Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: roster points in Rajeev Kumar Sinha vs The State Of Jharkhand on 12 March, 2024Matching Fragments
I. Constables of S.C/S.T category appointed much after the Petitioner, by taking advantage of accelerated promotion on reservation got promoted to the post of ASI, against the reserved point roster. It is apprehended that in view of the impugned letter, if they are granted promotion to the next promotional ladder of sub-inspector to the unreserved roster point, on the basis of their seniority in the feeder post for the next promotion, and the unreserved posts in the rank of sub inspector is filled up, it will adversely affect the promotional prospects of those from the General category. (As raised in W.P. (S) 672 of 2023 & W.P. (S) 759 of 2023) II. Petitioners in W.P. (S) 3012 of 2022 & W.P. (S) 5217 of 2022, apprehend similar consequence as a result of throwing open of the unreserved roster points in the promotional posts, to those promoted from reserved point roster.
61. Promotion to reserved roster point is covered under Article 16 (4-A) of the Constitution. After filling up reserved roster point, if the unreserved roster points are also filled up by those who were initially appointed, or promoted on reservation, then it will definitely impinge on the promotional avenue of those in the unreserved category. The vacancies ensuing against the reserved posts, can be filled up from unreserved category on a later date by the "principle of replacement". But before such vacancy occurs in reserved category there will be an excess of employees from the reserved category, who will be stonewalling the promotional prospects of employees from General category, and in the meantime some may retire from the service, and permanently lose their legitimate right to promotion, despite having fulfilled the requisite eligibility criteria. This will lead to excessive reservation, as those who are appointed on reservation in the SC/ST category are promoted not only against the reserved roster points, but also against the unreserved roster points leading to an excess of representation. As stated above principle of replacement cannot fully mitigate the skewed outcome of such promotions. Such excessive reservation will be against the ratio as laid down in M. Nagraj Vs. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 21 and Indra Sawhney [(1992) Supp (3) SCC 217].
66. A careful reading of the impugned letter dated 03.06.2022 will show that expression, while considering promotion on seniority-cum-merit in the Basic cadre is used and not 'feeder post'. What the impugned letter thus protects, is seniority derived by way of initial appointment.
67. Unreserved roster point cannot be made open, to those promoted to reserved roster point, as it will lead to excessive reservation in the promotional post, and not permissible in view of the ratio discussed above. The balancing act in the form of 'replacement' to maintain the percentage of quota, will take time to work out, only after some retire from the reserved category. By the time such vacancy accrues in the reserved quota for replacement by those from the unreserved category, proportion will be excessive. This will certainly eclipse the promotional prospect of those appointed in unreserved category, who may even retire from service by the time replacement occurs. Therefore, such further promotion from the feeder post to the unreserved roster point is not permissible, as it will amount to reverse discrimination against those appointed in unreserved category, seriously undermining their right of promotion. Excessive reservation is not permissible unless it is supported by quantifiable data (Refer to M.Nagraj case para-86,102). Any contrary of the impugned letter will also not be in consonance with the ratio as laid down in R.K Sabharwal case (supra) as it permits promotion from reserved to reserved roster points.
II. The impugned memo being confined to promotion from Basic cadre, will not result in excessive reservation in the promotional posts. III. Seniority-cum-merit in the Basic cadre of appointment can only be considered for promotion of SC/ST employees appointed on reserved posts and not in the next higher post.
IV. The impugned memo dated 03.06.2022, is in consonance with the principle as laid down by the Apex Court in R.K. Sabharwal and Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors 1995(2) SCC 745 and the letters of the Govt. of India, in the memo referred to as it is confined to considering promotion on seniority-cum-merit in the Basic cadre. V. Post of Inspector is the feeder post for promotion to the post of Dy.S.P, and seniority-cum-merit is to be considered in this cadre for promotion to the post of Dy.S.P. It cannot be treated as Basic cadre, as it will result in promotion of those appointed to the reserved roster point of Inspector, to the unreserved roster point of Dy.S.P, by treating it as Basic cadre. Promotion to the Post of Dy.S.P. is governed by 'Jharkhand Rajya Police Seva Niyamabali, 2012 whereby Chapter IV, Rule 11 deals with the promotion of Dy.S.P. from the feeder post of Inspector. Exercise to convert the feeder post to Basic cadre is not supported by rule, and is a colourable exercise of power by an executive instruction, to favour those promoted on reserved roster point of Inspector, to the detriment of those in the general category. Part of Letter No. 12/M. 2-1010/2022-4474 dated 10.11.2022 which converts the post of Inspector as Basic cadre not being in consonance with the law laid down in R.K. Sabharwal case (supra) is struck down. VI. There is no bar in giving promotion to the unreserved roster point by way of an executive instruction as per their seniority in the Basic cadre, in view of the ratio as laid down in Sudhakar Baburao Nangnure Vs. Noreshwar Raghunathrao Shende (2020) 11 SCC 399. RESULT Challenge to the impugned Memo No. 3463 dated 03.06.2022 made in all the Writ Petitions fails, subject to the purport of this memo as held above. Apprehension of Petitioners in W.P.(S) No.2189 of 2023, W.P.(S) No.5217 of 2022, W.P.(S) No.3216 of 2022, W.P.(S) No.672 of 2023 and W.P.(S) No.759 of 2023, that this memo will result in excessive reservation is misconceived and, accordingly, these Writ Petitions stand disposed of with direction to initiate the process for promotion for those in the consideration zone without any further delay.