Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. Learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that this O.A. can be disposed of in terms of the decision of even date in the case of Prakash Vir vs. BSNL & Ors. (O.A. No.60/322/2017). Relevant paras of the same read as under:-

"8. At the first instance, possibly no-one can dispute that Article 16(4A) was inserted w.e.f. 17.6.1995, authorizing the State, to make any provision for reservation in the matter of promotion, with consequential seniority, to any class or classes of posts, in the services under the State. Admittedly, this amendment was challenged and examined by a Constitution Bench of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of M. NAGRAJ & OTHERS VS. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS, (2006) 8 SCC 212. While upholding the constitutional validity of the amendment, the Hon‟ble Apex Court has held as under :-

10. Likewise, in the case of S. PANNEER SELVAM V. STATE OF TAMIL NADU, 2015(10) SCC 292. The question before the Hon‟ble Apex Court was whether in absence of any policy decision by the State for giving consequential seniority to candidates promoted on the basis of reservation prior to a senior general category candidate, claim for consequential seniority could be accepted. Answering the question in the negative, it was held that in absence of provision for consequential seniority, 'catch up' rule will be applicable and the roster point promotes cannot claim such consequential seniority. The senior general candidates will regain their seniority on being promoted. Observations relevant in this regard are as follows:

xxxx
36. In the absence of any provision for consequential seniority in the rules, the "catch-up rule" will be applicable and the roster-point reserved category promotees cannot count their seniority in the promoted category from the date of their promotion and the senior general candidates if later reach the promotional level, general candidates will regain their seniority. The Division Bench appears to have proceeded on an erroneous footing that Article 16(4-A) of the Constitution of India automatically gives the consequential seniority in addition to accelerated promotion to the roster-point promotees and the judgment of the Division Bench cannot be sustained."

11. Again, in the case of B.K. PAVITRA & OTHERS VS. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS, (2017) 4 SCC 620, the Hon‟ble Apex Court, relying upon its earlier decisions, has ruled (in para 29), as under :-

"29. It is clear from the above discussion in S. Panneer Selvam case, that exercise for determining "inadequacy of representation", "backwardness" and "overall efficiency", is a must for exercise of power under Article 16(4-A). Mere fact that there is no proportionate representation in promotional posts for the population of SCs and STs is not by itself enough to grant consequential seniority to promotees who are otherwise junior and thereby denying seniority to those who are given promotion later on account of reservation policy. It is for the State to place material on record that there was compelling necessity for exercise of such power and decision of the State was based on material including the study that overall efficiency is not compromised. In the present case, no such exercise has been undertaken. The High Court erroneously observed that it was for the petitioners to plead and prove that the overall efficiency was adversely affected by giving consequential seniority to junior persons who got promotion on account of reservation. Plea that persons promoted at the same time were allowed to retain their seniority in the lower cadre is untenable and ignores the fact that a senior person may be promoted later and not at same time on account of roster point reservation. Depriving him of his seniority affects his further chances of promotion. Further plea that seniority was not a fundamental right is equally without any merit in the present context. In absence of exercise under Article 16(4- A), it is the „catch up‟ rule which fully applies. It is not necessary to go into the question whether the Corporation concerned had adopted the rule of consequential seniority."