LexAJIT SINGH AND ORS. versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.. AJIT SINGH AND ORS. v. THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. SEPTEMBER 16, 1999 [DR. A.S. ANAND, C.J., K. VENKATASWAMI, G.B. PATTANAIK S.P. KURDUKAR AND M. JAGANNADHA RAO, JJ.] Service Law : A B Reservation in Promotion-Roster point promotees vis-a-vis-general C candidates-Seniority-Determination of-Relevant statutory Rules providing single scheme of promotion and seniority based on seniority-cum-merit from the date of continuous officiation-Roster point promotees not promoted on the basis of seniority-cum-merit-Claim for seniority on the basis of continuous officiation-Validity of-Held, roster point promotees cannot count their seniority over general candidate from the date of their continuous officiation D in the promotional posts-Senior general candidates at lower level reaching the promotional level later will have to be treated as senior to reserved category candidates-Seniority of reserved category candidates promoted to higher level ignoring the general category candidates has to be refixed- However, if the reserved category candidates are otherwise eligible and posts E are available for promotion, cannot be denied right to be considered for promotion merely because senior general candidates at initial level have not reached the promotional level-Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 14, 16(1), 16(4) and l 6(4A)-Punjab Secretariat Class Ill Service Rules, 1956. Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 16(1), 16(4) and l 6(4A)-Reservation in promotion-Right to F · be considered-Whether "Fundamental" or "Statutory"-Held, Articles 16(4) and 16(4A) do not confer any fundamental right and are only enabling provisions-They confer only a discretion but do not confer any duty or G obligation. Articles 16(4) and 16(4A) and 16(1) r!w 14-Reservation in promotion-Roster point promotees vis-a-vis-general candidates-Balancing of fundamental rights and rights of reserved candidate-Held, a reasonable H 521 522 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 4 s.c:R .. A balance has to be struck between the individual rights guaranteed under Article 16(1) and affirmative action under Articles 16(4) and 16(4A) so that' there is no reverse discrimination against general candidates. B Articles 16( 4), 16( 4A) and 33 5-Reservation in promotion- Maintenance of efficiency in administration-Necessity of Reservation in promotion-Promotions made in excess of roster point- E.ffect of-Held, promotions made in excess of any quota are to be treated as adhoc-No seniority can be claimed from wrong application of the roster. Judgment-Prospectivity-Supreme Court's decision in Sabharvval and C Ajit Singh case-Prospective operation-Purpose and effect of Respondent-State had filed the present Interlocutory Applications for 'clarification' of the Judgment of this Court in Ajit Singh 's case. In Ajit Singh's case, a three Judge Bench of this Court observed that reserved candidates promoted at roster points cannot be treated as senior to senior D general candidates promoted subsequently. Similarly, earlier in Virpal Singh 's case, a two Judge Bench of this Court held that reserved candidates promoted at roster points cannot claim seniority at promotional level against a senior general candidate promoted at later stage to the same level. However, subsequently in Jagdish Lal's case, a three Judge Bench of this Court held E that the general rule in the Service Rules relating to seniority from the date of continuous officiation, which was applicable to candidates promoted under the normal seniority/selection procedure would also be attracted to roster point promotees as otherwise there would be discrimination against reserved candidates; the right to promotion was a statutory right while the rights of F the reserved candidates under Articles 16(4) and 16(4A) were fundamental rights. Thus, the decision of this court in favour of general candidates (Virpal Singh 's case and Ajit Singh 's case) were reversed by the subsequent judgment of this Court (Jagdish Lat's case). Hence, the present Interlocutory Applications for clarification. G Disposing of the applications, the Court HELD : 1.1. The roster point promotees (reserved category) cannot count their seniority in the promoted category from the date of their continuous officiation in the promoted post, vis-a-vis the general candidates who were senior to them in the lower category and who were later promoted. H On the other hand, the senior general candida
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.