Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Rishikant Prajapati vs Central Railway on 15 September, 2025
1
OA No.1108/2023
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCH, MUMBAI
O.A. No.1108/2023
THIRD MEMBER REFERENCE
(Under Sec.26 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985)
Reserved on: 08.09.2025
Pronounced on :15 .09.2025
Hon'ble Mr. Ajay Pratap Singh, Member (Judicial)
1. Rishikant Prajapati, Son of Biranjee Prasad
Date of birth: 07.07.1982, age- 41 years 4 months,
Working as: Loco Pilot Goods (LPG) (Group "C" post) in the
office of Sr. CC - Kalyan UP-YARD Good's Lobby, Central
Railway, and Residing at: Trimurti Complex, Building
No.2, Room No.302, Bichumbe Deved, New Panvel, State
of Maharashtra 410206, Cell: 9004442515.
2. Sunil Kumar Singh, Son of Chanchal Singh
Date of birth: 12.02.1984, age- 39 years 09 months,
Working as: Loco Pilot Goods (LPG) (Group "C" post) in the
office of Sr. CC - Kalyan UP-YARD Good's Lobby, Central
Railway, and Residing at: Room No.303, A-Wing, Sanjog
Smrit, Chinchpada Road, Chinchpada, Kalyan (East),
Thane District, Maharashtra State - 421306, Cell:
9004442584, Email id: [email protected].
3. Akrosh Kumar Singh, Son of Nand Kishor Singh
Date of birth: 25.10.1987, age 35 years 01 month,
Working as: Loco Pilot Goods (LPG) (Group "C" post) in the
office of Sr. CC -Kalyan UP-YARD Good's Lobby, Central
Railway, and Residing at : Friends C.H.S. Ltd., Flat
No.303, 3rd Floor, Sec-03, Plot No.24, New Panvel (East),
District-Raigad, State of Maharashtra 410206, Cell:
7710014758, email id: [email protected].
4. Manoj Kumar, Son of Mahendra Singh
Date of birth:01.02.1987, Age- 36 years 09 months,
Working as: Loco Pilot Goods (LPG) (Group "C" post) in the
office of Sr. CC -Kalyan UP-YARD Good's Lobby, Central
Railway, and Residing at: Room No.104, Narul CHS.,
NARES NARESH
KUMAR
H AHUJA
KUMAR 2025.09.16
11:31:56
AHUJA +05'30'
2
OA No.1108/2023
Road No.2, Sector-03, New Panel 410206, Raigad -
Maharashtra, Cell: 90044442068.
5. Deepak Kumar, Son of Amarnath Saw,
Date of birth: 02.03.1989, Age- 34 years 08 months,
working as: Loco Pilot Goods (LPG) (Group "C" post) in the
office of Sr. CC - Kalyan UP-YARD Good's Lobby, Central
Railway, and Residing at: Anant Ganecha, B-Wing No.2,
Ground Floor, Vichumbe, New Panvel, Near Green Valley,
State of Maharashtra 410206, Cell: 9004442388.
6. Md. Naushad, Son of Md. Rauf, Date of birth: 12.05.1988,
Age- 35 years 05 months, Working as: Loco Pilot Goods
(LPG) (Group "C" post) in the office of Sr. CC -Kalyan UP-
YARD Good's Lobby, Central Railway, and residing at: Raj
Residency, Godavari Wing, Room -203, Vichumbe, New
Panvel, Near SBI Bank, State of Maharashtra 410206,
Cell: 9004413685.
7. Krishna Murari Gupta, Son of Bidhanchandra Gupta
Date of birth: 12.06.1983, Age-40 years 05 months,
Working as: Loco Pilot Goods (LPG) (Group "C" post) in the
office of Sr. CC Kalyan UP-YARD Good's Lobby, Central
Railway, and Residing at: A/193, Prabhat Chawl, Jagdish
Shetty Road, Ganeshnagar, Charkop, Kandivali (West),
Mumbai (Maharashtra) 400067, Cell: 9004442714, email
id: [email protected]
8. Santoshkumar Lalji Yadav, Son of Lalji R. Yadav
Date of birth: 04.01.1983, age 40 years 11 months,
Working as: Loco Pilot Goods (LPG) (Group "C" post) in the
office of Sr. CC - Kalyan UP-YARD Good's Lobby, Central
Railway, and residing at: Abhilakh Nagar Society No.2,
Kandivali (West), Mumbai 400067, State of Maharashtra,
Cell: 9967140617, Email id: [email protected].
9. Rakesh Madhukar Joshi, Son of Madhukar S. Joshi,
Date of birth: 12.03.1984, age-39 years 08 months,
Working as : Loco Pilot Goods (LPG) (Group "C" post) in
the office of Sr. CC Kalyan UP-YARD Good's Lobby,
Central Railway, Mumbai Division, and residing at :
A/602, Om-Shrikrishna Apartment, Opp. Hanuman
Mandir, Adharwadi Chowk, Kalyan (W), District Thane,
State of Maharashtra - 421301, Cell: 9004442328/
9321207501, Email id: [email protected].
NARES NARESH
KUMAR
H AHUJA
KUMAR 2025.09.16
11:31:56
AHUJA +05'30'
3
OA No.1108/2023
10. Anuj Kumar, Son of Ramdatta Yadav,
Date of birth: 12.03.1988, age- 34 years 08 months,
Working as Loco Pilot Goods (LPG) (Group "C" post) in the
office of Sr. CC - Kalyan UP-YARD Good's Lobby, Central
Railway, and residing at: Kashish Colony, C-406,
Kachoregaon, Kalyan (East), District: Thane 421306, State
of Maharashtra, Cell: 7304731097, Email id:
[email protected].
11. Shushanta Kumar Paul, Son of Late Ambuj Chandra Paul
Date of birth: 10.06.1981, Age- 42 years 05 months,
Working as: Loco Pilot Goods (LPG) (Group "C" post) in the
office of Sr. CC - Kalyan UP-YARD Good's Lobby, Central
Railway, and Residing at: Room No.1, Ground Floor,
Sahadev Building, Krishna Complex, Chinchpara Road,
Kalyan (East), District: Thane, State of Maharashtra Pin
Code: 421306, Cell: 9004442594.
12. Sunil Kr., Son of Ramnath Prasad, Date of birth:
05.01.1988, Age 35 years 10 months, Working as: Loco
Pilot Goods (LPG) (Group "C" post) in the office of Sr. CC -
Kalyan UP-YARD Good's Lobby, Central Railway, and
residing at: Krishna Complex, Sudarshan Building. 11,
Chinchpada, Kalyan (East), District: Thane, State of
Maharashtra Pin Code: 421306, cell: 7710014729.
13. Rajeev Kumar Raushan, Son of Sant Kumar Singh,
Age- 37 years 05 months, Date of birth: 10.06.1986,
Working as: Loco Pilot Goods (LPG) (Group "C" post) in the
office of Sr. CC - Kalyan, Central Railway, and Residing at
A-5/405, Kanchanjanga Lokdhara Complex, _ Lokdhara,
Kalyan (East), State: Maharashtra 421 306, cell:
9004442689.
14. Rajesh Kumar, Son of Late Raghunath Singh,
Date of birth: 01.01.1984, Age- 39 years 10 months,
Working as Loco Pilot Goods (LPG) (Group "C" post) in the
office of Sr. CC - Kalyan UP-YARD Good's Lobby, Central
Railway, and Residing at Building -12, Flat No.205,
Panvelkar Heights, Jadhav Colony, Belavali, Badlapur
(West), District: Thane, State of Maharashtra
Pin Code: 421503, Cell: 9004442138.
NARES NARESH
KUMAR
H AHUJA
KUMAR 2025.09.16
11:31:56
AHUJA +05'30'
4
OA No.1108/2023
15. Chandra Jeet Yadav, Son of Pitra Deo Yadav,
Date of birth: 07.10.1988, age- 35 years 01 month,
Working as: Loco Pilot Goods (LPG) (Group "C" post) in the
office of Sr. CC - Kalyan UP-YARD Good's Lobby, Central
Railway, and residing at A/703, Old Satkar Tower
Sakharam Nagar, Near Saket College, Chinchpada, Kalyan
(East), District: Thane, State of Maharashtra Pin Code:
421306, cell: 904415275.
16. Vishnu Madhav Chauthe, Son of Madhav Onkar Chauthe
Date of birth: 06.08.1986, age-37 years 03 months,
Working as: Loco Pilot Goods (LPG) (Group "C" post) in the
office of Sr. CC Kalyan UP-YARD Good's Lobby, Central
Railway, and residing at Shashikala Enclave, Room
No.1303, Near Swami Samarth Seva Kendra,
Kolsewadi,Kalyan (East), District Thane, State of
Maharashtra Pin Code: - 421306, Cell: 90044442660.
17. Milan Kumar Das, Son of Gobinda Chandra Das,
Date of birth: 21.02.1981, age-42 years 09 months,
Working as: Loco Pilot Goods (LPG) (Group "C" post) in the
office of Sr. CC - Kalyan UP-YARD Good's Lobby, Central
Railway, and residing at: Flat No.202, C-Wing, Nirmala
Park, Rajaram Patil Nagar, Adiwali Dhokali, Kalyan (East),
District: -Thane, State of Maharashtra Pin Code: 421306,
Cell: 904442478.
18. Pawan Kumar, Son of Arun Prasad Singh,
Date of birth: 10.02.1987, Age- 36 years 09 months,
Working as Loco Pilot Goods (LPG) (Group "C" post) in the
office of Sr. CC - Kalyan UP-YARD Good's Lobby, Central
Railway, and residing at: B2/405, Patel Prayosha Yogi
Niwas, Mahatma Phule Nagar, Jawasai, Near Ram Mandir,
Ambernath (West), District: Thane, State of Maharashtra
Pin Code: 421501, Cell: 9004415067, Email id:
[email protected]
19. Dhirendra Kumar, Son of Late Sri Krishna Singh
Date of birth: 12.03.1984, Age-39 years 08 months,
Working as Loco Pilot Goods (LPG) (Group "C" post) in the
office of Sr. CC - Kalyan UP-YARD Good's Lobby, Central
Railway, and residing at: D/202, Nimbreshwar Shristi,
NARES NARESH
KUMAR
H AHUJA
KUMAR 2025.09.16
11:31:56
AHUJA +05'30'
5
OA No.1108/2023
Vichumbe, Devad Panvel (East), 410206, State of
Maharashtra 9004442403, Email id:
[email protected]
20. Aashutosh Ravindra Vispute, Son of Ravindra Chindhu
Vispute, Date of birth: 02.08.1991, age 32 years 03
months, Working as: Loco Pilot Goods (LPG) (Group "C"
post) in the office of Sr. CC-Kalyan UP-YARD Good's
Lobby, Central Railway, and residing at: Flat No.333, 3rd
Floor, Juhi Building, B6, Lokupitya, Lokgram, Kalyan
(East), District: Thane, State of Maharashtra Pin Code:
421326, Cell: 9004442494.
21. Pankaj Kumar Gupta, Son of Late Mahesh Prasad,
Date of birth: 25.12.1987, age 35 years 11 months,
Working as Loco Pilot Goods (LPG) (Group "C" post) in the
office of Sr. CC - Kalyan UP-YARD Good's Lobby, Central
Railway, and residing at: A/11, Flat No.20, Ratan Dham
Bldg., Ratan Nagar, Borivali (East), Greater Bank Building,
Mumbai 4000678, State of Maharashtra, Cell:
9004442493.
22. Rabindra Kumar, Son of Ambika Pandey,
Date of birth: 16.09.1989, age 34 years 02 months,
Working as: Loco Pilot Goods (LPG) (Group "C" post) in the
office of Sr. CC - Kalyan UP-YARD Good's Lobby, Central
Railway, and residing at: Indralok Building No.6, Flat
No.401, Gauripada, Kalyan (West), District: Thane, State
of Maharashtra Pin Code: 421 301, Cell: 7710014772.
23. Awadh Kumar, Son of Bindeshwari Yadav,
Date of birth: 05.05.1992, age- 31 years 04 months,
Working as Loco Pilot Goods (LPG) (Group "C" post) in the
office of Sr. CC - Kalyan UP-YARD Good's Lobby, Central
Railway, and residing at: Panvelkar Heights, Jadhav
Colony, Belawali, Badlapur (West), District: Thane, State
of Maharashtra Pin Code: 421503, cell: 9004412304.
24. Vinod Kumar Yadav, Son of Hanuman Prasad Yadav
Date of birth: 07.08.1980, Age- 43 years 03 months,
Working as: Loco Pilot Goods (LPG) (Group "C" post) in the
office of Sr. CCKalyan UP-YARD Good's Lobby, Central
Railway, and residing at: Aakansha Complex, Gate
No.171/0, E-Wing, Room No.203, Vichumbe, Panvel,
District -Raigad, State of Maharashtra 410206, Cell:
9004415206.
NARES NARESH
KUMAR
H AHUJA
KUMAR 2025.09.16
11:31:56
AHUJA +05'30'
6
OA No.1108/2023
25. Sanjay Kr. Kushwaha,Son of Hriday Narain Pd Kushwaha
Date of birth: 05.06.1990, Age- 33 years 05 months,
Working as Loco Pilot Goods (LPG) (Group "C" post) in the
office of Sr. CCKalyan UP-YARD Good's Lobby, Central
Railway, and residing at Patel's Prayosha Yogi Niwas, B-
2/406, Near Mahatma Phule Nagar, Mandir, Ram
Jawasai, Ambernath (West), District: Thane, State of
Maharashtra Pin Code: 421 501, cell:9004413709, email:
[email protected]
26. Pawan Kumar, Son of Satendra Prasad Singh,
Date of birth: 08.02.1985, Age- 38 years 09 months,
Working as: Loco Pilot Goods (LPG) (Group "C" post) in the
office of Sr. CCKalyan UP-YARD Good's Lobby, Central
Railway, and Residing at: B-1, Flat No.17, (West), District:
Thane, State of Maharashtra Pin Code: 421502,
Cell:9004413198,Emailid:ranjeetkumar13041983@gmail.
com.
27. Ranjeet Kumar, Son of Upendra Prasad
Date of birth: 13.04.1983, Age- 40 years 07 months,
Working as: Loco Pilot Goods (LPG) (Group "C" post) in the
office of Sr. CC - Kalyan UP-YARD Good's Lobby, Central
Railway, and residing at: Patel's Prayosa Yogi Niwas, B-02,
Room No.404, Phule Nagar, Jawasai, Near Ram Mandir,
Ambernath (West), District: Thane, State of Maharashtra
Pin Code: 421502, Cell: 9004413198,
Email id: [email protected].
... Applicants
Versus
1. Union of India through: Secretary, Railway Board, Rail
Bhavan, Raisina Road, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Marg, New
Delhi-110011.
2. General Manager, Office of the General Manager,
Central Railway, Headquarters' Office, Chhatrapati Shivaji
Maharaj Terminus (CSMT), Mumbai 400001.
3. DRM (Divisional Railway Manager) Central Railway,
Mumbai Division, DRM's Office, Annexe Building,
NARES NARESH
KUMAR
H AHUJA
KUMAR 2025.09.16
11:31:56
AHUJA +05'30'
7
OA No.1108/2023
Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Terminus (CSMT), Mumbai
400001.
4. Sr. D.P.O(Senior Divisional Personnel Officer)
Central Railway, Divisional Office, Personnel Branch,
Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Terminus (CSMT), Mumbai
400001.
5. Kunal Gouttam Sute Working as: Loco Pilot Goods
(LPG) in the Central Railway, under DRM'S Office, Annexe
Building, Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Terminus (CSMT),
Mumbai 400001.
6. Prashant S. Ramteke Working as: Loco Pilot Goods
(LPG) in the Central Railway, under DRM'S Office, Annexe
Building, Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Terminus (CSMT),
Mumbai 400001.
7. Ignasius Munshi Hansdak Working as: Loco Pilot
Goods (LPG) in the Central Railway, under DRM's Office,
Annexe Building, Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Terminus
(CSMT), Mumbai 400001.
8. Amit Kumar Meena Working as: Loco Pilot Goods
(LPG) in the Central Railway, under DRM's Office, Annexe
Building, Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Terminus (CSMT),
Mumbai 400001.
...Respondents
For Applicants: Mr. Rahul G. Walia, Advocate
For Respondents: Dr. Vinay S. Masurkar, Advocate with
Ms.Sharnya Sinha,Advocate for R1to R4
Mr.Joe D'Souza, Advocate for R-6 to R-8.
NARES NARESH
KUMAR
H AHUJA
KUMAR 2025.09.16
11:31:56
AHUJA +05'30'
8
OA No.1108/2023
ORDER
Per Hon'ble Mr. Ajay Pratap Singh, Member (Judicial):
The instant Original Application has come on being referred under Section 26 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 185 [for brevity herein after referred as Act, 1985] to the Third Member in view of difference of opinion between the two Hon'ble Members in their respective common order/Order dated 03.07.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Member (Judicial) and Hon'ble Member (Administrative).
2. The order was reserved in the OA on 11.03.2025 by the Division Bench consisting of Hon'ble Shri Umesh Gajankush, Member (Judicial) and Hon'ble Shri Santosh Mehra, Member (Administrative). The Hon'ble Member (Judicial) of the said Division Bench recorded his findings and conclusion and dismissed the OA as no case is made out for interference in the OA. However, the Hon'ble Member (Administrative) has recorded his concurrence in full with the first 46 paragraphs of common order dated 03.07.2025 passed by Hon'ble Member (Judicial) but taken a different view with different conclusions of the order passed by Hon'ble Member (Judicial). Hon'ble Member (Administrative) vide common order dated 03.07.2025 the OA was allowed.
3. I have heard wide-ranging arguments on either side for a couple of days, raising several points. The CAT, Mumbai Bench forwarded a complete set of both the OAs which was received by Registry of CAT, PB notified for hearing and the present OA after hearing for the couple of days has been reserved for orders.
FACTS IN BREIF
4. The briefly stated facts, for sake of convenience and clarity, as evident from material placed on record are as under -
NARES NARESH KUMAR H AHUJA KUMAR 2025.09.16 11:31:56 AHUJA +05'30' 9 OA No.1108/2023 4.1 Applicants are presently working on the post of Loco Pilot Goods [in short LPG] in G.P. Rs.4200 Level-6 and channel to be promoted to the post of Motorman in GP Rs.4200/Level-6. Respondents issued order dated 16.10.2023 and 7.11.2023 and have arbitrarily granted reservation in promotion without satisfying the compelling reasons required under Article 16(4-A) of the Constitution of India. The action of respondents providing reservation in promotion from post of LPG to Motorman vide order dated 07.11.2023 to SC-42 and ST-27 posts and reserved category from serial no.378 are junior to some of the applicants. The impugned order dated 07.11.2023 is violative of law laid down in M.Nagaraj vs. Union of India [(2006) 8 SCC 212], Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. Rajesh Kumar & Ors. [(2012) 7 SCC 1] and judgment dated 29.11.2018 in OA No.457 of 2016.
4.2 Applicants have prayed to set aside impugned orders dated 16.10.2023 and 07.11.2023 to the extent it provide for reservation of post i.e. SC-42 and ST 27, total 69 in the cadre of Motorman and seeking direction to promote applicants based on general seniority-cum-suitability without providing reservation in promotion to the post of Motorman as respondents have not carried out requisite exercise to satisfy compelling reasons to extent reservation.
4.3 Per contra, official respondents stated in the counter reply that post of Motorman (DC)/LPP (DSL/DC) in PB-2, GP Rs.4200 has a sanctioned strength of 1144. The respondents have carried out exercise before taking decision to implement reservation in promotion to Motorman (DC/LPP (DSL/DC) in Mumbai Division as evident from Office Note No.1, No.BBP Loco Motorman dated 01.09.2023 (Annexure R-6 filed with reply dated 8.12.2023). The quantifiable data collected and assessment of vacancies exercise as on 31.08.2023, already carried out and suitability criteria is same for all category.
NARES NARESH KUMAR H AHUJA KUMAR 2025.09.16 11:31:56 AHUJA +05'30' 10 OA No.1108/2023 4.4 Respondents have further averred in the reply that based on pre-requisite on careful perusal of assessment, there are 42 vacancies in SC and 27 in ST category out of total 446 posts and 377 to be filled by general category. The Railway has acted in full compliance of law laid down in case of M. Nagaraj (supra) and clarified in Jarnail Singh (2) (supra) and OM dated 12.04.2022 issued pursuant to Jarnail Singh (2) by Hon'ble Supreme Court. Respondents acted after carrying out exercise as shown in office note dated 01.09.2023 (Annexure R-6) and in consonance of requisite exercise and parameters in OM dated 12.04.2022 adopted vide RBE No.53/2022 dated 13.04.2022 for Railway employees as to conditions laid down as to collection of data in the cadre as per post based roster and assessing overall efficiency, decision taken on the available data in the cadre to fill up vacancies in Motorman/Passenger (DSL/DC) based on prescribed criteria seniority-cum-suitability.
4.5 Respondents no.6 to 8 have also filed reply stating that applicants have misunderstood the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of M. Nagaraj (supra) and clarified in Jarnail Singh (2) (supra) and in compliance to pre- requisite exercise undertaken as provided in OM dated 12.04.2022 and adopted by Railway Board in RBE No.53/2022 dated 13.04.2022 and impugned order dated 16.10.2023 is an assessment of vacancies arrived at based on cadre strength in Motorman based on post-based roster in terms of law and till date no promotion order has been issued and no case is made out and present OA deserves to be dismissed being devoid of merits.
5. Thereafter, on conclusion of arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties before the said Division Bench of CAT Mumbai Bench, Mumbai, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) wrote an order dated 03.07.2025 considering the factual matrix of the case that challenge is to order dated 16.10.2023 assessment for filling up vacancies for the post of Motorman, Level-6, approved NARES NARESH KUMAR H AHUJA KUMAR 2025.09.16 11:31:56 AHUJA +05'30' 11 OA No.1108/2023 by competent authority as to General - 377, SC-42 and ST-27 and total 446 posts to be filled up based on requisite exercise for filling up vacancies of Motorman (DC/LPP (DSL/DC) PB-2, GP Rs.4200 Level-6 in Mumbai Division whereby data has been analyzed based on post based reservation roster and determined adequacy of representation based on post based roster in the cadre of Motorman (DC) in Mumbai Division. The assessment of vacancies already carried out in the cadre reproduced in paragraph 4.3 of the common order dated 03.07.2025. Hon'ble Member (Judicial) also considered Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in case of R.K. Sabharwal and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. (1995) 2 SCC 745 and considered assessment of vacancies for the post of Motorman. So also in detail analyzed the data collection in the cadre for post of Motorman to determine adequacy of representation. So also considered factual matrix, in State of Punjab vs. Davinder Singh [(2025) 1 SCC 1] and held that the contention of the learned counsel for applicants not tenable and placed reliance on similar case of OA No.557/2023 before this Bench titled as Valerie Avinash Dhepe vs. UOI & Ors decided on 02.04.2025 by the majority opinion of the Division Bench of this Tribunal, dismissed the OA upholding reservation in promotion as respondents satisfied compelling reasons before effecting reservation as there is inadequate representation in the cadre. Hon'ble Member (Judicial) also held that applicants have not disputed the factual position provided by the official respondents and there is no challenge to the Circulars, on the basis of assessment and analysis of data in the Motorman cadre and duly approved by the competent authority and decision has been taken to prepare list of employees dated 07.11.2023 under consideration for promotion to the post of Motorman (DC) Level-6 in Mumbai Division. The Hon'ble Member (Judicial) vide common order dated 03.07.2025 after detail analysis of the exercise taken to comply mandate of Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in M. Nagaraj (supra) and clarified in Jarnail Singh (2) (supra) and NARES NARESH KUMAR H AHUJA KUMAR 2025.09.16 11:31:56 AHUJA +05'30' 12 OA No.1108/2023 laws laid down in similar terms of this Bench placed reliance on the majority decision in OA No.557/2023 Valerie Avinash Dhepe vs. UOI & Ors dismissed the OA as no interference warranted and upheld impugned orders as unassailable.
6. Hon'ble Member (Judicial) passed common order dated 03.07.2025 held as under -
"18. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, no case is made out for interference in the present OA, same is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Pending MAs, if any, stand closed. No order as to costs."
[Emphasis supplied]
7. On receipt of the aforesaid order authored by Hon'ble Member (Judicial), the Hon'ble Member (Administrative) has expressed his agreement with first 46 pages of the pre- delivery order in this OA [Paragraph 1 to 12 of the common order dated 03.07.2025 by Hon'ble Member (Judicial)] but at the same time expressed his disagreement to the view taken by Hon'ble Member (Judicial) and opined -
"7. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the O.A is allowed. The respondents are directed:
1. To give the promotions strictly on the basis of seniority cum suitability as per the original seniority list, irrespective of their castes/tribes status of the individuals.
2. The Notification/Order dated 16.10.2023, and subsequent Order dated 07.11.2023 are quashed and set aside to the extent of providing promotions on the basis of reservation for SCs / STs.
3. No costs."
[Emphasis supplied]
8. On receipt of aforesaid disagreement by following the principles of natural justice, learned counsel appearing for the parties were giving opportunity to address their arguments.
9. Having heard Shri Rahul G. Walia, learned counsel for the applicants, Dr. V.S. Masurkar, learned counsel assisted by Ms. Sharanya Sinha, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 to 4 and Shri Joe D'Souza, learned counsel for respondent no. 6 to 8 and also perused the material on record.
NARES NARESH KUMAR H AHUJA KUMAR 2025.09.16 11:31:56 AHUJA +05'30' 13 OA No.1108/2023 ARGUMENTS
10. Shri Rahul G. Walia, learned counsel for the applicants supporting the view of Hon'ble Member (Administrative) and criticizing order passed by Hon'ble Member (Judicial) reiterated his submissions and can be summarized as under -
i) Respondents have not collected quantifiable data indicating inadequacy of representation of the SCs and STs in the cadre of Motorman in Mumbai Division, so also not evaluated impact on overall efficiency in running trains and without undertaking requisite exerciees mandatory under Article 16(4-A) of the Constitution of India decided vide impugned orders to grant reservation in promotion from the post of LPG to Motorman and same is violative of dictum of M. Nagaraj (supra), hence, deserve to be quashed and set aside and grant promotion on the post of Motorman based on seniority-cum-fitness prescribed criteria for consideration for the promotion from LPG to Motorman.
ii) There is no rules or guidelines for granting reservation in the matter of promotion and providing reservation of posts SC-42 and ST-27 to juniors vide impugned orders is bad in law.
iii) Article 16(4), 16(4-A) and 16(4-B) are enabling provisions and does not provide for any constitutional guarantee for reservation in promotion without undertaking requisite exercise to show compelling reasons to grant reservation.
(iv) Respondents are duty bound to carry out fresh exercise to first collect the quantifiable data in respect to SCs and STs population in public employment and keeping in mind overall efficiency with exclusion of creamy layer and if any compelling reasons than discretion to extend reservation NARES NARESH KUMAR H AHUJA KUMAR 2025.09.16 11:31:56 AHUJA +05'30' 14 OA No.1108/2023 in promotion can be exercised with seniority, without satisfying pre-requisites respondents have issued impugned orders and there is no provision to provide reservation in promotion.
(v) The nine-Judge Bench decision in case of Indra Sawhney & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., 1992 SCC (L&S) Suppl.1 decided on 16.11.1992. Hon'ble Supreme Court in majority opinion held that reservation is permissible at the time of initial recruitment and not in promotion. By the 77th Amendment, Article 16(4-A) and 16(4-B) are only enabling provisions that the State is empowered to extant reservation. If the State has quantifiable data to show inadequacy of representation can make reservations in promotion keeping in mind maintenance of efficiency is as indicated by Article 335 of the Constitution of India.
(vi) The Five-Judge Constitution Bench, judgment in case of M. Nagaraj (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the State concerned will have to show in each case the existence of the compelling reasons namely backwardness, inadequacy of representation and overall administrative efficiency before making provision for reservation in promotion. Article 16(4-A) is an enabling provision and State is not bound to make reservation for SCs/STs in matters of promotions. The official respondents failed to collect quantifiable data showing inadequacy of representation and in addition to compliance with Article 335 and State has to see ceiling limit of 50% and creamy layer.
(vii)In case of U.P. Power Corporation vs. Rajesh Kumar & Ors. (2012) 7 SCC 1, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Article 16(4-A) and 16(4-B) are enabling provision and State can make provision for reservation in promotion on certain basis or foundation and in each case a fresh NARES NARESH KUMAR H AHUJA KUMAR 2025.09.16 11:31:56 AHUJA +05'30' 15 OA No.1108/2023 exercise in the light of the Constitution Bench in M. Nagaraj (supra) is mandatory requirement. Respondents have not carried out any exercise and there is no collection of data to show compelling reasons, hence the impugned orders of promotion as well as grant of consequential seniority in the cadre of Superintendent deserves to be quashed and set aside.
(viii) In B.K. Pavitra (1) Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2017) 4 SCC 620, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that State has to place exercise undertaken for determination of inadequacy of representation and overall efficiency under Article 16(4- A) and roster promotee will not be entitled for consequential seniority who are otherwise junior and catch-up rule will be applicable and seniority to those promoted later cannot be denied seniority on account of reservation policy. In the present case there is no iota of evidence to show as to collection of quantifiable data of population of SCs and STs and consequential seniority based on roster promotee to juniors cannot be granted and catch-up-rule will apply.
(ix) The Five-Judge Constitution Bench judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Jarnail Singh (1) (supra). Their Lordships held that in M.Nagaraj (supra) the creamy layer test to SCs and STs in exercise of applications of the basic structure test to uphold the constitutional amendments to Article 16(4-A) and 15(4-B) and when applying the principles of reservation will be well within their jurisdiction to exclude the creamy layer from such groups or sub-groups. In the nine-Judge Constitution Bench decision in case of Indra Sawhney (supra) the creamy layer principle is applied and creamy layer SEBCS are excluded to grant benefits of reservation. Respondents have not applied principle of creamy layer to exclude SCs and STs to provide reservation in promotion NARES NARESH KUMAR H AHUJA KUMAR 2025.09.16 11:31:56 AHUJA +05'30' 16 OA No.1108/2023 vide impugned orders and same are liable to be quashed and set aside as dictum of M.Nagaraj (supra) and Jarnail Singh (1) (supra) not been complied with.
(x) In Jarnail Singh (1) (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that quantifiable data shall be collected by the State on the parameters as stipulated in M. Nagaraj (supra) on the inadequacy of the representation which can be tested by the Courts and the data should be relatable to the cadre concerned. The Union or State in the present case executives have not undertaken exercise to show compelling reasons determining adequacy of representation of SCs and STs by collection and analysis of quantifiable data in the cadre of Motormen/LPP and impugned orders deserve to be set aside as requisite exercise has not been carried out to show inadequacy of representation in the cadre.
(xi) In case of Jarnail Singh (1), Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the judgment in M. Nagaraj (supra) does not need to be referred to a seven-judge Bench and conclusion in M.Nagaraj (supra) that the State has to collect quantifiable data showing backwardness of the SCs and STs being contrary to the nine-judge Bench in Indra Sawhney (1) (supra) held to be invalid to this extent.
(xii)Mukesh Kumar and Anr. vs. State of Uttarakhand & Ors., reported in (2020) 3 SCC 1. Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Article 16(4) and 16(4-A) do not confer fundamental right to claim reservation in promotions being in nature of enabling provisions, vesting discretion on the State government to consider providing reservations, if circumstances so warrant. State cannot be directed to provide reservation for appointment in public employment. State is also not bound to provide reservation in promotion to SCs and STs. So also held that NARES NARESH KUMAR H AHUJA KUMAR 2025.09.16 11:31:56 AHUJA +05'30' 17 OA No.1108/2023 if the decision of the government is challenged in the Court, the State concerned shall have to place before the Court the requisite quantifiable data and satisfy that such reservation became necessary on account of inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs in a particular class or classes of posts without affecting general efficiency of administration by Article 335. The respondents in present case have not shown any material to show compelling reasons for extent of reservation.
(xiii)Jarnail Singh (2) (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that constitution Bench in Jarnail Singh (1) had rejected the request for reconsideration of law laid down in case of M. Nagaraj (supra), Their Lordships held that in M. Nagaraj (supra) it has been held that it is open to State to provide for reservation in promotion subject to limitation that there must exist compelling reasons for backwardness, inadequacy of representation in a class of post(s) keeping in mind the overall administrative efficiency. The appropriate Government has to apply the cadre strength as a unit in the operation of the roster in order to ascertain whether a given class/group is adequately represented in the service and the collection of quantifiable data regarding inadequacy of representation as stipulated by M. Nagaraj (supra) is relatable to cadre concerned according to Jarnail Singh (1). There has to be some quantifiable data in cadre of Assistant Commissioner to show inadequacy of representation of SCs/STs to justify impugned orders.
(xiv) In Manoj Parihar and Others Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors. (2022) 14 SCC 72. Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the roster system is only for the purpose of ensuring that the quantum of reservation is reflected in the recruitment process and roster points do not determine seniority.
NARES NARESH
KUMAR
H AHUJA
KUMAR 2025.09.16
11:31:56
AHUJA +05'30'
18
OA No.1108/2023
(xv)The seven-Judge Constitution Bench judgment in case of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Davinder Singh & Ors (2025) 1 SCC 1. Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the observations in M. Nagaraj that adequate reservation of the class or group must be measured against the cadre is contrary to the plain language of Article 16(4) and 16 (4-A) and State must collect data on the inadequacy of representation in the services of the State. So also in paragraph 519 and 520.7, held that State must evolve a policy for identifying the creamy layer even from SCs and STs so as to exclude them from the benefit of affirmative action to achieve the real equality as enshrined in the constitution. So also held that the finding of M. Nagaraj (supra), Jarnail Singh (1) (supra) and Davinder Singh (2020) 8 SCC 1 to give effect to the creamy layer principle is also applicable to SCs and STs lays down the correct position of law [para 218 and 519].
11. Dr. Vinay S. Masurkar, Senior Panel Counsel, learned counsel with Ms. Sharnaya Sinha, Advocate appearing for respondent no.1 to 4 reiterated his submissions supporting order passed by Hon'ble Member (Judicial) and can be summarized as under-
(i) Applicants are working as LPG in Mumbai Division, Central Railway and have invoked jurisdiction of this Tribunal under Section 19 of Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 challenging internal communication dated 16.10.2023 from Sr. DPO CSMT to Sr. CCM (M/L) CSM/Sr.CC (UPYG) whereby approval of assessment of vacancies for post of Motormen has been made and also assailed another communication dated 07.11.2023 list of employees under zone of consideration sent for NARES NARESH KUMAR H AHUJA KUMAR 2025.09.16 11:31:56 AHUJA +05'30' 19 OA No.1108/2023 information. Both the internal communications not addressed to any of the applicants. Section 20 read with Section 19 of AT Act, 1985 permits aggrieved person to file OA pertaining to any order after exhausting all other remedies and applicant ought to have filed representation before DRM and GM, Central Railway and present OA is not maintainable hence deserves to be dismissed.
(ii) Hon'ble Member (Judicial) vide common order dated 03.07.20225 in present case already considered Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in case of Indra Sawhney, M. Nagaraj, Jarnail Singh(1) and Jarnail Singh (2) (supra) and OM dated 12.04.2022 adopted by Railway Board vide RBE No. 53/2022 dated 13.04.2022. So also in similar facts and identical issue in Division Bench of this Tribunal in case of All India Equality Forum Vs. Union of India in OA No.332/2019 (Mumbai) vide order dated 05.06.2024 and the majority opinion in another identical case involving identical legal issue in case of Valerie Avinash Dhepe (supra) upheld the orders of promotion by way of extending representation to SCs and STs employees on exercise of determining inadequacy of representation based on data in the cadre and Hon'ble Member (Judicial) correctly decided the issue based on material and requisite exercise undertaken and order dated 03.07.20225 passed by Hon'ble Member (Judicial) is NARES NARESH KUMAR H AHUJA KUMAR 2025.09.16 11:31:56 AHUJA +05'30' 20 OA No.1108/2023 based on latest judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court and same is binding on this Tribunal.
(iii) Hon'ble Member (Judicial) vide common order dated 03.07.2025 in this case already considered in para 11 judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Jarnail Singh (2) (supra), in para 12 also considered State of Punjab vs. Davinder Singh (supra). So also in para 13 placed reliance on order dated 26.06.2024 of similar case in Valerie Avinash Dhepe (supra) and this Bench is bound by decision of Division Bench of this Tribunal and resultantly OA lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed.
(iv) The crux of this case relating to judicial review for this Tribunal to scrutinize the underlying collection of quantifiable data by official respondents to show requisite exercise to determine the adequacy of representation of SCs and STs in the cadre of Motormen (DC) and impact on efficiency in administration. Hon'ble Member (Judicial) in his common order dated 03.07.2005 in para 3(3.3) already considered total sanctioned strength 1144 and exercise undertaken to collect data in Motormen (DC) cadre dated 01.09.2023 and found there is shortfall of 42 SC and 27 ST category and 377-UR category out of total 1144 sanctioned strength for Motormen cadre. The data collected clearly demonstrated inadequacy and Hon'ble Member (Judicial) rightly dismissed the OA.
NARES NARESH KUMAR H AHUJA KUMAR 2025.09.16 11:31:56 AHUJA +05'30' 21 OA No.1108/2023
(v) Respondents-Railways have acted in accordance with dictum in case of M. Nagaaraj (supra), R.K. Sabharwal (supra) and clarified in Jarnail Singh (2) (supra) and there is no arbitrariness and OA deserves to be dismissed.
Article 16(4-A) is an enabling provision and Railways accordingly conducted exercises as laid down to show data only as to the inadequacy of representation and efficiency of administration and in consonance with law issued impugned notifications. Hence, there is neither any illegality nor arbitrariness and present OA is devoid of merits, liable to be dismissed.
12. Shri Joe D'Souza, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.6 to 8 inter alia have adopted the submissions of Dr. V.S. Masurkar, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1 to 4 supporting the view taken by Hon'ble Member (Judicial) and also made the following submissions-
i) The impugned notification dated 16.10.2023 is merely approval by competent authority regarding assessment of the vacancies arrived at based on collection of quantifiable data in the cadre of Motormen (DC). Respondents-
Railways has placed on record exercise undertaken to determine inadequacy of the representation of SCs and STs employees in the cadre of Motormen (DC), Mumbai Division, and office note dated 1.9.2023 is prepared based on post based roster in the cadre of Motormen. What comes out loud and clear that as per cadre strength of 1144 posts of Motormen/Passenger, ensuring quantum of NARES NARESH KUMAR H AHUJA KUMAR 2025.09.16 11:31:56 AHUJA +05'30' 22 OA No.1108/2023 reservation 15% for SCs and 7.5% for STs and with total reservation upto 50% ceiling limit. The exercise undertaken mandatory to extent reservation in provision out of 1144 total posts quota for SC-15% comes to 171 whereas there is shortfall of 42 posts for SCs and for ST quota 7.5% out of 86 posts - there is shortfall of 27 posts and due to inadequate representation determined and roster points and percentage of reservation for SCs and STs to be followed strictly as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of M. Nagaraj (supra) and R.K. Sabharwal (Supra).
ii) Respondents - Railways already demonstrated on record exercise undertaken by collection of data in the cadre in question and inadequacy of representation ascertained as on record there is shortfall of SC-42, ST-27 against sanctioned strength 171 for SC for 15% quota and 86 for ST quota 7.5%. Admittedly, the shortfall for SCs and STs in the post based roster in the cadre of Motormen lead to opinion to extent reservation by implementing OM dated 12.04.2022 adopted in Railway Board RBE No.53/2022 dated 13.04.2022. Hon'ble Member (Judicial) vide common order dated 03.07.2025 already considered and analyzed quantifiable data placed as the exercise undertaken regarding shortfall for SCs and STs in the post based roster and rightly dismissed the OA. Hon'ble Member (Administrative) vide dissenting order dated NARES NARESH KUMAR H AHUJA KUMAR 2025.09.16 11:31:56 AHUJA +05'30' 23 OA No.1108/2023 03.07.2025 though concurred with the factual matrix but contrary to record of quantifiable data, analyzed by Railways and placed on record has allowed the OA without any application of mind on the material required to be scrutinized by way of judicial review.
iii) Respondents-Railways has carried out detail exercise to scrutinize underlying collection of data in the cadre of Motormen(DC) and placed detailed record with reply and adequacy of representation determined based on criteria laid down in M. Nagaraj (supra) and clarified in Jarnail Singh (2) (supra) and RBE No.53/2022 dated 13.04.2022 based on settled legal position to extent reservation after carrying out requisite exercises. There is no relaxation given to SCs and STs in suitability criteria and no adverse impact on efficiency in administration. There is no promotion orders issued till date and present OA has been correctly dismissed by Hon'ble Member (Judicial) and there is no ground to interfere.
iv) Respondents-Railways have demonstrated in the reply dated 18.12.2023 and placed on record to scrutinize exercise undertaken in cadre of Motormen vide office note dated 01.09.2023 and implemented service rule-RBE No.53/2022 dated 13.04.2022 for implementing reservation in promotion, there is no relaxation in benchmark-suitability criteria once compelling reasons NARES NARESH KUMAR H AHUJA KUMAR 2025.09.16 11:31:56 AHUJA +05'30' 24 OA No.1108/2023 shown and placed on record by Railways in this case, there was no reason or any ground to allow the OA by Hon'ble Member (Administrative) vide common order dated 03.07.2025.
v) M. Nagaraj (Supra) is the magna carta in this case and Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of M. Nagaraj (supra) left to the State/executives to test for determination of adequacy of representation in promotional posts and efficiency is not affected as suitability criteria not has been relaxed. Railways have fulfilled duty casted under law once exercise undertaken to determine inadequacy of SCs and STs in cadre of Motormen and complied with law laid down in case of M. Nagaraj (supra) and Jarnail Singh (2) (supra) to extent reservation in promotion.
THE CHALLENGE
13. Applicants are working on the post of LPG, the running cadre of Central Railway, Mumbai Division, Mumbai and by way of present OA has challenged order dated 16.10.2023 to the extent extending reservation in promotion by reserving 42 posts for SCs and 27 posts for STs and total 69 posts and also impugned order dated 07.11.2023 whereby list of employees coming in the zone of consideration has been prepared by providing reservation to junior reserved category employees. The validity of impugned orders so far extent of reservation in promotion to SCs and STs in the cadre of Motorman is under challenge being violative of Article 16(4-A) of the Constitution of India and contrary to law laid down in case of M. Nagaraj (supra).
NARES NARESH KUMAR H AHUJA KUMAR 2025.09.16 11:31:56 AHUJA +05'30' 25 OA No.1108/2023 ANALYSIS
14. Notebly, the terms of reference is not carved out in the dissenting original order dated 03.07.2025 in OA No.1108/2023 by Hon'ble Member (Administrative). Therefore, the issue "Whether impugned orders to the extent of reservation have been issued in accordance with dictum in M. Nagaraj (supra) and Indra Sawhney (supra) or not?
CONSTITUTIONAL JURISPRUDENCE IN RESERVATION A. Special Bench of the nine-Judge of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the landmark decision in case of - Indra Sawhney and Ors. GVs. Union of India & Ors., reported in 1992 Supp (3) Supreme Court Cases 217.
The matter was heard by the nine-judge Bench and by a 6:3 decision the constitutionality, validity and enforceability of the impugned OM dated 13.08.1990, subject to certain conditionalities and pre-requisites, was upheld. The leading judgment by Hon'ble Justice Shri B.P. Jeevan Reddy for Hon'ble Justice Shri M.H. Kania, C.J., Hon'ble Justice Sh. N.N. Venkatachaliah, Hon'ble Justice Shri A.M. Ahmadi, Hon'ble Justice RAtnavel Pandian and Hon'ble Justice Shri P.B. Sawant concurring. Relevant paragraph 859 and 860 reads as under -
"859. We may summarise our answers to the various questions dealt with and answered hereinabove:
(1) (a) It is not necessary that the 'provision' under Article 16(4) should necessarily be made by the Parliament/Legislature.
Such a provision can be made by the Executive also. Local bodies, Statutory Corporations and other instrumentalities of the State falling under Article 12 of the Constitution are themselves competent to make such a provision, if so advised. (Paras 735-737)
(b) An executive order making a provision under Article 16(4) is enforceable the moment it is made and issued. (Paras 738-
740) (2) (a) Clause (4) of Article 16 is not an exception to clause (1). It is an instance and an illustration of the classification inherent in clause (1). (Paras 741-742)
(b) Article 16(4) is exhaustive of the subject of reservation in favour of backward class of citizens, as explained in this judgment. (Para
743) NARES NARESH KUMAR H AHUJA KUMAR 2025.09.16 11:31:56 AHUJA +05'30' 26 OA No.1108/2023
(c) Reservations can also be provided under clause (1) of Article 16. It is not confined to extending of preferences, concessions or exemptions alone. These reservations, if any, made under clause (1) have to be so adjusted and implemented as not to exceed the level of representation prescribed for 'backward class of citizens' -- as explained in this Judgment. (Para 745) (3) (a) A caste can be and quite often is a social class in India. If it is backward socially, it would be a backward class for the purposes of Article 16(4). Among non-Hindus, there are several occupational groups, sects and denominations, which for historical reasons, are socially backward. They too represent backward social collectivities for the purposes of Article 16(4). (Paras 746 to 779)
(b) Neither the Constitution nor the law prescribes the procedure or method of identification of backward classes. Nor is it possible or advisable for the court to lay down any such procedure or method. It must be left to the authority appointed to identify. It can adopt such method/procedure as it thinks convenient and so long as its survey covers the entire populace, no objection can be taken to it. Identification of the backward classes can certainly be done with reference to castes among, and along with, other occupational groups, classes and sections of people. One can start the process either with occupational groups or with castes or with some other groups. Thus one can start the process with the castes, wherever they are found, apply the criteria (evolved for determining backwardness) and find out whether it satisfies the criteria. If it does -- what emerges is a "backward class of citizens" within the meaning of and for the purposes of Article 16(4). Similar process can be adopted in the case of other occupational groups, communities and classes, so as to cover the entire populace. The central idea and overall objective should be to consider all available groups, sections and classes in society. Since caste represents an existing, identifiable social group/class encompassing an overwhelming minority of the country's population, one can well begin with it and then go to other groups, sections and classes. (Paras 780 and 785).
(c) It is not correct to say that the backward class of citizens contemplated in Article 16(4) is the same as the socially and educationally backward classes referred to in Article 15(4). It is much wider. The accent in Article 16(4) is on social backwardness. Of course, social, educational and economic backwardness are closely inter-twined in the Indian context. (Paras 786-789)
(d) 'Creamy layer' can be, and must be excluded. (Paras 790-793)
(e) It is not necessary for a class to be designated as a backward class that it is situated similarly to the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes. (Paras 794 and 797)
(f) The adequacy of representation of a particular class in the services under the State is a matter within the subjective satisfaction of the appropriate Government. The judicial scrutiny in that behalf is the same as in other matters within the subjective satisfaction of an authority. (Para 798) (4) (a) A backward class of citizens cannot be identified only and exclusively with reference to economic criteria. (Para 799)
(b) It is, of course, permissible for the Government or other authority to identify a backward class of citizens on the basis of occupation- cum-income, without reference to caste, if it is so advised. (Para
800) (5) There is no constitutional bar to classify the backward classes of citizens into backward and more backward categories. (Paras 801 to 803) NARES NARESH KUMAR H AHUJA KUMAR 2025.09.16 11:31:56 AHUJA +05'30' 27 OA No.1108/2023 (6) (a) and (b) The reservations contemplated in clause (4) of Article 16 should not exceed 50%. While 50% shall be the rule, it is necessary not to put out of consideration certain extraordinary situations inherent in the great diversity of this country and the people. It might happen that in far-flung and remote areas the population inhabiting those areas might, on account of their being out of the mainstream of national life and in view of the conditions peculiar to end characteristic of them need to be treated in a different way, some relaxation in this strict rule may become imperative. In doing so, extreme caution is to be exercised and a special case made out. (Paras 804 to 813)
(c) The rule of 50% should be applied to each year. It cannot be related to the total strength of the class, category, service or cadre, as the case may be. (Para 814)
(d) Devadasan [T. Devadasan v. Union of India, (1964) 4 SCR 680 :
AIR 1964 SC 179 : (1965) 2 LLJ 560] was wrongly decided and is accordingly overruled to the extent it is inconsistent with this judgment. (Paras 815 to 818) (7) Article 16(4) does not permit provision for reservations in the matter of promotion. This rule shall, however, have only prospective operation and shall not affect the promotions already made, whether made on regular basis or on any other basis. We direct that our decision on this question shall operate only prospectively and shall not affect promotions already made, whether on temporary, officiating or regular/permanent basis. It is further directed that wherever reservations are already provided in the matter of promotion -- be it Central Services or State Services, or for that matter services under any Corporation, authority or body falling under the definition of 'State' in Article 12 -- such reservations may continue in operation for a period of five years from this day. Within this period, it would be open to the appropriate authorities to revise, modify or re-issue the relevant rules to ensure the achievement of the objective of Article 16(4). If any authority thinks that for ensuring adequate representation of 'backward class of citizens' in any service, class or category, it is necessary to provide for direct recruitment therein, it shall be open to it to do so. (Ahmadi, J expresses no opinion on this question upholding the preliminary objection of Union of India). It would not be impermissible for the State to extend concessions and relaxations to members of reserved categories in the matter of promotion without compromising the efficiency of the administration. (Paras 819 to 831) (8) While the rule of reservation cannot be called anti-meritarian, there are certain services and posts to which it may not be advisable to apply the rule of reservation. (Paras 832 to 841) (9) There is no particular or special standard of judicial scrutiny applicable to matters arising under Article 16(4). (Para 842) (10) The distinction made in the impugned Office Memorandum dated September 25, 1991 between 'poorer sections' and others among the backward classes is not invalid, if the classification is understood and operated as based upon relative backwardness among the several classes identified as Other Backward Classes, as explained in paras 843-844 of this Judgment. (Para 843-844) (11) The reservation of 10% of the posts in favour of 'other economically backward sections of the people who are not covered by any of the existing schemes of the reservation' made in the impugned Office Memorandum dated September 25, 1991 is constitutionally invalid and is accordingly struck down. (Para 845) (13) The Government of India and the State Governments have the power to, and ought to, create a permanent mechanism -- in the NARES NARESH KUMAR H AHUJA KUMAR 2025.09.16 11:31:56 AHUJA +05'30' 28 OA No.1108/2023 nature of a Commission -- for examining requests of inclusion and complaints of over-inclusion or non-inclusion in the list of OBCs and to advise the Government, which advice shall ordinarily be binding upon the Government. Where, however, the Government does not accept the advice, it must record its reasons therefor. (Para 847) (14) In view of the answers given by us herein and the directions issued herewith, it is not necessary to express any opinion on the correctness and adequacy of the exercise done by the Mandal Commission. It is equally unnecessary to send the matters back to the Constitution Bench of five Judges. (Paras 848 to 850) [Emphasis supplied] B. The five-Judge Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of R.K. Sabharwal and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. (1995) 2 SCC 745. Their Lordships were seisin with the issue related to the reservation in promotion in roster system taking into consideration entire cadre strength to determine limit as per judgment in case of Indra Sawhney (supra). Their Lordships in paragraph 4 and 5 observed and reads as under -
"4. When a percentage of reservation is fixed in respect of a particular cadre and the roster indicates the reserve points, it has to be taken that the posts shown at the reserve points are to be filled from amongst the members of reserve categories and the candidates belonging to the general category are not entitled to be considered for the reserved posts. On the other hand the reserve category candidates can compete for the non- reserve posts and in the event of their appointment to the said posts their number cannot be added and taken into consideration for working out the percentage of reservation. Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India permits the State Government to make any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any Backward Class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State is not adequately represented in the Services under the State. It is, therefore, incumbent on the State Government to reach a conclusion that the Backward Class/Classes for which the reservation is made is not adequately represented in the State Services. While doing so the State Government may take the total population of a particular Backward Class and its representation in the State Services. When the State Government after doing the necessary exercise makes the reservation and provides the extent of percentage of posts to be reserved for the said Backward Class then the percentage has to be followed strictly. The prescribed percentage cannot be varied or changed simply because some of the members of the Backward Class have already been appointed/promoted against the general seats. As mentioned above the roster point which is reserved for a Backward Class has to be filled by way of appointment/promotion of the member of the said class. No general category candidate can be appointed against a slot in the roster which is reserved for the Backward Class. The fact that considerable number of members of a Backward Class have been appointed/promoted against general seats in the State Services may be a relevant factor for the State Government to review the question of continuing reservation for the said class but so long as the instructions/rules providing certain percentage of reservations for the Backward Classes are operative the same have to be followed. NARES NARESH KUMAR H AHUJA KUMAR 2025.09.16 11:31:56 AHUJA +05'30' 29 OA No.1108/2023 Despite any number of appointees/promotees belonging to the Backward Classes against the general category posts the given percentage has to be provided in addition. We, therefore, see no force in the first contention raised by the learned counsel and reject the same.
5. We see considerable force in the second contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The reservations provided under the impugned Government instructions are to be operated in accordance with the roster to be maintained in each Department. The roster is implemented in the form of running account from year to year. The purpose of "running account" is to make sure that the Scheduled Castes/Schedule Tribes and Backward Classes get their percentage of reserved posts. The concept of "running account" in the impugned instructions has to be so interpreted that it does not result in excessive reservation. "16% of the posts ..." are reserved for members of the Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes. In a lot of 100 posts those falling at Serial Numbers 1, 7, 15, 22, 30, 37, 44, 51, 58, 65, 72, 80, 87 and 91 have been reserved and earmarked in the roster for the Scheduled Castes. Roster points 26 and 76 are reserved for the members of Backward Classes. It is thus obvious that when recruitment to a cadre starts then 14 posts earmarked in the roster are to be filled from amongst the members of the Scheduled Castes. To illustrate, first post in a cadre must go to the Scheduled Caste and thereafter the said class is entitled to 7th, 15th, 22nd and onwards up to 91st post. When the total number of posts in a cadre are filled by the operation of the roster then the result envisaged by the impugned instructions is achieved. In other words, in a cadre of 100 posts when the posts earmarked in the roster for the Scheduled Castes and the Backward Classes are filled the percentage of reservation provided for the reserved categories is achieved. We see no justification to operate the roster thereafter. The "running account" is to operate only till the quota provided under the impugned instructions is reached and not thereafter. Once the prescribed percentage of posts is filled the numerical test of adequacy is satisfied and thereafter the roster does not survive. The percentage of reservation is the desired representation of the Backward Classes in the State Services and is consistent with the demographic estimate based on the proportion worked out in relation to their population. The numerical quota of posts is not a shifting boundary but represents a figure with due application of mind. Therefore, the only way to assure equality of opportunity to the Backward Classes and the general category is to permit the roster to operate till the time the respective appointees/promotees occupy the posts meant for them in the roster. The operation of the roster and the "running account" must come to an end thereafter. The vacancies arising in the cadre, after the initial posts are filled, will pose no difficulty. As and when there is a vacancy whether permanent or temporary in a particular post the same has to be filled from amongst the category to which the post belonged in the roster. For example the Scheduled Caste persons holding the posts at roster points 1, 7, 15 retire then these slots are to be filled from amongst the persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes. Similarly, if the persons holding the post at points 8 to 14 or 23 to 29 retire then these slots are to be filled from among the general category. By following this procedure there shall neither be shortfall nor excess in the percentage of reservation."
[Emphasis supplied] NARES NARESH KUMAR H AHUJA KUMAR 2025.09.16 11:31:56 AHUJA +05'30' 30 OA No.1108/2023 C. The Government of India introduced the Bill passed as the Constitution (Seventy-Seventh Amendment) Act, 1995 and came into force on the same day i.e. 17.06.1995.
"Amendment of article 16.-In article 16 of the Constitution, after clause (4), the following clause shall be inserted, namely:-
"(4A) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision reservation classes of are posts not in the in matters services of under promotion the State to in any favour class of or the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes which, in the opinion of the State, adequately State".
[Emphasis supplied] D. The Constitution (Eighty-first Amendment) Act, 2000 "Amendment of article 16: In article 16 of the Constitution, for clause (4A), the following clauses shall be inserted, namely: -
"(4B) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from considering any unfilled vacancies of a year which are reserved for being filled up in that year in accordance with any provision for reservation made under clause (4) or clause (4A) as a separate class of vacancies to be filled up in any succeeding year or years and such class of vacancies shall not be considered together with the vacancies of the year in which they are being filled up for determining the ceiling of fifty per cent reservation on total number of vacancies of that year".
E. The Constitution (Eighty-second Amendment) Act, 2000 "Amendment of article 335: In Article 335 of the Constitution, the following proviso shall be inserted at the end, namely :--
"Provided that nothing in this article shall prevent in making of any provision in favour of the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes for relaxation in qualifying marks in any examination or lowering the standards of evaluation, for reservation in matters of promotion to any class or classes of services or posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State".
F. The Constitution (Eighty-fifth Amendment) Act, 2001.
"Amendment in Article 16 reads as under -
(1) It shall be deemed to have come into force on the 17th day of June, 1995.
(2) Amendment of article 16.-In article 16 of the Constitution, in clause (4A), for the words "in matters of promotion to any class", the words "in matters of promotion, with consequential seniority, to any class"
shall be substituted."
[Emphasis supplied] NARES NARESH KUMAR H AHUJA KUMAR 2025.09.16 11:31:56 AHUJA +05'30' 31 OA No.1108/2023 G. The Five-Judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of M.Nagaraj and Others vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2006) 8 SCC 212. Their Lordships held as under-
"122. We reiterate that the ceiling limit of 50%, the concept of creamy layer and the compelling reasons, namely, backwardness, inadequacy of representation and overall administrative efficiency are all constitutional requirements without which the structure of equality of opportunity in Article 16 would collapse.
123. However, in this case, as stated above, the main issue concerns the "extent of reservation". In this regard the State concerned will have to show in each case the existence of the compelling reasons, namely, backwardness, inadequacy of representation and overall administrative efficiency before making provision for reservation. As stated above, the impugned provision is an enabling provision. The State is not bound to make reservation for SCs/STs in matters of promotions. However, if they wish to exercise their discretion and make such provision, the State has to collect quantifiable data showing backwardness of the class and inadequacy of representation of that class in public employment in addition to compliance with Article 335. It is made clear that even if the State has compelling reasons, as stated above, the State will have to see that its reservation provision does not lead to excessiveness so as to breach the ceiling limit of 50% or obliterate the creamy layer or extend the reservation indefinitely.
124. Subject to the above, we uphold the constitutional validity of the Constitution (Seventy-seventh Amendment) Act, 1995; the Constitution (Eighty-first Amendment) Act, 2000; the Constitution (Eighty-second Amendment) Acat, 2000 and the Constitution (Eighty-fifth Amendment) Act, 2001."
[Emphasis supplied] What comes out loud and clear from the conclusion in the case of M.Nagaraj (supra) that the Article 16(4A) and 16(4B) of the Constitution of India is an enabling provision and if the State wish to exercise their discretion to make reservation for SCs/STs in matters of promotion, the State has to collect quantifiable data showing backwardness of the class and inadequacy of representation of that class in public employment in addition to compliance with Article 335 and reservation provision does not lead to excessiveness so as to breach the ceiling limit of 50% as was in case of R.K. Sabharwal (supra) which was a case of promotion and the issue in the case was operation of roster system and the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated that the entire cadre strength should be taken into NARES NARESH KUMAR H AHUJA KUMAR 2025.09.16 11:31:56 AHUJA +05'30' 32 OA No.1108/2023 account to determine whether reservation upto the required limit had been reached.
H. The five-Judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Jarnail Singh and Others vs. Lachhmi Narain Gupta and Others [Jarnail Singh (1)] decided on 26.09.2018, reported in (2018) 10 SCC 396. Their Lordships was dealing with reference order by a two-Judge Bench in case of State of Tripura Vs. Jayant Chakraborty (2018) 1 SCC 146 and a second reference order dated 15.11.2017 by a three-Judge Bench in State of Maharasthra Vs. Vijay Ghogre (2018) 17 SCC 261, referred the correctness of the decision in M. Nagaraj Vs. Union of India (supra) to a Constitution Bench. The controversy in these matters revolved around the interpretation of Article 16 (4-A) (4-B), 335, 341, 342 of the Constitution of India. Their Lordships held as under -
36. Thus, we conclude that the judgment in Nagaraj does not need to be referred to a seven-Judge Bench. However, the conclusion in Nagaraj that the State has to collect quantifiable data showing backwardness of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, being contrary to the nine-Judge Bench in Indra Sawhney (1) is held to be invalid to this extent.
[Emphasis supplied] I. The three-Judge Bench judgment in Jarnail Singh and Others Vs. Lachhmi Narain Gupta and Others, decided on January 28, 2022 reported in (2022) 10 SCC 595. Their Lordships were dealing with matters arising from some High Courts where reservation in promotion provided by Central Government and the State Governments to SCs and STs have been assailed as being violative of law laid down in case of M. Nagaraj (supra). The common issues raised and six points formulated for determination. The paragraph 11 reads as under-
"11. After considering the issue identified by the learned Attorney General and other learned counsel and hearing them, the following six points are formulated for determination:
NARES NARESH KUMAR H AHUJA KUMAR 2025.09.16 11:31:56 AHUJA +05'30' 33 OA No.1108/2023 11.1 (1) What is the yardstick by which, according to M. Nagraj, one would arrive at quantifiable data showing inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs in public employment?
11.2(2) What is the unit with respect to which quantifiable data showing inadequacy of representation is required to be collected?
11.3(3) Whether proportion of the population of SCs and STs to the population of India should be taken to be the test for determining adequacy of representation in promotional posts for the purpose of Article 16(4-A)?
11.4(4) Should there be a time period for reviewing inadequacy of prospectively?
11.5(5) Whether the judgment in M.Nagraj can be said to operate prospectively?
11.6 (6) Whether quantifiable data showing inadequacy of representation can be collected on the basis of sampling methods, as held by this Court in B.K. Pavitra vs. Union of India [B.K. Pavitra]."
[Emphasis supplied] (1) Yardstick for arriving at quantifiable data
17. Determination of inadequate representation of SCs and STs in services under a State is left to the discretion of the State, as the determination depends upon myriad factors which this Court cannot envisage. A conscious decision was taken by this Court in M. Nagaraj [M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212 :
(2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 1013] and Jarnail Singh [Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta, (2018) 10 SCC 396 : (2019) 1 SCC (L&S) 86] to leave it to the States to fix the criteria for determining inadequacy of representation. The submission of the learned Attorney General for India that this Court has to lay down the yardstick for measuring adequacy of representation did not yield a favourable result as this Court in Jarnail Singh [Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta, (2018) 10 SCC 396 : (2019) 1 SCC (L&S) 86] found it befitting for the States to have the liberty to evaluate the representation of SCs and STs in public employment.
Laying down of criteria for determining the inadequacy of representation would result in curtailing the discretion given to the State Governments. In addition, the prevailing local conditions, which may require to be factored in, might not be uniform. Moreover, in M. Nagaraj [M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 1013] , this Court made it clear that the validity of law made by the State Governments providing reservation in promotions shall be decided on a case-to-case basis for the purpose of establishing whether the inadequacy of representation is supported by quantifiable data. Therefore, we are of the opinion that no yardstick can be laid down by this Court for determining the adequacy of representation of SCs and STs in promotional posts for the purpose of providing reservation.
(2) Unit for collecting quantifiable data
21. In M. Nagaraj [M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212 :
(2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 1013] , this Court observed that the appropriate Government has to apply cadre strength as a unit in the operation of the roster in order to ascertain whether a given class/group is adequately represented in the service. Cadre strength as a unit also ensures that the upper ceiling limit of 50% is not violated. Following the law laid down in R.K. Sabharwal [R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab, (1995) 2 SCC 745 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 548] , this Court in M. Nagaraj [M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212 : (2007) 1 NARES NARESH KUMAR H AHUJA KUMAR 2025.09.16 11:31:56 AHUJA +05'30' 34 OA No.1108/2023 SCC (L&S) 1013] further held that the roster has to be post-specific and not vacancy based.
22. In M. Nagaraj [M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212 :
(2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 1013] , this Court held that it is open to the State to provide for reservation in promotions subject to limitation that there must exist compelling reasons for backwardness, inadequacy of representation in a class of post(s) keeping in mind the overall administrative efficiency. While referring to the roster, this Court observed that the appropriate Government has to apply the cadre strength as a unit in the operation of the roster in order to ascertain whether a given class/group is adequately represented in the service. Collection of quantifiable data regarding inadequacy of representation as stipulated by M. Nagaraj [M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 1013] is relatable to the cadre concerned, according to Jarnail Singh [Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta, (2018) 10 SCC 396 : (2019) 1 SCC (L&S) 86] .
36. In R.K. Sabharwal [R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab, (1995) 2 SCC 745 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 548] , this Court held that the right to be considered for appointment can only be claimed in respect of a post in a cadre and that the concept of "vacancy" has no relevance in operating the percentage of reservation. It was further held that the cadre strength is always measured by the number of posts comprising the cadre.
38. In the Office Memorandum dated 2-7-1997, the Union of India set out the principles for making and operating post-based rosters, in which it has been expressly stated that cadre is to be construed as the number of posts in a particular grade. It is made clear that rosters have been prepared grade-wise which are reviewed on a yearly basis and that reservation in promotions is implemented on the basis of these rosters, which operate grade-wise. In M. Nagaraj [M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 1013] , this Court approved that the percentage of reservation in promotions was to be applied to the entire cadre strength, as held in R.K. Sabharwal [R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab, (1995) 2 SCC 745 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 548] . While doing so, this Court in M. Nagaraj [M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 1013] made it clear that the unit for operation of the roster would be the cadre strength. Before providing for reservation in promotions to a cadre, the State is obligated to collect quantifiable data regarding inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs. Collection of information regarding inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs cannot be with reference to the entire service or "class"/"group" but it should be relatable to the grade/category of posts to which promotion is sought. Cadre, which should be the unit for the purpose of collection of quantifiable data in relation to the promotional post(s), would be meaningless if data pertaining to representation of SCs and STs is with reference to the entire service."
(3) Proportionate representation as test of adequacy
39. In R.K. Sabharwal [R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab, (1995) 2 SCC 745 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 548] , it was observed that State Governments may take the total population of a particular Backward Class and its representation in the State services for the purpose of coming to a conclusion that there is inadequate representation in the State services.
41. This Court in Jarnail Singh [Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta, (2018) 10 SCC 396 : (2019) 1 SCC (L&S) 86] found no fault with M. Nagaraj [M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212 :
(2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 1013] regarding the test for determining the adequacy of representation in promotional posts in the State. While NARES NARESH KUMAR H AHUJA KUMAR 2025.09.16 11:31:56 AHUJA +05'30' 35 OA No.1108/2023 emphasising the contrast in the language used between Article 330 and Articles 16(4-A) and 16(4-B) of the Constitution, this Court declined the invitation of the learned Attorney General for India to hold that the proportion of SCs and STs to the population of India should be the test for determining inadequacy of representation in promotional posts. Therefore, we are not persuaded to express any opinion on this aspect. It is for the State to assess the inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs in promotional posts, by taking into account relevant factors. (4) Time period for review
43. We are not inclined to express any view on discontinuation of reservations in totality, which is completely within the domain of the legislature and the executive. As regards review, we are of the opinion that data collected to determine inadequacy of representation for the purpose of providing reservation in promotions needs to be reviewed periodically. The period for review should be reasonable and is left to the Government to set out.
(5) Prospective operation of the judgment in M. Nagaraj [M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 1013]
45. This Court upheld the validity of Article 16(4-A) in M. Nagaraj [M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 1013] on 19-10-2006 and observed that reservation in promotions in public services can be made, subject to collection of quantifiable data by the State showing backwardness of the class and inadequacy of representation of that class in public employment, in addition to compliance with Article 335 of the Constitution. Reservation in promotions provided by various State Governments and the Central Government have been challenged in the High Courts on the ground of non-compliance with the requirement of collection of quantifiable data showing backwardness of the class and inadequacy of representation. It is relevant to mention at this stage that collection of quantifiable data regarding backwardness of SCs and STs is no more required in view of the judgment of this Court in Jarnail Singh [Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta, (2018) 10 SCC 396 : (2019) 1 SCC (L&S) 86] . In respect of the data relating to inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs, the High Courts have adjudicated writ petitions which are the subject-matter of special leave petitions pending in this Court.
62. This Court in Golak Nath [Golak Nath v. State of Punjab, (1967) 2 SCR 762 : AIR 1967 SC 1643] and Ashok Kumar Gupta [Ashok Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P., (1997) 5 SCC 201 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1299] , referred to above, has laid down that Article 142 empowers this Court to mould the relief to do complete justice. To conclude this point, the purpose of holding that M. Nagaraj [M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 1013] would have prospective effect is only to avoid chaos and confusion that would ensue from its retrospective operation, as it would have a debilitating effect on a very large number of employees, who may have availed of reservation in promotions without there being strict compliance of the conditions prescribed in M. Nagaraj [M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 1013] . Most of them would have already retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. The judgment of M. Nagaraj [M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212 :
(2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 1013] was delivered in 2006, interpreting Article 16(4-A) of the Constitution which came into force in 1995. As making the principles laid down in M. Nagaraj [M. NARES NARESH KUMAR H AHUJA KUMAR 2025.09.16 11:31:56 AHUJA +05'30' 36 OA No.1108/2023 Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 1013] effective from the year 1995 would be detrimental to the interests of a number of civil servants and would have an effect of unsettling the seniority of individuals over a long period of time, it is necessary that the judgment of M. Nagaraj [M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 1013] should be declared to have prospective effect."
[Emphasis supplied] Their Lordships in case of Jarnail Singh (2) (supra) directed the Union of India to give particulars about contemporaneous cadre wise data, considered for determination of inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs for providing reservation in promotions and further observed that it will be open to the authorities to undertake the exercise in terms of the judgment titled Jarnail Singh vs. Lachhmi Narain Gupta & Ors. (2022) 10 SCC 595.
J. The Seven-Judge Constitution Bench judgment in case of State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Davinder Singh & Ors, reported in (2025) 1 SCC 1. Their Lordships was seisin with the reference whether sub-classification of the Scheduled Castes for reservation is constitutionally permissible. The Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services ) Act, 2006 to provide for reservation in services for the members of the SC and BC. Section 4(5) provided 50% of the vacancies of the quota reserved for SCs in direct recruitment shall be offered to Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs, if available, as a first preference from the SCs Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana declared Section 4(5) unconstitutional relying on the judgment of the Constitution Bench in case of E.V.Chinnaiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2005) 1 SCC 394. On 27.08.2020 in State of Punjab vs. Davinder Singh (2020) 8 SCC 1, a Constitution Bench held that the judgment in E.V. Chinnaiah (supra) requires to be revisited by a large Bench of Seven- Judges because it failed to consider the significant aspects bearing the issue. Their Lordships were considering the NARES NARESH KUMAR H AHUJA KUMAR 2025.09.16 11:31:56 AHUJA +05'30' 37 OA No.1108/2023 reference restricted to the issue of whether the judgment of this Court in E.V. Chinnaiah (supra) requires to be reconsidered since the High Court had held that the Punjab Act and Haryana Notifications (by which Scheduled Castes in the State were classified into two categories, A & B for the purposes of reservation in direct recruitment for government jobs within quota reserved for SCs) were unconstitutional solely being contrary to law laid down in case of E.V. Chinnaiah (supra).
ADEQUACY OF REPRESENTATION
15. Before reverting to the case in hand to scrutinize merits of the case, based on the principles culled out in reservation in promotion. Essentially applicants challenging exercise which respondents require to undertake for determining the adequacy of representation and impact on efficiency of administration.
16. Clause (4) of Article 16 contains an enabling provision to empower the State to make reservation in appointment or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which in the opinion of State is not adequately represented in the service under the State. Clause (4-A) has enabling provision and empowers the appropriate Government/executives to provide for reservation in promotion with consequential seniority in posts or classes of posts in service under State in favour of SCs and STs. Clause (4-A) of Article 16 also provides "which in the opinion of the State are not adequately represented in the service under the appropriate Government".
17. Their Lordships in Indra Sawhney (supra) held that the opinion of the appropriate Government/executive on the factors determining the adequacy of representation of SCs and STs in the public services of the State is a matter which forms a part of subjective satisfaction of the State and also emphasized that when an authority is vested with the power to form an opinion, it is not open for the Courts to substitute its own opinion for NARES NARESH KUMAR H AHUJA KUMAR 2025.09.16 11:31:56 AHUJA +05'30' 38 OA No.1108/2023 that of authority, nor can the opinion of the authority be challenged on grounds of propriety or sufficiency.
18. In M. Nagaraj (supra) Their Lordships unanimously dealing with the parameters governing the assessment of the adequacy of representation or of the impact on efficiency of administration. Their Lordships in para 45, 49 and 102 held that it is the State who is in the best position to define and measure merit in whatever ways it to be relevant to public employment and reservation in Article 16(4) and Article 16(4-A) is enabling and discretion is to be subjective satisfaction of the existence of backwardness, inadequacy of representation in public employment and the inadequacy has to exist factually. Their Lordships also held in para 49 that the inadequacy has to factually exist and resultantly now judicial review comes in. Their Lordships further emphasized that however, whether reservation in a given case is desirable or not, as a policy is not for the courts to decide as long as parameters mentioned in Article 16(4) and 16(4-A) are maintained. The Constitution Bench held that Article 16(4-A) is an enabling provision and the State/executive is not bound to make reservation for SCs and STs in promotions, but if it decides to implement reservation in promotion, it must collect quantifiable data on three factors (i) the backwardness of class; (ii) the inadequacy of the representation of that class in public employment; and (iii) the general efficiency of service as mandated by Article 335 would not be affected. The aforesaid principles governing enabling provision is expressly evident from dictum of the constitution Bench decision in M. Nagaraj (supra).
19. Now dealing with the submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties on the material underlying collection of data by the executives in the case in hand on the adequacy of representation and impact on efficiency.
NARES NARESH KUMAR H AHUJA KUMAR 2025.09.16 11:31:56 AHUJA +05'30' 39 OA No.1108/2023
20. The case in hand and to scrutinize the quantifiable data, if any collected by the State and executive in this case to satisfy the requirement of inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs and impact on the efficiency of administration.
21. In case of M. Nagaraj (supra) and Jarnail Singh (1) & Jarnail Singh (2) (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court left to the discretion of the State in the present case executive to fix the criteria for determining inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Jarnail Singh (2) (supra) referred to law laid down in case of R.K. Sabharwal (supra) and held that in M. Nagaraj (supra) the percentage of reservation in promotion was to be applied to the entire cadre strength and it was made clear that unit for operation of the roster would be the cadre strength. So also, Their Lordships held that before providing reservation in promotion to a cadre, the State is obliged to collect quantifiable data regarding inadequate representation of SCs and STs relatable to the grade/category posts to which promotion is sought and the cadre should be the unit for the purpose of collection of quantifiable data in relation to the promotional post.
22. On the adequacy of the representation, the summary which emerges from the reply dated 18.12.2023 filed by the respondents that for the post of Motormen (DC)/LPP (DSL/DC) respondents analyzed the series of data collected in the cadre of Motormen/Passenger. The office-note dated 01.09.2024 reads as under -
"No.BB.P.Loco.Motorman Dated:-01/09/2023 OFFICE NOTE Sub:- Filling up the vacancies of Motormen (DC)/Loco Pilot Passenger (DSL/DC) PB-2 Grade Pay Rs.4200/- Level-6 in Mumbai Division.
NARES NARESH KUMAR H AHUJA KUMAR 2025.09.16 11:31:56 AHUJA +05'30' 40 OA No.1108/2023 It is proposed to fill up the vacancies of Motorman/Passenger (DSL/DC) PB-2 Grade Pay Rs.4200/- Level-6 in 7th CPC in DC cadre at Mumbai Division by seniority cum suitability.
1. Assessments of vacancies are as under:-
Sl. GL SC ST Total Remarks
No.
1 Sanctioned strength (M/Man/Passenger) 887 171 86 1144
2 Men on Roll (M/Man/Passenger) 582 136 47 765
3 Existing vacancies upto 31.08.2023 305 35 39 379
4 Higher post Vacancies 129 25 08 162
5 Anticipated upto 30.09.2024 26 00 00 26
6 Vacancies 460 60 47 567
A On training of M/Man 53 09 03 65
b On panel of M/man 30 09 17 56
Total (a+b) 83 18 20 121
Actual Vacancies 377 42 27 446
Rly Board vide letter No.E(NG)1-2008 PM1/15 dated 03.03.2017 (Pg. No1) has issued clarification that methodology may be adopted for filling up vacancies till further orders as per instructions issued vide letter E(NG)1 2018/PM1/15 dated 03.09.2009, 07.06.2010, 21.11.2011, 24.05.2013, 03.01.2014, 16.06.2014, 31.12.2014 & 09.02.2016.
Assessment of vacancies : Vacancies upto 30.09.3034 b.Mode of suitability : Suitability should be assessed on the basis of APAR/DAR/SR with benchmark for Grade pay Rs.4200/-
6 marks out of 15 marks in last 3 Years APARs.
c. Number of staff to be
considered for promotion : 1:1
d. Reservation for SC/ST : Post based reservation shall be
applicable as per rule based on
roster
Field of consideration
(d) Existing suitability condition like passing of Aptitude
test, Possessing of requisite foot plate experience and passing of promotional training course for being eligible for promotion as per condition.
Having minimum 02 yrs experience as Loco Pilot Goods is required for promotion of Motorman/Passenger.
In terms of Rly Bd's L.No.E(NG)01-2002/PM1/31 dated 22.-08.2003 (Pg/No.3) passing of Aptitude test is mandatory for promotion to the category of Motorman.
CPO CSMT Vide L.No. HPB/229/TDT/Guard dated 21.08.2008 P#3 has issued instructions that as per Rly.Bd's L.No.E(NG)1-2000/PM 1/41 dated 23.02.2007 (Pg./No.5) all eligible candidates in zone of consideration have to necessarily imparted Pre-Promotional training before the promotion.
In view of the above, Sr. DEE (TRS-O) is requested to kindly approve the assessment of vacancies.
Previous suitability of M/Man has already been done on 07/10/2021 and there are employees available in suitability list for promotion to the post of M/Man. Hence, the list against vacancies of M/Man- Passenger has been prepared from next junior in lower grade post i.e. LPP/LPG as per policy mentioned in item 3 above. The list of LPP/LPG is prepared as per seniority and placed at (Pg/No13)..."
[Emphasis supplied] NARES NARESH KUMAR H AHUJA KUMAR 2025.09.16 11:31:56 AHUJA +05'30' 41 OA No.1108/2023
23. As evident from data collected by the respondents in the cadre of Motormen (DC) LPP (DSL/DC). The total sanctioned strength is 1144 in the cadre of Motormen/LPP out of which 171 posts reserved quota for scheduled castes employees against 15% reservation. On the analysis of the quantifiable data collected by the respondents in the cadre there are 136 Motormen/LPP employees from scheduled castes on roll, in working strength and for these scheduled castes employees working strength comes out to be around 11% resulting in shortfall of actual vacancies quantified as 42 scheduled castes employee and there is overall shortage of representation to 3.6% in comparison with total sanctioned strength 1144.
24. On the analysis of data so collected by the respondents so far Scheduled Tribes employees, there is sanctioned strength in the cadre of Motormen/LPP - 1144 and 86 posts are for ST category candidates against 7.5% reservation quota. There are 47 ST employees working as Motormen/LPP and representation in the cadre is short of 39 ST employees. Respondents have analyzed quantifiable data in the cadre and actual vacancies for ST comes out to be 27 computed on analysis in cadre's data and there is shortfall of 2.36% and against 7.5% reservation quota for ST only 4% are on roll and resulting in the shortfall of posts for SCs and STs. The respondents have analyzed the data as per post based roster maintained in accordance with mandate of Constitution Bench decision in case of R.K. Sabharwal (supra) and the quantifiable data collected and analyzed by the railways clearly suggest that quantifiable data in the case of Motormen/LPP has been collected to determine inadequacy of representation of SC and ST employees and there is shortfall of their representation in the cadre.
25. In case of Shri Rahul K. Dhumal & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., OA No.638 of 2017 decided vide order dated 05.06.2024 by the Division Bench of Mumbai Bench, Mumbai and upheld the exercise undertaken by the official respondents NARES NARESH KUMAR H AHUJA KUMAR 2025.09.16 11:31:56 AHUJA +05'30' 42 OA No.1108/2023 as to collection, analysis of quantifiable data regarding inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs in the cadre and there was shortfall of their representation. The benchmark for promotion for reserved category is same as that of general category and there is no impact on efficiency in administration. Having considered that in similar terms the reference is answered and agreed with the view taken by Hon'ble Member (Judicial) vide common order dated 03.07.2025 and in respectful disagreement with order dated 03.07.2025 passed by Hon'ble Member (Administrative).
26. In case of Valerie Avinash Dhepe vs. Union of India & Ors, OA No.557 of 2023, decided vide order dated 26.06.2024 by Hon'ble Member (Administrative) of Division Bench of this Tribunal and Third Member reference made thereafter vide order dated 02.04.2025, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) has agreed with the findings and conclusion of Hon'ble Member (Administrative) that in view of the settled legal position it would suffice if the post based roster is prepared and maintained of filling up of the posts as prescribed by the Constitution Bench decision in case of R.K. Sabharwal (supra), the data benchmark would be met for post based roster as per para 121 of M.Nagaraj (supra) clarified in Jarnail Singh (2) (supra) and the data in cadre is always in possession of the appointing authority to apply and to determine inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs in a particular cadre and take decision to provide for adequate representation to them in the cadre and dismissed the O.A.
27. Having considered in detail the exercise undertaken by the executives, respondents in the case in hand based on material record and analysed the relevant data and hold that the compelling reasons which M. Nagaraj (supra) require appropriate Government/executives to demonstrate have been established and there is inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs in the cadre of Motormen/Passenger at Mumbai NARES NARESH KUMAR H AHUJA KUMAR 2025.09.16 11:31:56 AHUJA +05'30' 43 OA No.1108/2023 Division and respondents are justified in assessing the inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs.
EFFICIENCY IN ADMINISTRATION
28. There is another facet in the enabling provision under clause (4-A) of Article 16 of Constitution of India and as per dictum in the Constitution Bench decision in case of M. Nagaraj (supra) - if State seeks to make reservation for SCs and STs in promotion - the general efficiency of service as mandated by Article 335 of Constitution of India would not be affected. The principle governing approach as respondents to show in present case the existence of compelling reasons inadequacy of representation and overall administrative efficiency before making provision for reservation. The Union or State has to also show by collection of quantifiable data of the class as to inadequacy of representation as already discussed in preceding paragraph in addition to compliance with Article 335 of the Constitution of India.
29. The justification for the efficiency in the administration of government is to use a merit based approach and fulfilling benchmark criteria is centered around Article 335 of Constitution of India, reads as -
"335. Claims of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to services and posts The claims of the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes shall be taken into consideration, consistently with the maintenance of efficiency of administration, in the making of appointments to services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State:
NARES NARESH KUMAR H AHUJA KUMAR 2025.09.16 11:31:56 AHUJA +05'30' 44 OA No.1108/2023 [In Article 335 of the Constitution, the following proviso shall be inserted at the end] Provided that nothing in this article shall prevent in making of any provision in favour of the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes for relaxation in qualifying marks in any examination or lowering the standards of evaluation, for reservation in matters of promotion to any class or classes of services or posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State."
[Emphasis supplied]
30. In the case at hand as evident from the record that the official respondents after assessment of inadequacy of representation based on collection of data in the post based roster maintained as per law laid down in case of R.K. Sabharwal (supra) also undertaken exercise to scrutinize effect on overall efficiency in administration. The office note dated 1.9.2023 also taken note of the fact of the matter that cadre of Motormen is essential for smooth operation of sub-urban trains and the criteria as per Railway Board instructions for assessment of suitability like Aptitude test, Possession of requisite footplate experience and passing of pre-promotional training course for being eligible for promotion with minimum two years experience as LPG requisite suitability condition with aptitude test being mandatory condition for all to assess suitability condition. The criteria for the promotion for post of Motormen as discussed above being seniority-cum-suitability and are same for all and no impact on efficiency in administration.
NARES NARESH KUMAR H AHUJA KUMAR 2025.09.16 11:31:56 AHUJA +05'30' 45 OA No.1108/2023 THE ISSUE OF CREAMY LAYER
31. So far as the issue related to the concept of creamy layer whether applicable to the SCs and STs. The Tribunal is bound by the nine-Judge Bench judgment of the Constitution Bench in case of Indra Sawhney (supra) and followed in case of M. Nagaraj (supra) clarified in Jarnail Singh (2) (supra).
Their Lordships clearly held in majority in Indra Sawhney (1) (supra) in paragraph 792 that the test or requirement of social and educational backwardness cannot be applied to SCs and STs when individually fall within the express Backward Classes of Citizens and SCs and STs are a separate class by themselves and creamy layer principle is not applicable in the incident of promotion.
31.1 Their Lordships in case of B.K. Pavitra (2) and Others Vs. Union of India, reported in (2019) 16 SCC 129 in paragraph 138 to 148 has also dealt the issue related to concept of creamy layer in reservation in promotion to SCs and STs and Hon'ble Court examined in light of the nine-
Judge Bench decision of majority in Indra Sawhney (1) and also in case of M. Nagaraj (supra) and in paragraph 148 held as under:-
"148.......This being the true constitutional position, the protection of consequential seniority as an incident of promotion of the creamy layer test. Articles 16(4-A) and 16(4- B) were held to not obliterate any of the constitutional limitations and to fulfill the width test. In the above view of the matter, it is evident that the concept of creamy layer has no application in assessing the validity of the Reservation Act, 2018 which is designed to protect consequential NARES NARESH KUMAR H AHUJA KUMAR 2025.09.16 11:31:56 AHUJA +05'30' 46 OA No.1108/2023 seniority upon promotion of persons belonging to the SCs and STs."
31.2 Thus, having considered and of the opinion that principles laid down by Indra Sawhney (supra) on exclusion of creamy layer apply only to OBCs and not been extended to SCs and STs. So also no question arose in M. Nagaraj (supra) on exclusion of creamy layer in respect of SCs and STs. Their Lordships in the constitution Bench decision in case of Jarnail Singh (1) dealt with competence of the Parliament to enact a law in relation to creamy layer and did not lay down preposition on its exclusion.
CONCLUSION
32. For all the reasons stated supra and having considered quantifiable data to determine adequacy of representation in the cadre and benchmark for suitability is same for all, the issue is decided in favour of the respondents and against the applicants. I concur with the conclusion arrived at by Hon'ble Member (Judicial) that the applicants are not entitled for the relief sought in OA No.1108/2023.
33. Consequently, OA No.1108/2023 liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No costs.
34. Reference is accordingly answered.
(Ajay Pratap Singh) Member (J) na/ NARES NARESH KUMAR H AHUJA KUMAR 2025.09.16 11:31:56 AHUJA +05'30'