Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.38 seconds)Union Of India And Ors. Etc vs Virpal Singh Chauhan Etc on 10 October, 1995
82. One of the objections raised before us and which
appealed to the Full Bench in Jaswant Singh case was that
this "catch-up" principle would lead to frequent alteration of
the seniority list at Level 3. We do not find any difficulty in
this behalf. The seniority list at Level 3 would have only to be
of
merely amended whenever the senior general candidate
reaches Level 3."
Ajit Singh Januja & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 1 March, 1996
The principle enunciated in Virpal Singh
Chauhan's case (supra) was followed by a three-Judge Bench of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajit Singh Januja and others vs.
::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2026 20:31:23 :::CIS
9
State of Punjab and others, (1996) 2 SCC 715 and held that a
balance has to be maintained so as to avoid reverse
.
Jagdish Lal & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 7 May, 1997
19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, however, in a
rt
subsequent judgment in Jagdish Lal and others vs. State of
Haryana and others, (1997) 6 SCC 538, took a contrary view and
held that by virtue of the principle of continuation officiation, a
candidate belonging to the reserved category, who is promoted
earlier than a General candidate due to an accelerated
promotion, would not loose seniority in the higher cadre.
M.Nagaraj & Others vs Union Of India & Others on 19 October, 2006
21. The Constitution Bench again had the occasion to
rt
consider the principle of "catch-up" in M. Nagaraj and others vs.
Union of India and others, (2006) 8 SCC 212, after the
incorporation of Article 16(4-A) in the Constitution, which
provides that nothing in the Article shall prevent the State from
making any provision for reservation in matters of promotion
with consequential seniority to any class or classes of post in the
services, under the State, in favour of the Scheduled Caste and
the Scheduled Tribes, which in the opinion of the State, are not
adequately represented in the services under the State.
S.Panneer Selvam vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 16 December, 2015
"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
::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2026 20:31:23 :::CIS
14
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 the same time on account of roster point
.
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
B.K.Pavitra & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 9 February, 2017
24. Thereafter in B.K. Pavitra and others vs. Union of
India and others, (2017) 4 SCC 620, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
of
again reiterated the same view and rejected the plea that
rt
seniority was not a fundamental right and the "catch-up" Rule
fully applies. The relevant para of the judgment reads as under:-
Yash Pal Dhiman vs . State Of H.P. & Others. on 11 March, 2022
5. Though the petitioner had rendered 7 years of
rt
service as Junior Engineer (Electrical) and was eligible for being
considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer
(Electrical), but his candidature was not considered, which
forced him to approach the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh
Administrative Tribunal by filing an original application, which
was transferred to this Court and registered as CWP(T) No.4067
of 2008, titled, Yash Pal Dhiman vs. State of H.P. and others.
1