E.A. SATHY ANESAN versus V.K. AGNIHOTRI AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 1119 · Decided: 18-12-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA, ARUN KUMAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

E.A. SA THY ANESAN 
v. 
V.K. AGNIHOTRI AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 18, 2003 
[S.B. SINHA AND ARUN KUMAR, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
Promotion-Reservation-Railways decision invoking 40-point ros-
ter on the basis of vacancies-Challenged before Tribunal-Tribunal 
holding that principle of reservation operates on cadre strength and 
seniority vis-a-vis reserved and unreserved categories in lower category 
would be reflected in promoted category notwithstanding earlier promo-
tion on the basis of reservation-SLP filed by Railways dismissed as the 
case was covered by Sabharwal* and Ajit Singh**-Disposing of the 
contempt petition Tribunal observed that in Sabharwal and Ajit Singh, 
decision was directed to be applied with prospective effect-Held, the 
Tribunal committed a manifest error in declining to consider the matter 
on merits,. upon the premise that Sabharwal and Ajit Singh-I had been 
given a prospective operation-The extent to which the said decisions had 
been directed to operate prospectively, hc,.s sufficiently been explained in 
Ajit Singh-II and reiterated in MG. Badappanavar-Tribunal by reason 
of judgment dated 6th September I 994, directed the authorities and the 
Railway Administration to work out the reliefs in terms of the issues therein 
which direction has not been complied with-That being the positi •n, it 
· will be fit and proper if necessary directions, as required may be issued 
by the Tribunal. 
*R.K. Sabharwal & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors., (1995] 2 SCC 
· 745, explained and relied on. 
**Ajit Singh Januja and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors., AIR (1996) 
SC 118=(1996) 2 SCC 715; Ajit Singh-Ilv. State of Punjab, [1999] 7 SCC 
:.209 and MG. Badappanavar & Anr. v. State of Karnataka & Ors., (2001] 
f2·SCC 666, relied on. 
J 
Union of India & Ors. v. Vi1pal Singh Chauhan & Ors., (1995) 6 
SCC 684 and JC. Malik v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SLR 844 (All.), 
referred to. 
1119 
1120 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5629 of 
1997. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 25 .2.97 of the Central Admin-
istrative Tribunal, Kerala at Ernakulam Bench in C.P. (C) No. 68/96 in 
B O.A. No. 483 of 1991. 
C.S. Rajan, Fazlin Anam and E.M.S. Anam for the Appellant. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
The original applicant before the Tribunal is the appellant herein. The 
C applicant filed an original application before the Tribunal questioning the 
decision of the Railway Administration of the Unionoflndia to invoke the 
40-Point Roster on the basis of vacancies arising and not on the basis of 
cadre strength of promotion. It is not in dispute that keeping in view a large 
number of decisions rendered by different Benches of the Central Admin-
D istrative Tribunal, the Tribunal, inter alia, held that reservation cannot be 
allowed to be implemented at the promotioml level and further the Roster 
Point has to be considered having regard to the cadre strength, and not of 
the vacancies. It was directed : 
E 
F 
G 
"Following the precedents, we hold : 
(a) that the principle of reservation operates on the cadre 
strength; 
(b) that seniority vis-a-vis reserved and unreserved catego-
ries of employees in the lower category will be reflected in the 
promoted category also notwithstanding the earlier promotion 
obtained on the basis of reservation. 
Applying these principles, respondents~Railways will work 
out the reliefs. We ar.e issuing the direction, as the apex Court 
thought that the judgments in force should be implemented. 
(interim orders in C.A. 2017/78)." 
The union of India preferred a special leave petition thereagainst 
which was marked as SLP(C) No. 10691/1995,iand by an order.dated 31st 
H (sic) August, 1996, the said petition was dismissed stating : 
E.A. SATHYANESAN v. V.K. AGNIHOTRI 
1121 
"Delay condoned. 
A 
These matters are fully covered by the decision of this Court in 
R.K. Sabharwal & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors., [1995] 2 SCC 
745 and Ajit Singh Januja and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors., 
AIR ( 1986) SC 1189. The Special Leave Petitions are therefore B 
dismissed." 
The appellant herein thereafter filed contempt petition before the 
Tribunal as its earlier order dated 8th September, 1994, had not been. 
implemented within the period specified therein. The Tribunal, however, C 
having regard to the observations made by this Cm.~rt in its order dated 301h 
August 1996, observed that as both in the case of 'Sabharwal' (supra) as
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.