SUBE SINGH BAHMANI AND ORS. ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 562 · Decided: 16-09-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUBE SINGH BAHMANI AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
v. 
ST A TE OF HARY ANA 
SEPTEMBER 16, 1999 
[DR. A.S. ANAND, C.J., K. VENKATASWAMI, G.B. PATTANAIK 
S.P. KURDUKAR AND M. JAGANNADHA RAO, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
Punjab Financial Commission Class Ill Rules, 1957/Punjab Financial 
Commission Officers (Group B) Service Rules, 1986/Punjab Civil Secretariat 
(State Service, Class Ill) Rules, 1952/Punjab Civil Secretariat (State Service 
Class II) Rules, 1963-Reservation in Promotion-Government of Haryana 
Circulars dated 9.2.1979 and 10.1.1997 stating that on promotion at roster 
point, the reserved candidates would not count their seniority-Held, the 
Circulars correctly reflect the legal JJ.osition'-Seniority of reserved candidates 
on roster promotion, would be Governed by the Principles laid down in Ajit 
Singh II-As regards prospectivity of R.K. Sabharwal and Ajit Singh 1, 
respective cut off dates of each of these decisions as applied in Ajit Singh II 
will apply. 
In the State of Haryana the posts of clerk, Assistant and Deputy 
Superintendent were covered under Class III posts and the post of 
Superintendent and equivalent posts fell under class II posts. To implement 
. reservation, there was provision for roster promotion at class III level from 
the post of clerk to the post of Assistant and from the post of Assistant to 
the post of Deputy Superintendent. Beyond that there was no reservation in 
class II or class I posts. The Government of Haryana issued a circular on 
9.2.1979 to the effect that on promotion at the roster point, the reserved 
candidates would not count their seniority. This was reiterated by another 
circular dated 10.1.1997 issued after,Ajit Singh l* which was decided on 
1.3.1996. 
The appellant (in Civil Appeal No. 5324 of 1999) a reserved category 
candidate and roster point promotee, claimed that he was promoted as Deputy 
Superintendent on 15.5.1986 and was further promoted as Superintendent 
on 6.1.1988. He claimed seniority over respondents No. 2 to 6 (general 
candidates) senior to him at lower level and were promoted as Deputy 
562 
:: 
-
.. 
SUBE SINGH BAHMANI v. ST ATE 
563 
Superintendents on 16.11.1988, 20.9.1989, 11.8.1992, 8.11.1995 and A 
8.12.1995 much after his further promotion as Superintendent on 6.1.1988. 
The State government filed a counter affidavit stating that on account of 
some dispute raised by other reserved candidates the date of promotion of the 
appellant was altered from 6.1.1988 to I0.4.1989. The case of appellant was 
rejected by High Court. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the present appeal. 
The three appellants in C.A. No. 5325/99 were reserved candidates. 
Respondents No. 2 to 8 were senior to the appellants as clerks. The three 
appellants were promoted as per roster from clerks to Assistants and then 
B 
as Deputy Superintendents. Respondents No. 2 to 8, who were promoted as 
Deputy Superintendents after the roster promotion of the appellants as C 
Deputy Superintendents, filed a writ petition in the High Court claiming 
seniority over the appellants. The High Court allowed the writ petition 
following the decision in Ajit Singh I. Aggrieved, the reserved candidates 
filed the present appeal. 
The two appellants in C.A. No. 5326/99 were reserved candidates and D 
respondents 2 to 8 were general candidates. The promotion of the appellants 
from clerk to Assistant and Assistant to Deputy Superintendents were by 
way of roster. The appellants were promoted as Deputy Superintendents on 
23.6.1995 and 23.11.1995 respectively whereas respondents 2 to 5, who were 
senior to them at lower level were all promoted as Deputy Superintendents 
on 18.3.1996. the respondents filed writ petitions before the High Court E 
claiming seniority over the appellants. The High Court allowed the writ 
petitions. The reserved candidates filed the present appeal. 
A contempt petition was also filed by some of the reserved candidates 
alleging violation of order dated 9.12.1996 passed by this Court in SLP No. F 
23107of1996 (giving rise to C.A. No. 5325/99) maintaining the status quo 
and providing that any promotion thereafter would be subject to the result 
of the special leave petition. The State of Haryana filed I.A. No. 3 of 1997 
for clarification as it felt that the order dated 9.12.1996 was in conflict with 
that passed on 4.12.1996 in Chander Pal v. State of Haryana, (1997) 10 SCC 
474. 
(} 
Disposing of the matters, the Court 
HELD : 1. All the three appeals
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.