SURAJ BHAN MEENA & ANR. versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

Citation: [2010] 14 S.C.R. 532 · Decided: 07-12-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 532 
SURAJ BHAN MEENA & ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. 
(Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.6385 of 2010 etc.) 
DECEMBER 7, 2010 
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.) 
SERVICE LAW· 
c 
Promotion through reservation -
Consequential 
seniority -
Held: The position after the decision in M. 
Nagaraj's case is that reservation in promotion is dependent 
on the inadequacy of representation of members of 
Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward 
0 
Classes and subject to the condition of ascertaining as to 
whether such reservation was at all required -
The High 
Court has rightly quashed the notifications dated 28.12.2002 
and 25.04.2008 issued by the Government of Rajasthan 
providing for consequential seniority to the members of the 
Schedules Caste and Scheduled Tribe communities on 
E promotion through reservation or roster -
Constitution of 
India, 1950 -
Article 16(4-A) and 16(4-8). -
Rajasthan 
Administrative Service Rules, 1954 -
Government of 
Rajasthan Notifications dated 28.12.2002 and 25.04.2008. 
F 
Writ petitions were filed before the High Court, by 
the members of Rajasthan Administrative Service 
governed by the Rajasthan Administrative Service Rules 
1954, challenging the Notification dated 25.04.2008 by 
which various Service Rules of the State were amended 
G with effect from 28.12.2002. Thl3ir case was that by virtue 
of the Notification dated 25.4.2008, consequential 
seniority was given to the candidates belonging to 
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes on their 
promotion through reservation, which could not have 
H 
532 
SURAJ BHAN MEENA & ANR. v. STATE OF 
533 
RAJASTHAN & ORS. 
been done without quantifying the figures of Scheduled 
A 
Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates so as to take a 
decision that reservation was required in promotion and 
also to show that the State had to pass such orders for 
compelling 
reasons, 
such 
as, 
backwardness, 
inadequacy of representation as was held by the 
B 
Supreme Court in M. Nagaraj's case1. The High Court 
allowed the writ petitions and quashed the Notifications 
dated 28.12.2002 and 25.8.2008. Aggrieved, the affected 
officers and the State Government filed the petitions for 
special leave. 
c 
The question for consftteration before the Court 
was: whether the. amended provisions of Article 16(4-A) 
of the Cohstitution intended that those belonging to 
Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribe communities and 
had been promoted against reserve quota, would also D 
be entitled to consequential seniority on account of 
such promotions, or would the "catch-up" rule prevail. 
Disposing of the petitions, the Court 
Held: 
1.1. In M. Nagaraj's case, the Constitution Bench of 
E 
the Supreme Court, while upholding the validity of the 
77th, 81st, 82nd and 85th constitutional amendments, 
added that, in any event, the requirement of Articles 
F 
16(4-A) and 16(4-B) of the Constitution would have to 
be maintained and that in order to provide for 
reservation, if at all, the tests indicated in Article 16 
(4-A) and 16(4-B) would have to be satisfied, which could 
only be achieved after an inquiry as to identity. The 
G 
Court further held that the concepts of "catch-up" rule 
and "consequential seniority" are judicially evalued 
1. 
M. Nagaraj & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. 2006 (7) Suppl. SCR 326. 
H 
534 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A concepts and could not be elevated to the status of a 
constitutional principle so as to place them beyond the 
amending power of Parliament. The position after the 
decision in M. Nagaraj's case is that reservation of posts 
in promotion is dependent on the inadequacy of 
B representation of members of Scheduled Castes, 
Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes and subject 
to the condition of ascertaining as to whether such 
reservation was at all required. [para 45-46) [858-C-F] 
1.2. The view of the High Court is based on the 
C decision in M. Nagaraj's case, as no exercise was 
undertaken in terms of Article 16(4-A) to acquire 
quantifiable data regarding the inadequacy of 
representation of Schedule Caste and Scheduled Tribe 
communities in public services. The High Court has 
D rightly quashed the notifications dated 28.12.2002 and 
25.4.2008 issued by the State of Rajasthan providing 
for promotion and consequential seniority to the 
members of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe 
communities and the same does not call for any 
E interference. Accordingly, the cla

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