Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
All India Equality Forum Regd Through ... vs M/O Railways on 11 September, 2025
1 (OA No. 946/2024)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
Reserved on : 22.08.2025
Pronounced on: 11.09.2025
OA No. 060/946/2024
HON'BLE SH. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MRS. ANJALI BHAWRA, MEMBER (A)
1. All India Equality Forum (regd.) through its Organizational Zonal
Secretary Jaipal Singh Phogat, aged about 61years, R/O Q.No. 597-
C Type2 Rail Coach Factory, Kapurthala, Punjab.
(Aadhaar No. 943365190151, Mobile No. 8437048906)
2. Kavish Banga aged about 35 years,S/O Sh. Lajpat Rai Banga R/O
Gali Nar Singh Das, Bazar Narsingh Das, Amritsar-I GPO ASR, PIN
143001and presently working as Senior Section
Engineer/Electric/Amritsar
(Aadhaar No.533316389381, Mob no.6394511449)
3. Charanjit Singh aged about 38 years S/O Sh. Gurcharan Singh R/O
H.No. 447, Gobind Pura Satwari, Jammu & Kashmir, PIN 180003.
And presently working as Senior Section Engineer
Jammu/AC/Jammu Tawi
(Aadhaar No.403391283464, Mob no.9596758321)
.... Applicants
(BY Advocate: Sh. Puneet Jindal, Sr. Adv. With Sh. Rohit
Sharma)
Versus
1. Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Communications, Electronics
and Information Technology, Rail Bhawan 1, Raisina Road New
Delhi.
2. Union Of India through its Chairman, Railway Board, Ministry
of Railways, Rail Bhawan 1, Raisina Road New Delhi .
3. Northern Railway, Headquarters Office Baroda House, New
Delhi-110001 through its General Manager.
4. Northern Railway, Firozepur Division through its senior
Divisional Personnal Officer, Firozepur Cantt., District
Ferozepur, Punjab.
NEERU DOUGALL 2025.09.17 14:26:52+05'30'
2 (OA No. 946/2024)
5. Sh. Varinder Kumar, SSE (Electric), Northern Railways, Firozepur
Division through its Senior Divisional Personnal Officer,
Firozepur Cantt., District Ferozepur, Punjab.
6. Ravinder Kumar SSE (Electric), Northern Railways, Firozepur
Division through its Senior Divisional Personnal Officer,
Firozepur Cantt., District Ferozepur, Punjab.
.................Respondents
(BY Advocate: Sh. Harmanjot Singh Gill for respdts. No. 1
to 4
Sh. Rohit Seth for respdts. No. 5 to 6)
ORDER
Per: SH. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR MEMBER (J):
1. This Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the A.T. Act, seeking the following relief(s):-
(i) Setting aside of PS No. 15806/2023 dated 15.02.2024 (Annexure A-19) to the extent that the previous instructions/guidelines dated 21.08.1997 (Annexure A-2) and maintenance of roster as per Annexure-1 therein has been ordered to be followed without due regard to DoPT letter dated 12.04.2022 (Annexure A-14) based upon the latest decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CA No. 629 of 2022 titled ‗Jarnail Singh & Ors. Vs. Lachhmi Narain Gupta & Ors., coupled with the opinion of the Attorney General of India thereby breaching the mandate of Article 16(4A) of the Constitution of India and providing for reservation in promotions without collection of quantifiable data regarding inadequacy of representation of SC/STs in each cadre separately, thus violating the interim arrangement/decision as circulated vide PS No. 14620/2016 dated 3.10.2016 (Annexure A-5) till final decision in Jarnail Singh's case by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
(ii) Setting aside of Order dated 13.06.2024 (Annexure A-25) whereby the case of the applicant for promotion has been ignored and Respondents No. 5 and 6 who are much junior to the applicants No. 2 and 3 have been promoted in an out of turn arrangement, in violation of the directions set out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
NEERU DOUGALL 2025.09.17 14:26:52+05'30' 3 (OA No. 946/2024)
2. That the Applicant No. 1 i.e. 'All India Equality Forum' is a non-
Government Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 which seeks to espouse the cause of its members, railway employees and in this particular case with special reference to supersession of its members namely, Kavish Banga. and Charanjit Singh (Applicants No. 2 and 3). certificate of registration dated 09.10.1997 is attached as Annexure A-1. The members of the organisation/Applicant No. 2 i.e. Kavish Banga was appointed on 19.12.2017 and Applicant No. 3/ Charanjit Singh was appointed on 29.03.2012, Both the applicants were appointed under the 'UR' (unreserved) category and are holding a Group-C post of Senior Section Engineer (Electric General) in Grade Pay of 9300-34800 GP- 4800 and are posted at different stations under the Northern Railways, Firozpur Division.
3. That for the first time, the Railway Board issued guidelines dated 21.08.1997 vide RB No. 114/1997 introducing the system of reservation rosters to be maintained in Group ‗C' and ‗D' promotional posts in compliance with the judgment in R.K. Sabharwal vs. State of Punjab and other decisions. It was laid down that the roster would apply to posts and not vacancies, and that vacancy-based rosters could operate only until the representation of SC/ST employees in a cadre reached the prescribed percentage of reservation (Annexure A-2).
4. Thereafter, the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, in its judgment dated 15.07.2011 in Lachhmi Narain Gupta & Ors. vs. NEERU DOUGALL 2025.09.17 14:26:52+05'30' 4 (OA No. 946/2024) Jarnail Singh & Ors. (CWP No. 13218/2009), quashed the DoPT's Office Memorandum dated 10.08.2010, holding that reservation in promotion could not be applied unless quantifiable data established inadequacy of representation. Against this judgment, SLP No. 30621/2011 was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which by interim order dated 03.02.2015, directed maintenance of status quo in promotional matters (Annexure A-3).
5. In consequence of contempt proceedings (Contempt Petition (C) No. 314/2016 in SLP (C) No. 4831/2012), the Ministry of Railways issued RBE No. 117/2016 dated 30.09.2016, whereby RBE No. 126/2010 was kept in abeyance with immediate effect, directing that further promotions of reserved category candidates to unreserved posts be made ignoring RBE No. 126/2010, subject to the outcome of the main SLPs (Annexure A-4). This was circulated to Northern Railways vide PS No. 14620/2016 dated 03.10.2016 (Annexure A-5).
6. Meanwhile, the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, in its order dated 18.01.2017 in CWP No. 15782/2015, approved an interim mechanism for promotions whereby all promotions were to be strictly as per general seniority without permitting ―jumping‖ of candidates, until final disposal of the matter. This NEERU DOUGALL 2025.09.17 14:26:52+05'30' 5 (OA No. 946/2024) arrangement was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the basis of submissions of the Ld. Solicitor General (Annexure A-6).
7. Further, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in W.P. (C) 3490/2010, vide order dated 23.08.2017, quashed the DoPT's Office Memorandum dated 13.08.1997 (Annexure A-7). Against this order, SLP (C) No. 31288/2017 was filed and tagged with SLP (C) No. 28306/2017. Pursuant to interim orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 17.05.2018 and 05.06.2018, DoPT issued Office Memorandum dated 15.06.2018 clarifying that promotions from ―reserved to reserved‖ and ―unreserved to unreserved‖ could proceed in accordance with law (Annexures A-8 and A-9). This was circulated vide RBE No. 91/2018 dated 19.06.2018 (Annexure A-11), followed by office letter dated 21.06.2018 (Annexure A-12).
8. On 28.12.2018, the Ministry of Railways directed promotions to be made as per the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment dated 26.09.2018 in SLP (C) No. 30621/2011, circulated on 03.06.2019 (Annexure A-13). Later, DoPT issued Office Memorandum dated 12.04.2022 (Annexure A-14), requiring departments to collect quantifiable data regarding inadequacy of representation of SC/STs cadre-wise before effecting NEERU DOUGALL 2025.09.17 14:26:52+05'30' 6 (OA No. 946/2024) reservation in promotions, in compliance with the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment dated 28.01.2022 in Jarnail Singh & Ors. vs. Lachhmi Narain Gupta & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 629/2022). This was circulated by Railways vide RB No. 53/2022 dated 13.04.2022 (Annexure A-15). However, subsequent instructions dated 02.05.2022 (Annexure A-16) and 22.06.2022 (Annexure A-17) ignored Para 2 of the said OM and wrongly emphasized only Para 4, thereby diluting the requirement of collecting quantifiable data.
9. Later, through PS No. 15806/2023 dated 15.02.2024 (circulated on 26.02.2024), the Railway Board reiterated that SC/ST candidates selected on their own merit would be adjusted against UR points, not reserved points (Annexure A-
19). This was in violation of DoPT's OM dated 12.04.2022 and binding judicial directions. Aggrieved employees of Northern Railways, Firozpur, accordingly made a representation dated 11.03.2024 (Annexure A-20).
10. Thereafter, an RTI application dated 04.04.2024 was filed by a member of the Applicants' organization seeking details of staff strength, recruitment categories, and RBE circulars (Annexure A-21). The reply dated 30.04.2024 was vague and evasive (Annexure A-23). Meanwhile, vacancy assessment for NEERU DOUGALL 2025.09.17 14:26:52+05'30' 7 (OA No. 946/2024) promotion from Level 7 to Level 8 was initiated on 29.04.2024, showing UR-6, SC-2, ST-0 vacancies (Annexure A-22). A proposal dated 27.05.2024 found 9 officials suitable, wherein two senior SC candidates (Sr. Nos. 1 & 3) were allotted UR points, while two juniors (Sr. Nos. 8 & 9) were given SC points, thereby bypassing the Applicants (Annexure A-24).
11. The result of the seniority-cum-suitability test for promotion was approved on 13.06.2024 based on orders dated 11.06.2024, promoting Respondents No. 5 and 6--both juniors to Applicants No. 2 and 3--in violation of DoPT and Railway Board instructions and Supreme Court rulings (Annexure A-25). A representation against this injustice was made by the Applicants to the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer on 04.07.2024 (received on 05.07.2024), but no response was provided (Annexure A-26).
12. The respondents have filed a detailed written statement wherein they have taking preliminary objection that the present petition is not maintainable as the applicant forum has no locus standi to espouse individual service matters, relying on BSF Ex- Servicemen Welfare vs UOI, W.P. No.6107/2023 (Madras HC, 01.11.2023). The resolution annexed is defective as per the principles laid down in Swakshtaghrayi Sangh v. UOI, W.A. NEERU DOUGALL 2025.09.17 14:26:52+05'30' 8 (OA No. 946/2024) No.91/2022 (MP HC). Further, the petition partakes the character of a PIL in service matters, barred by Dr. Duryodhan Sahu v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra, (1998) 7 SCC 273, and Gurpal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2005) 5 SCC 136. The application is also hit by Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for non-exhaustion of departmental remedies, besides suffering from non-joinder/mis-joinder of parties. The petitioners have primarily challenged PS 15806/2023 dated 15.02.2024 (Annexure A-19) and promotion order dated 13.06.2024 (Annexure A-25), which the respondents assert are in compliance with DoPT instructions and the judgment in Jarnail Singh v. Lachmi Narain Gupta, C.A. 629/2022.
13. On merit, the respondents submit that the impugned order PS 15806/2023, followed by order dated 13.06.2024 (Annexure A-
25), has been issued strictly in compliance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the applicable DoPT instructions. The order was passed after due adherence to prescribed conditions and guidelines, making it legal and valid. The present application is not maintainable in its form, and Applicant No. 1 has no locus standi to file the OA. NEERU DOUGALL 2025.09.17 14:26:52+05'30' 9 (OA No. 946/2024)
14. It is further submitted that the claims made by the applicants regarding forum membership and promotions are unsubstantiated. Applicant No. 1 was selected through RRB Jammu Tawi on 19.12.2017, while Applicant No. 2 was selected on 29.03.2012 and promoted as SSE (GP 4600, Level-7) on 13.04.2017. The upgradation criteria from Level-7 to Level-8 is akin to regular promotions, a principle already upheld by CAT Mumbai in Abhijit Uttamrao Waghmare vs Western Railway, OA 248/2023, decided on 19.01.2024. The Department has prepared the promotion list (Annexure R-4) strictly as per the governing roster points and reservation guidelines.
15. The challenged order follows DoPT OM dated 12.04.2022 (Annexure R-3), which itself was issued in compliance with the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment dated 28.01.2022 in Jarnail Singh batch of cases. The respondents have strictly maintained post-based rosters cadre-wise in line with R.K. Sabharwal vs State of Punjab (1995) 2 SCC 745 and M. Nagaraj vs Union of India, ensuring quantifiable data regarding representation is applied to each cadre separately. The principle of ―own merit‖ is duly applied so that SC/ST candidates securing selection on merit are adjusted against UR points and not counted towards the reserved quota.
NEERU DOUGALL 2025.09.17 14:26:52+05'30' 10 (OA No. 946/2024)
16. The applicants' grounds are without merit. Their RTI query was duly replied to, and an opportunity to inspect records was provided but never availed. The meaning of ―cadre‖ has already been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs Pushpa Rani (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 857, reaffirmed again in Jarnail Singh (2022), and is consistently applied by the Railways. Further, DoPT OMs dated 02.07.1997 and 04.01.2013 (Annexure R-1 & R-2) guide roster preparation, which is strictly followed. Therefore, the impugned order dated 13.06.2024 (Annexure A-25) is legal, valid, and fully justified, leaving no ground for interference.
17. Respondents No. 5 and 6 have also filed written statement wherein they have submitted that the OA is not maintainable in view of Section 6 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, which requires that a society can sue or be sued only through its President, Chairman, Secretary or Trustee, duly authorized under its rules or by a resolution. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Murti Shri Raghunath Ji v. Joginder Singh (LPA No. 169 of 1969, decided on 30.09.1970; 1971 CurLJ 47), wherein it was held that unless the rules specifically delegate such authority, a proper resolution authorizing the litigation is NEERU DOUGALL 2025.09.17 14:26:52+05'30' 11 (OA No. 946/2024) mandatory. No such bye-laws or resolution authorizing the filing of the present OA have been placed on record.
18. It is further stated that the resolution dated 30.07.2024, appended with the Power of Attorney, does not fulfill the legal requirements. The resolution does not mention the specific cause or order being challenged but instead makes a general reference to opposing reservation, which amounts to seeking a blanket order akin to a Public Interest Litigation, outside the scope of this Tribunal. The resolution also does not record that the members will abide by the decision in such litigation, which may create disputes later. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in Swakshtagrahi Sangh Janpad Panchayat v. Union of India Panchayati Raj (W.P. No. 2825 of 2021, decided on 25.11.2021).
19. The respondents also submit that the applicants have failed to produce any proof that they are members of All India Equality Forum (Regd.). Their earlier representations dated 04/05.07.2024 were submitted individually and not through the Forum.
20. It is contended that the OA is in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation, which is not maintainable in service matters. Reliance is placed on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in NEERU DOUGALL 2025.09.17 14:26:52+05'30' 12 (OA No. 946/2024) Duryodhan Sahu v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra (1998) 7 SCC 273, Dr. B. Singh v. Union of India (2004) 3 SCC 363, Neetu v. State of Punjab (2007) 10 SCC 614, and Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal (2004) 3 SCC 349, which held that PILs in service matters are impermissible.
21. The respondents point out that the OA is premature under Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, as the applicants filed it on 02.08.2024, barely a month after submitting representations on 04/05.07.2024, whereas the Act requires waiting for six months or exhausting remedies.
22. The OA is also bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, as the incumbents Sh. Ravinder Kumar and Sh. Varinder Kumar, whose promotions are directly under challenge, have not been impleaded.
23. Finally, it is submitted that the pleadings regarding excessive representation of reserved categories in the cadre of SSE/Electric/G at Level-8 are hypothetical and unsupported by data. Reservation in promotions is constitutionally protected under Article 335 as amended by the 82nd Amendment. Moreover, the applicants have not challenged the roster, which is the basis of the promotions in question, and hence the relief sought cannot be granted.
NEERU DOUGALL 2025.09.17 14:26:52+05'30' 13 (OA No. 946/2024)
24. The applicants have also filed a joint rejoinder in response to the written statements filed by respondents No. 1 to 4 and respondents No. 5 & 6, thereby reiterating their stand as taken in the Original Application.
25. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have carefully gone through the pleadings on record and case law cited by the respective parties. The issue regarding the maintainability of OA has already been decided vide our earlier detailed order dated 07.04.2025.
26. The applicants contend that the Railway Board and Northern Railways have acted illegally and arbitrarily by ignoring Para 2 of the DoPT letter dated 12.04.2022 (A-14), which mandated adherence to the constitutional requirements under Article 16(4A) as interpreted in Lachhmi Narain Gupta (Punjab & Haryana High Court) and reiterated in interim orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 17.05.2018 and 05.06.2018 (A-8, A-9). By stressing only the latter part of the said instructions, the respondents have provided undue advantage to certain SC/ST candidates despite adequate representation already existing, thereby violating principles of equality and natural justice. Consequently, the impugned instructions dated NEERU DOUGALL 2025.09.17 14:26:52+05'30' 14 (OA No. 946/2024) 15.02.2024 (A-19) and the promotion order dated 13.06.2024 (A-25) deserve to be set aside.
27. The applicants submit that the interim orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 30621/2011 were already implemented by the Railway Board vide PS No. 14620/2016 dated 03.10.2016 (A-5), which clarified that SC/ST candidates falling within general seniority had to be adjusted against their reserved roster points, even if they occupied UR points in the past. This settled position has been ignored in the impugned PS No. 15806/2023 dated 15.02.2024 (A-19), leading to distortion of the seniority list.
28. It is further argued that Para 2 of the DoPT letter dated 12.04.2022 (A-14), issued pursuant to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in Jarnail Singh (28.01.2022), laid down the mandatory ―triple test‖: (i) collection of quantifiable data regarding inadequacy of representation of SC/STs; (ii) cadre- wise application of such data; and (iii) treating cadre as the unit of operation for the roster. Instead of following this, the Railway Board issued subsequent circulars (A-15 to A-19), departing from the Apex Court's mandate. The letter itself, based on the Attorney General's opinion, makes it incumbent upon the NEERU DOUGALL 2025.09.17 14:26:52+05'30' 15 (OA No. 946/2024) Government to provide reservation in promotion only after satisfying this triple test, which has not been done.
29. The applicants emphasize that no quantifiable data has been collected by the Railways regarding inadequacy of representation in the cadre concerned. This is admitted in reply dated 30.04.2024 (A-23) to Applicant No. 1's RTI query (A-21), where no information of data collection was provided. Without such cadre-wise determination of inadequacy, reservation in promotion is unconstitutional and contrary to Article 16(4A), as clarified in M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 212 and Jarnail Singh (2018) 10 SCC 396.
30. The applicants further argue that the promotion of juniors such as Sh. Varinder Kumar and Ravinder Kumar (Sr. No. 8 and 9 in seniority) amounts to illegal ―jumping‖ of the seniority list. These promotions were made against SC roster points even when SC candidates at Sr. No. 1 and 3 (Sukhwinder Singh and Manish Bhatti) had already been adjusted against UR roster points. This has resulted in double benefit to the reserved category, creating excess representation and discrimination against UR candidates, without any recorded reasoning by the respondents.
NEERU DOUGALL 2025.09.17 14:26:52+05'30' 16 (OA No. 946/2024)
31. It is pointed out that as per DoPT's letter dated 12.04.2022 (A-
14), read with RBE No. 114/1997 dated 21.08.1997 (A-2), the roster can operate only till adequate representation is achieved. In the present case, SC candidates are already represented in Level 8, and hence, further operation of the roster is impermissible.
32. The applicants also rely on the Chandigarh Bench of CAT in OA No. 060/1435/2018, OA No. 060/831/2018, and OA No. 060/50/2023 (decided on 26.02.2024), where it was held that reservation in promotion under Article 16(4A) is only an enabling provision, not a fundamental right. For its application, the State must fulfill four conditions: (i) quantifiable data on backwardness; (ii) exclusion of creamy layer; (iii) cadre-wise data on inadequacy of representation; and (iv) compliance with efficiency under Article 335. Since the respondents have not fulfilled these mandatory conditions, the impugned promotion orders are unconstitutional.
33. The applicants finally argue that their representations (A-20, A-
26) were ignored, violating the principles of natural justice, as no reasons were assigned nor any opportunity of hearing granted. The respondents' actions are thus arbitrary, discriminatory, violative of Articles 14 and 16, and contrary to NEERU DOUGALL 2025.09.17 14:26:52+05'30' 17 (OA No. 946/2024) the law laid down in M. Nagaraj and Jarnail Singh. Therefore, the impugned promotion order dated 13.06.2024 (A-25) deserves to be quashed, and promotions must be made strictly as per the general seniority list dated 08.01.2024 (A-18) ensuring ―UR against UR‖ and ―SC against SC‖ promotions.
34. The applicant has also relied upon recent judgement in OA No. 634 of 2023 decided by Jabalpur Bench of this Tribunal on 29.07.2025 wherein it was held as follows:-
―11. In view of the above referred categorical declaration of the law by the Hon'ble Apex Court in M. Nagraj (supra) coupled with the judgement passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jarnail Singh (supra) case, we are of the considered view that no authority or Government can follow the rule of reservation in promotions in the current scenario. Hence, the action of the respondents in following the rule of reservation in promotions is unsustainable.
12. Therefore, we set aside the impugned letter dated 10.02.2023 (Annexure A/5) and seniority list issued in pursuance to the same vide order dated 26.06.2023 (Annexure A/8) is set aside. The respondents are directed to carry out due modification in the seniority list by allotting the correct seniority to the applicants vis-à-vis the private respondents.
13. In view of the observations made above, this OA is allowed. No costs.‖
35. From the above factual and legal sequence, it is evident that the Respondents have acted contrary to the binding directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, DoPT, and Railway Board, thereby promoting juniors over the Applicants in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In view of the above discussion, it emerges that the impugned PS No. 15806/2023 dated 15.02.2024 (Annexure A-19) and promotion NEERU DOUGALL 2025.09.17 14:26:52+05'30' 18 (OA No. 946/2024) order dated 13.06.2024 (Annexure A-25) have been issued without due compliance with the constitutional safeguards under Article 16(4A), as interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 212 and Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta (2018) 10 SCC 396, read with the judgment dated 28.01.2022 in Civil Appeal No. 629/2022. The ―triple test‖ of (i) cadre-wise collection of quantifiable data, (ii) proof of inadequacy of representation, and (iii) maintenance of efficiency under Article 335 has not been satisfied before applying reservation in promotions.
36. It is an admitted fact that the Railway Board and Northern Railways have acted illegally and arbitrarily by ignoring Para 2 of the DoPT letter dated 12.04.2022 (A-14), which mandated adherence to the constitutional requirements under Article 16(4A) as interpreted in Lachhmi Narain Gupta (Punjab & Haryana High Court) and reiterated in interim orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 17.05.2018 and 05.06.2018 (A-8, A-9). By stressing only the latter part of the said instructions, the respondents have provided undue advantage to certain SC/ST candidates despite adequate representation already existing, thereby violating principles of equality and natural justice. Consequently, the impugned instructions dated NEERU DOUGALL 2025.09.17 14:26:52+05'30' 19 (OA No. 946/2024) 15.02.2024 (A-19) and the promotion order dated 13.06.2024 (A-25) deserve to be set aside.
37. The admitted position that no quantifiable cadre-based data has been collected, coupled with the promotion of juniors over seniors by operating the roster in a manner resulting in ―jumping‖ of seniority, makes the respondents' action open to challenge. The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court, have repeatedly emphasized that promotions during pendency of the issue must be made strictly in accordance with general seniority, and any deviation therefrom would amount to arbitrariness and discrimination.
38. It is equally well settled that Article 16(4A) is an enabling provision and does not create a vested right to reservation in promotion, unless the State demonstrates inadequacy of representation through quantifiable data. The recent decision of the Jabalpur Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 634/2023 (decided on 29.07.2025) reiterates this legal position, and the facts of the present case are substantially similar.
39. Thus, the applicants' grievance is not without substance. At the very least, the respondents are required to revisit the impugned instructions dated 15.02.2024 (Annexure A-19) and the consequential promotion order dated 13.06.2024 (Annexure A-
NEERU DOUGALL 2025.09.17 14:26:52+05'30' 20 (OA No. 946/2024)
25) in the light of the binding law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and DoPT's own OM dated 12.04.2022, after collecting and considering cadre-wise quantifiable data.
40. Accordingly, the present OA is allowed. The impugned PS No. 15806/2023 dated 15.02.2024 and promotion order dated 13.06.2024 are set aside to the extent they have operated without collection of cadre-wise quantifiable data. The respondents are directed to carry out due modification in the seniority list by allotting the correct seniority to the applicants vis-à-vis the private respondents as per law laid down in M. Nagraj and Jarnail Singh.
41. There shall be no order as to costs.
(ANJALI BHAWRA) (RAMESH SINGH THAKUR)
Member (A) Member (J)
ND*
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
NEERU DOUGALL 2025.09.17 14:26:52+05'30'