AJIT SINGH JANUJA AND OTHERS versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

Citation: [1996] 3 S.C.R. 125 · Decided: 01-03-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

) 
AJIT SINGH JANUJA AND OTHERS 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS 
MARCH 1, 1996 
[J.S. VERMA, N.P. SINGH AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.) 
Se1Vice Law-Promotions Rese1Vation for members of Scheduled Cas-
A 
B 
tes and Backward Classes-Applicability of roster system-Accelerated 
promotion-Whether such appointees/promotees can claim promotion against C 
general category posts in the higher grade, on basis of their 'accelerated 
seniority' in the lower grade-field, N&-Constitution of India, Articles 16(4), 
335. 
The petitioners working in Punjab Civil Secretarial filed writ peti· 
lions alleging that the policy for reservation in respect of candidates D 
belonging to Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes, was being imple· 
mented by the State Government in a manner, because of which the 
members belonging to Schednled Castes and Backward Classes were hold· 
ing posts in excess to their reservation quota and this was not only 
prejudicial but detrimental to the right of the petitioners for being con-
sidered for promotion to higher grade. The writ petitions were dismissed E 
by the Full Bench of the High Court holding that non consideration of 
Scheduled Caste candidates against general categories posts for purpose 
of appointment or promotion will be hit by Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the 
Constitution and that there was no bar to the appointment/promotion of 
larger number of members of Scheduled Castes. The High Court relied on F 
circulars dated 19· 7 -1969 and 8-9-1969 for purpose of holding that even 
after the percentage reserved in a cadre is filled and the roster is complete, 
the members of the Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes can be 
promoted against general category posts on basis of seniority. These 
appeals had been filed against the judgment of the Full Bench. The 
respondents alleged that such appointees/promotees conld be considered G 
.>; 
against posts meant for general category candidates merely becanse they 
had become senior on basis of accelerated promotions. 
The question raised was, whether, after the members of the 
Scheduled Castes/Tribes or Backward Classes for whom specific percent· H 
125 
126 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1996] 3 S.C.R. 
A age of posts have been reserved and roster has been provided having been 
promoted against those posts on the basis of 'accelerated promotion' 
because of reservation of posts and applicability of the roster system, can 
claim promotion against general category posts in still higher grade on the 
basis of their seniority which itself is the result of accelerated promotion 
B on basis of reservation and roster. 
Disposing of the matters, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. Once the quota is full and roster has stopped for 
members of the Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes in respect of 
C whom reservation has been made and roster has been prescribed then their 
case for promotion to still higher grade against general category posts 
have to be considered not treating them as members of the Scheduled 
Castes or Backward Classes "on any crutch". They cannot be promoted 
only on basis of their 'accelerated seniority' against the general category 
D posts. The accelerated promotions are to be made only against the posts 
reserved or roster prescribed. There is no question of that benefit being 
available when a member of Scheduled Castes or Backward Classes claims 
promotion against general category posts in the higher grade. Snch can-
didates who are members of the Scheduled Castes or Backward Classes 
and have got promotion on basis of reservation and application of roster 
E before their seniors in the lower grade belonging to general category, in 
this process have not superseded them, because there was no inter se 
comparison of merit between them. As such when such seniors who belong 
to general category, are promoted later it cannot be said that they have 
been superseded by such members of Scheduled Castes or Backward Class 
F who have been promoted earlier. While considering them for further 
promotion against general category posts if the only fact that they have 
been promoted earlier being members of Scheduled Castes or Backward 
Class is taken into consideration, then it shall violate the equality clause. 
As such it will be only rational, just and proper to hold that when the 
general category candidate is promoted later from the lower grade to the 
G higher grade, he will be considered senior to a candidate belonging to the 
scheduled caste/tribe who had been giv

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.