ANIL CHANDRA & ORS. versus RADHA KRISHNA GAUR & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 14 S.C.R. 335 · Decided: 10-09-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 335 
ANIL CHANDRA & ORS. 
A 
,> 
v. 
RADHA KRISHNA GAUR & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 6187 of 2009) 
SEPTEMBER 10, 2009 
B 
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.] 
.J, 
,.;.. 
U.P. Government Servants Seniority Rules 1991 - Rule 
8-A (as inserted by U.P. Government Servants Seniority (3rd 
Amendment) Rules, 2007 - GovernmetJt servants belonging c 
to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes - Entitlement of 
consequential seniority on accelerated promotfon through 
roster/rule of reservation - Challenge to - Interim order by 
-
~ 
High Court that seniority of respondent as existing prior to 
..I, 
enforcement of Rules of 2007 not to be disturbed in pursuance D 
of the Rules - Justification of - Held: Justified - At the time 
of providing reservation in matter of promotions, the State is 
under the constitutional obligation to identify the class or 
classes of posts in the service for which reservation is required 
and quantify the extent of reservation - State did not undertake E 
such exercise - Rule B(A) was inserted mechanically - Rules 
.... 
pertaining. to reservation and promotion list is prospective in 
nature and cannot disturb the promotion list - Appellants 
- failed to establish the nature with regard to retrospective effect 
.-
of the Rule - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 16(4-A) -
--
F 
Service law. 
-I 
Rule 8-A was inserted in the U. P. Government 
Servants Seniority Rules, 1991 by the U. P. Government 
Servants Seniority (3rd-Amendment) Rules, 2007. By 
virtue of the said Rule, the Government Servants G 
... 
·"-
belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes 
would be entitled to consequential seniority on 
............... 
accelerated promotion given to them through roster/rule 
of reservation. Thereafter, U.P. Jal Nigam issued a 
' 335 
H 
336 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A tentative joint seniority list of the engineers. The 
engineers of the irrigation department filed writ petition 
challenging Rule 8-A. High Court passed an interim order 
by which the· seniority of the petitioners and other 
promoted officers as was existing prior to the 
s enforcement of the U.P. Government Servants Seniority 
(3rd Amendment) Rules, 2007 shall not be disturbed in 
pursuance of these Rules and no reversion shall be 
effected; Respondents working as Superintending 
Engineers, Executive Engineers and Assistant Engineers 
c in U.P. Jal N·igam also challenged the said Rule. The 
Division Bench of High Court passed an interim order 
directing that the said writ petition be tagged with the writ 
petition pending in the High Court and that the seniority 
of the respondents as existing prior to the enforcement 
0 
of the Amendment Rules, 2007 shall not be disturbed in 
pursuance of these Rules. Hence the present appeals. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 In the facts and circumstances of the 
E case, it was the constitutional obligation of the State, at 
the time of providing reservation in the matter of 
promotion to identify the class or classes of posts in the 
service for which reservation is required, however, 
neither any effort has been made to identify the class or. 
F 
classes of posts for which reservation is to be provided 
in promotion nor any exercise has been done to quantify 
the extent of reservation. Adequate reservatio~ does not 
meaff proportional representation. Rula S(A) has been 
inserted mechanically without taking into consideration 
G the prerequisites for making such a provision as required 
under Article 16 (4-A) of the Constitution of India. The 
ceiling-limit of 50%, the concept of creamy layer and the 
compelling reasons, namely, backwardness, inadequacy 
of representation and overall administrative efficiency are 
H 
' 
;',_ 
..L 
r ,. 
ANIL CHANDRA & ORS. v. RADHA KRISHNA GAUR & 337 
ORS. 
' 
~ 
all constitutional requirements without which, the A 
/ 
' 
structure of equality of opportunity in Article 16 would 
collapse. However, as regard the "extent of reservation", 
the State should have shown the existence of the 
compelling reasons, namely, backwardness, inadequacy 
of representation and overall administrative efficiency 
B 
before making provision for reservation. The State is not 
~ 
bound to make reservation for SC/ST in matter of 
promotions. However, if they wish to exercise their 
>-
discretion and make such provision, the State has to 
collect quantifiable data showing backwardness of the c 
class and inadequacy

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