M.G. BADAPPANAVAR AND ANR. ETC. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 302 · Decided: 01-12-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. JAGANNADHA RAO · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
M.G. BADAPPANAVAR AND ANR. ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. 
DECEMBER I, 2000 
[M. JAGANNADHA RAO, ~.B. SHAH AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] 
Service Law- -Karnataka CJovernment Servants (Seniority) Rules 1957--
Rules 2 (c), 4. 4A· Seniority-Roster Point Promotions· Rule of seniority--
C Initial recruitment as Assistant Engineers Promotion of reserved candidates 
as per roster poims to level of Assistant Executive Engineer and then to level 
of Executive Engineers by way of a further roster-Promotion of general 
candidates as per rules lo level of Executive Engineers-Claim of general 
candidates to be considered for promotion to next higher level of 
Superintending Engineers as seniors to reserved candidates Whether 
D maintainable-Held, provided senior general candidates reached level of 
Executive Engineers before the concerned reserved candidates promoted as 
Superintending Engineer--Constilution of India-Articles 14, 16. 
The initial recruitment of general candidates and the reserved 
candidates was as Junior Engineers (Assistant Engineers) and then the next 
E promotion was to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer and then to the 
post of Executive Engineer. The appellants and respondents, general candidates 
and reserved candidates were recruited as Junior Engineers and the appellant-
general candidates were senior to the reserved candidates at that level. There 
had been roster operating at the levels of Assistant Engineers and 
F 
Assistant Executives Engineers. The reserved candidates got promotion as 
per roster points from Level I to Level 2 (Assistant Executive Engineer) and 
then to level 3 as Executive Engineers. The senior general candidates got 
promoted to level 3 by normal promotion system, as per rules. But the reserved 
candidates were promoted to level 4 as superintending Enginee.·s by treating 
them as senior to the general candidates considering that the reserved 
G candidates reached the category of Executive Engineers earlier than the 
generaf candidates. The general candidates challenged the seniority alleging 
that at Level 3, the reserved candidates had to be considered alongwith the 
senior general candidates for promotion to Level 4. The petition was rejected 
by the Administrative Tribunal and by applying Rules 2(c), 4 and 4A of the 
Karnataka Government Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1957, held that the 
H 
302 
M.G. BADAPPANAVAR v. STATE 
303 
reserved candidates promoted on the basis of roster at Levels 1 and 2 would A 
become seniors from the date of the roster point promotions and even if a 
senior general candidate reached Level 3 later, he would not be able to claim 
seniority over the reserved candidate at Level 3 because the reserved candidate 
had reached Level 3 earlier and the reserved candidates would count their 
seniority at Level 3 from the date of promotion to Level 3. These appeals had B 
been filed by the general candidates against the decision of the Tribunal. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. In the instant case, there is no specific rule permitting 
seniority to be counted in respect of a roster promotion. 1309-CI 
1.2. The Karnataka Government Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1957, like 
Rules 2(c), 4 and 4 A permitting seniority to be counted from date of initial 
promotion, govern normal promotions made according to rules- -by seniority 
c 
at basic level, by seniority-cum-fitness or by seniority-cum-merit or by 
selection-but not to promotions made by way of roster. The roster promotions D 
were meant only for the limited purpose of due representation of backward 
classes at various levels of service. If the rules are to be interpreted in a 
manner conferring seniority to the roster point promotees, - who have not 
gone through the normal channel where basic seniority or selection process 
is involved, - then the rules will be ultra-vires of Article 14 and Article 16 
of the Constitution of India. Article 16(4A) cannot also help. Such seniority, E 
if given, would amount to treating unequals equally, rather, more than equals. 
1309-D, Ef 
Indira Sawhney v. Union of India, 120001 1 SCC 168, relied on. 
1.3. The initial recruitment of these general candidates and the reserved F 
candidates was as Junior Engineers (now called Assistant Engineers) and 
then the next promotion was to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer and 
then to the post of Executive Engineer. At both these levels admittedly, there 
has been a roster operating. Beyond Executive En

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