power under Article 16(4) in the provision itself. Any determination of backwardness is not a subjective exercise nor a matter of subjective satisfaction. As held herein - as also by earlier judgments - the exercise is an objective one. Certain objective social and other criteria have to be satisfied before any group or class of citizens could be treated as backward. If the executive includes, for col-lateral reasons, groups or classes not satisfying the relevant criteria, it would be a clear case of fraud on power.
Para 739. Be that as it may, there is yet another reason, why we cannot agree that the impugned Memorandums are not effective and enforceable the moment they are issued. It is well settled by the decisions of this Court that the appropriate government is empowered to prescribe the conditions of service of its employees by an executive order in the absence of the rules made under the proviso to Article 309. It is further held by this Court that even where Rules under the proviso to Article 309 are made, the Government can issue orders/instructions with respect to matters upon which the Rules are silent. (See Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan.) This view has been reiterated in a recent decision of this Court in Comptroller and Auditor-General v. Mohanlal Mehrotra wherein it is held:
"The High Court is not right in stating that there cannot be an administrative order directing reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes as it would alter the statutory rules in force. The rules do not Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
provide for any reservation. In fact, it is silent on the subject of reservation. The Government could direct the Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 reservation c by executive orders. The administrative orders cannot be issued in contravention of the statutory 85 OA No.407/2020 rules but it could be issued to supplement the statutory rules (See the observations in Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan.) In fact similar circulars were issued by the Railway Board introducing reservations for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the Railway services both for selection and non-selection categories of posts. They were issued to implement the policy of the Central Government and they have been upheld by this Court in Akhil Bhartiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh (Railways) v. Union of India".
Para 740. It would, therefore, follow that until a law is made or rules are issued under Article 309 with respect to reservation in favour of backward classes, it would always be open to the Executive Government to provide for reservation of appointments/posts in favour of Backward Classes by an executive order. We cannot also agree with Shri Jethmalani that the impugned Memorandums should be treated as Rules made under the proviso to Article 309. There is nothing in them suggesting even distantly that they were issued under the proviso to Article 309. They were never intended to be so, nor is that the stand of the Union Government before us. They are executive orders issued under Article 73 of the Constitution read with clause (4) of Article 16. The mere omission of a recital "in the name and by order of the President of India" does not affect the validity or enforceability of the orders, as held by this Court repeatedly. Whether clause (4) of Article 16 is an exception to clause (1)?."
30. Further, in the case of Sudhakar Baburao Nangnure Vs. Noreshwar Raghunathrao Shende & Ors. reported in (2020) 11 SCC 399 decided on 5th March, 2019, the Hon'ble Supreme Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Deepti Ganesh DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, Court in para 60 observed as under:
CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Munarshi Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 86 OA No.407/2020 "60. We have already noticed the decision in Indra Sawhney as having laid down that a provision for reservation can be incorporated in an executive order. We are not inclined to accede to the submission of the appellant that the GR dated 20-3-2003 will cease to remain in force after the enactment of the Reservation Act, 2004. The Reservation Act has not dealt with issue of consequential seniority. Sub-section (2) of Section 5 saves government orders providing for reservation of any posts to be filled in promotion which were bin force on the date of the enactment of the Act. Similarly, the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 6 saves government orders regarding the filling up of unfilled posts reserved for Backward Class candidates in force on the date of the commencement of the Act. The GR dated 20-3-2003 deals with the determination of seniority while sub-section (2) of Section 5 deals with orders providing for reservation. The GR dated 20-3-2003 is undoubtedly not a government order which falls within the purview of either sub-section (2) of Section 5 or the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 6. However, the enactment of the Act by the State Legislature cannot be construed as a legislative intent to override or abrogate the principle of consequential seniority incorporated in government resolutions. A provision for consequential seniority can certainly be incorporated in an executive order issued in pursuance of the provisions of d Article 162 of the Constitution.
xxx xxx xxx Further, paragraphs 64, 65 and 66 are also relevant to the present controversy in question which reads as under:
64. The appellant has, in the course of the submissions of Mr Patwalia, sought to urge that the GR dated 20-3-2003 is Deepti Ganesh Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= contrary to the ratio of the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Nagaraj. It was urged that before a Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Munarshi Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 provision for consequential seniority can be incorporated, the State is under a mandate to collect quantifiable data with 87 OA No.407/2020 reference to: (i) inadequacy of representation; and (if) the effect on the efficiency of administration. Mr Patwalia urged that in the absence of quantifiable data, the GR dated 20-3- 2003 is ultra vires. In this context, it was urged that in the absence of an exercise by the State to collect quantifiable data, the principle enunciated by this Court in Nagaraj and as applied by the subsequent decisions of this Court in Suraj Bhan Meena, U.P. Power Corpn., Panneer Selvam and B.K. Pavitra would be attracted.
65. A challenge to the GR dated 20-3-2003 is conspicuous by its absence in the reliefs which were sought before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. We have adverted to the reliefs claimed in an earlier part of this judgment and they are indicative only of a challenge to seniority.
Entertaining a challenge to the validity of a Government resolution incorporating the principle of consequential seniority without a specific challenge being addressed before the Tribunal would simply be impermissible. Entertaining such a challenge at this stage will have serious consequences in the entire State of Maharashtra by upsetting a significant number of promotions which may have already been granted to candidates belonging to the reserved category. The State Government, in the pleadings before the Tribunal and the High Court was not called upon to justify the basis of its decision to adopt consequential seniority in the absence of a challenge being squarely set up in the forum of first instance.
66. A challenge to the resolution providing for consequential seniority is indeed a serious matter. Such a challenge calls upon the court to upset a policy circular which has been issued with the avowed objective of safeguarding consequential seniority which was, as our constitutional history indicates, a clear purpose underlying the 85th Amendment to the Constitution. Such constitutional challenges cannot be bandied about without Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
specific pleadings. We are clearly of the view that such an exercise would be impermissible in the absence of a frontal Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 challenge."88 OA No.407/2020
31. Although, learned counsel for the applicants heavily relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chettian Veetil Ammad & Anr. Vs. Taluk Land Board and Ors. , reported in (1980) 1 SCC 499 by inviting our attention to para-No.14 of the said judgment and contended that a provision means a distinct rule or principle of law in a statute which governs the situation covered by it and, therefore, accordingly to the learned counsel for the applicants on the basis of OM, grant of reservation in promotion and consequential seniority is unsustainable and void. In view of the Constitution Bench judgment in the case of Indra Sawhney (supra) and observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sudhakar Baburao Nangnure (supra), the contention raised by the applicants is not tenable.
32. Further, judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M. Nagraj (supra) and Jarnail Singh & Others Vs. Lachhmi Narain Gupta & Ors., (1) reported in (2018) Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi 10 SCC 396 was considered and referred to in the judgment of Deepti Ganesh DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Munarshi Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 Jarnail Singh & Others Vs. Lachhmi Narain Gupta & Ors. (2) 89 OA No.407/2020 reported in (2022) 10 SCC 595 and relevant paragraphs are as under:
".....37. It is clear from the above statutory regime and the law laid down by this Court that civil posts under the Government are organised into different services. A service constitutes 'classes'/ 'groups' of posts. A 'class' / 'group' is further bifurcated into grades. Though the nomenclature might be different, the structure of services under the Union and the States is similar. According to the instructions issued by the Union of India, cadres are constituted for each grade. At the cost of repetition, the Union of India submitted that there are 3800 cadres in 44 Ministries/Departments. Fundamental Rule 9(4) defines "cadre" to mean the strength of a service or part of a service sanctioned as a separate unit. It is the choice of a State to constitute cadres. The entire service cannot be considered to be a cadre for the purpose of promotion from one post to a higher post in a different grade. Promotion is made from one grade to the next higher grade, in relation to which cadres are constituted. This Court in Dr. Chakradhar Paswan Vs. State of Bihar reported in (1998) 2 SCC 214 has categorically stated that the post of Director and Deputy Director cannot form one cadre. A cadre is constituted by the Government by taking into account several factors within its sole discretion.
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 Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 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 Vs. 90 OA No.407/2020 Union of India reported in (2006) 8 SCC 212, this Court approved that the percentage of reservation in promotions was to be applied to the entire cadre strength, as held in R.K.Sabharwal Vs. State of Punjab reported in (1995) 2 SCC 745. While doing so, this Court in M.Nagaraj (supra) 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.
.... xxx xxx xxx
41. This Court in Jarnail Singh Vs. Lachhmi Narain Gupta reported in (2018) 10 SCC 396 found no fault with M.Nagaraj (supra) 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 Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi representation of SCs and STs in promotional posts, by Deepti Ganesh DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= taking into account relevant factors.
Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Munarshi Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 xxx xxx xxx 91 OA No.407/2020
47. In M.Nagaraj (supra), this Court upheld the constitutional validity of Article 16(4-A), subject to the State collecting quantifiable data showing inadequate representation. The law declared by this Court interpreting Article 16(4-A) in M.Nagaraj (supra) applies from 17-06-
1995, i.e., the date on which Article 16(4-A) came into force (See: Ravi S. Naik Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in 1994 Supp (2) 641; Lily Thomas Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2000) 6 SCC 224. The contention put forth by the learned Attorney General for India and the learned counsel appearing for the reserved category candidates, which requires to be examined, is regarding the prospective applicability of the law laid down in M. Nagaraj (supra), i.e., from the date of the judgment.
xxx xxx xxx
62. This Court in Golak Nath Vs. State of Punjab reported in (1967) 2 SCR 762 and Ashok Kumar Gupta Vs. State of UP reported in (1997) 5 SCC 201, 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 (supra) 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 (supra). Most of them would have already retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. The judgment of M. Nagaraj (supra) was Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 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 (supra) effective from 92 OA No.407/2020 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 (supra) should be declared to have prospective effect.
xxx xxx xxx
67. Collection of quantifiable data for determining the inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs is a basic requirement for providing reservation in promotions, as laid down by this court in M. Nagaraj (supra). The unit for the purpose of collection of data is a cadre, according to M.Nagaraj (supra) and Jarnail Singh (supra). For the purpose of collection of quantifiable data for providing reservation in promotions, the entire service cannot be taken to be a unit and treated as a cadre, as already stated. The structure of services in the State of Karnataka is along the same lines as that of services in the Central Government.
Services are divided into 'groups', which are further bifurcated into cadres. There is no confusion that a cadre is not synonymous with a 'group'.
68. The first term of reference for the Ratna Prabha Committee was to collect data cadre-wise. The conclusion of this Court in B.K. Pavitra (2) Vs. Union of India reported in (2019) 16 SCC 129 that the expression "cadre" has no fixed meaning in service jurisprudence is contrary to the judgments of this Court, which have been referred to above while answering point 2. In clear terms, M. Nagaraj (supra) held that the unit for collection of quantifiable data is cadre, and not services as has been held Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 in B.K. Pavitra (2) (supra). Article 16(4-A) of the Constitution enables the State to make reservation in promotions for SCs and STs, which are not adequately 93 OA No.407/2020 represented in the services of the State. However, the provision for reservation in matters of promotion is with reference to class or classes of posts in the services under the State. That "groups" consist of cadres is a fact which was taken into consideration by this Court in B.K. Pavitra (2) (supra). The conclusion that the collection of data on the basis of "groups" is valid, is contrary to the decisions of this court in M. Nagaraj (supra) and Jarnail Singh (supra).
69. The State should justify reservation in promotions with respect to the cadre to which promotion is made. Taking into account the data pertaining to a "group", which would be an amalgamation of certain cadres in a service, would not give the correct picture of the inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs in the cadre in relation to which reservation in promotions is sought to be made. Rosters are prepared cadre- wise and not group-wise. Sampling method which was adopted by the Ratna Prabha Committee might be a statistical formula appropriate for collection of data. However, for the purpose of collection of quantifiable data to assess representation of SCs and STs for the purpose of providing reservation in promotions, cadre, which is a part of a 'group', is the unit and the data has to be collected with respect to each cadre. Therefore, we hold that the conclusion of this Court in B.K. Pavitra (2) (supra) approving the collection of data on the basis of "groups" and not cadres is contrary to the law laid down by this Court in M. Nagaraj (supra) and Jarnail Singh (supra).
70. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of any individual case as we have only answered the common issues that were formulated after hearing the Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi parties."
Deepti Ganesh DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Munarshi Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 94 OA No.407/2020
33. Further, from the records, it is also clear that during the pendency of Jarnail Singh (1)(supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to pass interim orders dated 17th May, 2018 and 05th June, 2018, which are reproduced for ready reference:
"Dated 17th May, 2018 It is directed that the pendency of this Special Leave Petition shall not stand in the way of Union of India taking steps for the purpose of promotion from 'reserved to reserved' and 'unreserved to unreserved' and also in the matter of promotion on merits. (emphasis supplied) Dated 05th June, 2018 "....Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned ASG has referred to order dated 17.05.2018 in SLP (C) No. 30621/2011. It is made clear that the Union of India is not debarred from making promotions in accordance with law, subject to further orders, pending further consideration of the matter. Tag to SLP (C) No.30621 of 2011." (emphasis supplied)
34. Based upon the aforesaid interim orders, Department of Personnel & Training has issued Office Memorandum, dated 15th June, 2018 directing the department to carry out promotion based on existing Seniority list/Select List and that every promotion order is issued subject to further Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Deepti Ganesh DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Munarshi Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.95 OA No.407/2020
35. From the record, it is clear that the respondents have placed on record Minutes of the DPC meeting in respect of ad-
hoc promotion orders which was issued in pursuance of DOPT OM dated 30th March, 1988. The relevant portion reads as follows;
"....A reference was made to Department of Legal Affairs(DoLA) for seeking its advice whether ad hoc promotion to the grade of Assistant Commissioner can be carried out as per existing Seniority List subject to the outcome of pending court cases on the subject and as per DoP&T O.М. по. 28036/8/87- Estt(D) dated 30.03.1988. The para 3(i) of the abovementioned O.M. states that there may be a need to make appointment on ad-hoc basis where there is an injunction by a court/Tribunal directing that the post may not be filled on a regular basis and if the final judgement of the Court/Tribunal is not expected early and the post also cannot be kept vacant."
(emphasis supplied)
36. Learned counsel for the applicants vehemently submitted that in view of the recent Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Davinder Singh & Ors. reported in (2025) 1 SCC, the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 Jarnail Singh (2) (supra) is impliedly overruled, on the other hand, learned counsel for the official respondents referring to 96 OA No.407/2020 para nos.218, 219 and 220 submits that the principles laid down by the Constitution Bench in the case of Davinder Singh (supra) for the purpose of grant of reservation in promotion. To appreciate aforesaid contention, following relevant paras of the judgment of the Davinder Singh (supra) are reproduced herein below: -
".......1. The reference to this Constitution Bench raises significant questions relating to the right to equal opportunity guaranteed by the Constitution. The principal issue is whether sub classification of the Scheduled Castes for reservation is constitutionally permissible.
C. Issues
45. The Constitution Bench has to adjudicate upon whether the sub-classification of the Scheduled Castes for the purpose of providing affirmative action, including reservation is valid. In this context, the following issues arise for consideration. 45.1 (a) Whether sub-classification of a reserved class is permissible under Articles 14, 15 and 16;
45.2.(b)Whether the Scheduled Castes constitute a homogeneous or a heterogeneous grouping' 45.3(c) Whether Article 341 creates a homogeneous class through the operation of the deeming fiction; and 45.4 (d) Whether there are any limits on the scope of sub-Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi
classification.
Deepti Ganesh DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Munarshi Location:
xxx xxx xxx Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
(b) Adequacy of representation 97 OA No.407/2020
213. Jeevan Reddy, J. noted in Indra Sawhney that the issue of whether a class is inadequately represented is a matter within the subjective satisfaction of the State which is evident from the use of the phrase "in the opinion of the State" and that the subjective satisfaction of the executive action must be judicially reviewed based on the standard laid down in Barium Chemicals Ltd. v. Company Law Board, (1966) 36 Comp Cas 639. In Barium Chemicals, a Constitution Bench of this Court while determining the validity of administrative actions held that though the formation of opinion by the State may be based on its subjective satisfaction, the State could not act based on circumstances it "thinks" existed. There must be apparent circumstances that merit a certain inference by the State, and such circumstances, must be shown to exist at least prima facie. In the preceding section, we have held that inadequacy of effective representation is a criterion for determining inter se backwardness. Hence, quantifiable data for that purpose must be submitted.
214. In Nagaraj, this Court held that the State must submit quantifiable data to satisfy the Court that reservations are necessary "on account of inadequacy of representation of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in a particular class or classes of posts". However, in the subsequent paragraphs, this Court held that the cadre strength must be taken as a unit to ascertain whether a given class or group is adequately represented. These observations were made in the backdrop of R.K. Sabharwal where this Court held that the entire cadre strength should be taken into account to determine if the quota limit has been breached.
215. The relevant observations are delineated as under: (Nagaraj case, SCC p. 261, paras 82-83) Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Deepti Ganesh DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Munarshi Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 "82. Before dealing with the scope of the constitutional amendments we need to recap the 98 OA No.407/2020 judgments in Indra Sawhney and R.K. Sabharwal. In the former case the majority held that 50% rule should be applied to each year otherwise it may happen that the open competition channel may get choked if the entire cadre strength is taken as a unit. However, in R.K. Sabharwal this Court stated that the entire cadre strength should be taken into account to determine whether the reservation up to the quota limit has been reached. It was clarified that the judgment in Indra Sawhney was confined to initial appointments and not to promotions. The operation of the roster for filling the cadre strength, by itself, ensures that the reservation remains within the ceiling limit of 50%.
83. In our view, 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. The cadre strength as a unit also ensures that upper ceiling limit of 50% is not violated. Further, roster has to be post-specific and not vacancy based."
(emphasis supplied)
216. At this juncture, it is important that we clarify the observations in Nagaraj extracted above. In Nagaraj, this Court referred to the judgment in R.K. Sabharwal while observing that the cadre must be taken as a unit to determine the inadequacy of representation. However, the context in which R.K. Sabharwal held cadre must be considered as a unit was different. In that case, two issues were considered. First, whether appointments of the backward classes in the general category must be counted while working out the percentage of reservation for the backward classes. Second, whether the reservation is Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 complete when the posts earmarked for the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes are filled. It is while answering the second of the issues that this Court held 99 OA No.407/2020 that reservations must operate in accordance with the roster maintained in the Department which will be a running account every year to ensure that there is no excessive reservation. This Court explained the working of the calculation of cadre-based vacancy as follows: posts falling in specific serial numbers would be reserved seats allotted to each class and when a reserved seat falls vacant, it must be filled by the person of the same category: (R.K. Sabharwal case, SCC pp. 750-51, para 5)
5. ....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 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 Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
instructions is reached and not thereafter.... As and when there is a vacancy whether permanent or Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 temporary in a particular post the same has to be filled from amongst the category to which the post belonged 100 OA No.407/2020 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."
217. The inference in Nagaraj that cadre must be taken as a unit to determine inadequacy of reservation based on the above observations in R.K. Sabharwal, in our respectful opinion, is misplaced. The cadre as a unit was considered only for the purpose of preparation of roster to draw a balance between the reserved and open seats. This Court did not hold that cadre must be used as a unit for the purpose of determining the adequacy of representation. In fact, R.K. Sabharwal says to the contrary. R.K. Sabharwal observed that the State Government may take the total population of a particular Backward Class and its representation in the State Services while determining adequacy of representation:
(R.K. Sabharwal case, SCC p. 750, para 4) "4.... 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."
218. As observed above, the inadequacy of representation Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Deepti Ganesh DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Munarshi Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 in the services of the State is an indicator to determine the backwardness of the class in the services of the State. 101 OA No.407/2020 When the cadre-strength is used, the inadequacy of representation of the class is not determined. Rather, it determines the inadequacy of representation in a cadre, thereby, merging the distinction between quantitative and qualitative representation. Further, the observations in Nagaraj that adequate reservation of the class or group must be measured against the cadre is contrary to the plain language of Articles 16(4) and 16(4-A). Both the provisions use the phrase "not adequately represented in the services/under the State."
219. Thus, in view of the above discussion, the State for a valid exercise of power to sub-classify under Article 16(4) is required to collect quantifiable data with respect to the inadequacy of representation of the sub-categories in the services of the State. As held in the preceding section, the inadequacy of representation is an indicator of backwardness and thus, to use the cadre as a unit to determine representation alters the purpose of the indicator itself. The State while deciding if the class is adequately represented must calculate adequacy based on effective and not quantitative representation. E. Conclusion
220. In view of the discussion above, the following are our conclusions:
220.1. Article 14 of the Constitution permits sub-
classification of a class which is not similarly situated for the purpose of the law. The Court while testing the validity of sub-classification must determine if the class is a homogeneous integrated class for fulfilling the objective of the sub-classification. If the class is not integrated for the purpose, the class can be further classified upon the fulfilment of the two-prong intelligible Deepti Ganesh Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document differentia standard;
Munarshi Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 220.2. In Indra Sawhney, this Court did not limit the application of sub-classification only to the Other 102 OA No.407/2020 Backward Class. This Court upheld the application of the principle to beneficiary classes under Articles 15(4) and 16(4);
220.3. Article 341(1) does not create a deeming fiction. The phrase "deemed" is used in the provision to mean that the castes or groups notified by the President shall be "regarded as" the Scheduled Castes. Even if it is accepted that the deeming fiction is used for the creation of a constitutional identity, the only logical consequence that flows from it is that castes included in the list will receive the benefits that the Constitution provides to the Scheduled Castes. The operation of the provision does not create an integrated homogeneous class;
220.4. Sub-classification within the Scheduled Castes does not violate Article 341(2) because the castes are not per se included in or excluded from the List. Sub- classification would violate the provision only when either preference or exclusive benefit is provided to certain castes or groups of the Scheduled Castes over all the seats reserved for the class:
220.5. Historical and empirical evidence demonstrates that the Scheduled Castes are a socially heterogeneous class. Thus, the State in exercise of the power under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) can further classify the Scheduled Castes if:
(a) there is a rational principle for differentiation; and
(b) the rational principle has a nexus with the purpose of sub-classification; and 220.6. The holding in E.V. Chinnaiah Vs. State of A.P. Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi (2005) 1 SCC 394 that sub-classification of the Scheduled Deepti Ganesh Castes is impermissible is overruled. The scope of sub-
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Munarshi Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 classification of the Scheduled Castes is summarised below:103 OA No.407/2020
(i) The objective of any form of affirmative action including sub-classification is to provide substantive equality of opportunity for the backward classes. The State can sub-classify, inter alia, based on inadequate representation of certain castes. However, the State must establish that the inadequacy of representation of a caste/group is because of its backwardness;
(ii) The State must collect data on the inadequacy of representation in the "services of the State" because it is used as an indicator of backwardness; and
(iii) Article 335 of the Constitution is not a limitation on the exercise of power under Articles 16(1) and 16(4).
Rather, it is a restatement of the necessity of considering the claims of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes in public services. Efficiency of administration must be viewed in a manner which promotes inclusion and equality as required by Article 16(1).
221. The Registry is directed to obtain administrative instructions from Chief Justice for placing the matters before an appropriate Bench".
37. In the aforesaid case of Davinder Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to dealt with the issue of "Sub-
Classification", whereas in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jarnail Singh (2) (supra), the issue was in respect of "reservation in promotion" and, therefore, the Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Deepti Ganesh DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Munarshi Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is not tenable 104 OA No.407/2020 and the order relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicants in the case of Arvind Kumar Ranjan (supra) in humble opinion, view expressed, is not the correct position. Further, in the similar issue of grant of promotion in reservation and consequential seniority was subject matter of OA No.557/2023 before this Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Valerie Avinash Dhepe & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. decided on 26th June, 2024 there was a conflict of opinion in respect of view of the Hon'ble Judicial Member and the Hon'ble Administrative Member and, therefore, the matter was referred to Third Member Reference under Section 26 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 which was finally decided on 02nd April, 2025 upholding the view taken by the Hon'ble Administrative Member observing as under:
"......19. Therefore, I concur with view of Hon'ble Member (A) dismissing the OA.
20. In view of the above discussion and for the forgoing reasons, I am in respectful agreement with the aforesaid Order/Judgment dated 26.6.2024 passed by the Hon'ble Member (Administrative) and respectfully, I am not in Deepti Ganesh Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, agreement with the aforesaid Order/Judgment dated 26.6.2024 passed by the Hon'ble Member (J) in the aforesaid CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Munarshi Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 OA."105 OA No.407/2020
38. At this stage, it is relevant to mention that there is no rejoinder filed by the applicant disputing or clarifying or explaining the factual stand taken by the official respondents and the private respondents in their reply to justify the impugned promotion orders and provisional seniority dated 23rd September, 2019. Further, there is no challenge made by the applicant to any of the Office Memorandum based upon which the adhoc impugned promotion orders and seniority list dated 23rd September, 2019 was issued.
39. At this stage, it is relevant here to take note of the another argument of the learned counsel for the applicant that during the pendency of the present OA, in spite of interim order dated 04th January, 2021, without there being any provision or rule and without carrying out the exercise of collecting quantifiable data as per the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in respect of inadequacy of representation, further promotions have been granted by the department in the year Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi 2023 which is contemptuous.
Deepti Ganesh DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Munarshi Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 106 OA No.407/2020
40. Although, learned counsel for the official respondents justified the aforesaid action of grant of promotions in the year 2023 based upon OM dated 12th April, 2022 which according to the learned counsel for the respondents was issued after the judgment of Jarnail Singh (2)(supra).
41. In regard to the aforesaid submissions in the present OA, neither there is any challenge to OM dated 12th April, 2022 nor to any seniority list or ad-hoc promotion orders issued in pursuance of the said OM. Therefore, the same cannot be looked into without there being any challenge in the present proceedings. However, it is for the applicants to take appropriate steps in this regard, if so advised and if permissible under the law. Even while filing written submissions, the official respondents have suggested that applicants are free to reagitate their grievance in case they are not agreed by the methodology followed by the respondents while dealing with and implementing the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi case of Jarnail Singh (2)(supra).
Deepti Ganesh DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Munarshi Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 107 OA No.407/2020
42. At this stage, it is also necessary to take into consideration MA No.109/2025 filed by the Intervenors. The aforesaid application was filed during the pendency of the present OA and looking to the application, although no independent right has been claimed by the intervenors. Their only limited prayer was to consider their cases for the post of Assistant Commissioner subject to outcome of the present OA. It is pertinent to mention that in the present OA, no independent relief can be granted to the present intervenors. Thus, in view of the aforesaid, since OA is being disposed of by the present order, no further orders are required to be passed in MA No.109/2025 which is accordingly disposed of.
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.
Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh MunarshiDeepti Ganesh DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi (Santosh Mehra) (Umesh Gajankush) Reason: I am the author of this document Munarshi Location:
Date: 2025.07.07 13:31:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 Member (A) Member (J) dm.