http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11  

PETITIONER: S. S. GREWAL

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT07/05/1993

BENCH: AGRAWAL, S.C. (J) BENCH: AGRAWAL, S.C. (J) SAWANT, P.B.

CITATION:  1994 AIR 1232            1993 SCR  (3) 593  1993 SCC  Supl.  (3) 234 JT 1993 (4)   107  1993 SCALE  (2)800

ACT: Civil Services Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules,  1963 Rule 8A and Government of punjab Communication dated June 6, 1974,   November  9,  1974;  May  5,  1975  and   April   8, 1980--Reservation       for      Mazhbi      Sikhs       and Balmikis--Implementation  of  instructions--Preparation   of roster--Inter  se seniority, of General  Category  candidate and Mazhbi Sikh through direct recruitment.

HEADNOTE: Recruitment  to  the Punjab Superior  Judicial  Service  was governed  by  the Punjab Superior  Judicial  Service  Rules, 1963.   Rule 8-A inserted in the said rules by  notification dated June 14, 1977 provided that instructions issued by the State   Government  from  time  to  time  in   relation   to reservation  of appointments for posts for Scheduled  Castes and  Backward  Classes were applicable for  appointments  to posts in the Service. The  Secretary  to  the Government  of  Punjab,  Welfare  of Scheduled  Castes and Backward Classes Department by  letter dated  June  6, 1974 Informed all Heads of  Department  etc. that  it  had  been decided to increase  the  percentage  of reservation  in direct recruitment in all services from  20% to 25 % in the case of members of Scheduled Castes and  from 2%  to  5  % in the case of members  belonging  to  Backward Classes, and Indicated the vacancies to be reserved for  the members  of Scheduled Castes in a lot of 100  vacancies  and specified  the  points.  It also directed  that  the  Roster already  existing would not be abandoned, but would  now  be maintained in continuation from the vacancy in the  existing Roster  last  filled  up according to  the  new  pattern  of reservation. Circular dated November 19, 1974 made provision for carrying forward   of   reservation   for   members   of    Scheduled Castes/Backward  Classes, and directed that the  reservation should  be  carried forward form vacancy to vacancy  in  the same  block  until  a Scheduled Caste or  a  Backward  Class person is appointed or promoted in the same block, and  that the reservation should be carried from vacancy to vacancy in each Mock and from block to block until the carried  forward vacancies are filled up.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11  

594 By letter dated May 5,1975 the Secretary to the  Government, Welfare Department Communicated to all Heads of Department-; that  the  Government  has  decided  that  henceforth,   50% vacancies of the quata reserved for Scheduled Castes  should be  offered  to  Balmikis  and  Mazhbi  Sikhs  as  a   first preference from amongst the Scheduled Castes candidate,-.. The Under Secretary, Welfare Department Reservation Cell  by his  letter dated April 8,1980, clarified the position  with regard  to  the  implementation  of  instructions  regarding reservation  for Mazhbi Sikhs and Balmikis contained in  the aforesaid letter dated May 5,1975, the Clarification was  to the  effect  that  :  (1) the combined  merit  list  can  be disturbed   while  giving  appointment  to   the   candidate belonging  to  Balmikis  and  MazhbiSikhs;  (ii)  the  first reserved vacancy can he offered to Balmikis and Mazhbi Sikhs although  their  name may be below in the  merit  list,  and (iii)  on the basis of 50% reservation Bal mikis and  Mazhbi Sikhs  1,3,5  and so on reserved vacancies shall go  to  the candidates of these castes if available and 2,4,6 and so  on reserved  vacancies  shall  go  to  other  Scheduled  Castes candidates. After  introduction  of  Rule 8-A  in  the  Punjab  Superior Judicial  Service Rules, four persons were appointed by  way of direct recruitment to the Service in the year 1979.   One of  them,  Shri Balwant Rai, belonged to a  Scheduled  Caste (other then Balmikis or Mazhbi Sikhs).  Thereafter, in  1981 one post fell vacant but no person belonging to a  Scheduled Caste  could be selected and candidate belonging to  general category  was  appointed  against the  said  post  In  1982, selection  was made for two posts but only one person  could he selected and he also belonged to the general category and no  person belonging to a Scheduled Caste was available  for appointment.   In 1986, six persons including the  appellant and  respondent No. 3 were appointed on the basis of  direct recruitment.  Out of those six persons, four belonged to the general category and two belonged to Scheduled Castes.   One of  the  two persons was Shri G.S. Samra who belonged  to  a Scheduled Caste other than Balmikis or Mazhbi Sikh.  In  the merit  list for the said selection the appellant was  placed at No. 1, Shri G.S. Samra at No. 2, and respondent No. 3  at No.  5.  As per the Roster, Shri G.S. Samra  was  placed  at Point No. 7, the appellant at Point No. 8 and respondent No. 3 at Point No. 9. After joining the Service, Shri G.S. Samra resigned and had ceased to be a member of the service prior. to April, 1, 1988. In  the  tentative seniority list as on  April  1,  1988,the appellant  was placed at serial No. 52 and  respondent  No.3 was placed at serial No. 53.  Respondent 595 No.  3 submitted a representation against his  placement  in the  seniority  list and claimed that he  should  be  placed against the post reserved for scheduled castes at Serial No. 5 in the Roster and on that basis be given the seniority  of the year of 1981, and that since he is a Mazhbi Sikh, he  is entitled to preference over Shri G.S. Samra who belonged  to a Scheduled Caste other than Balmikis and Mazhbi Sikhs,  and he claimed that he should have been placed at Point No. 7 in the  Roster and Shri G.S. Samra should have been  placed  at Point  No.  9  and on that basis also respondent  No.  3  is senior  to the appellant.  Representation was  also  invited from  the appellant in this regard.  After  considering  the representations the High Court decided that respondent No. 3 was  entitled to he placed above Shri G.S. Samra in view  of the  Circular  Letter dated May 5, 1975 and that  he  should

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11  

have been placed against Point No. 7 in the roster and  Shri G.S.  Samra should have been placed against Point No.  9  in the  Roster, In the revised seniority list Respondent No.  3 was  placed at Serial No. 52 while the appellant was  placed at Serial No. 53. Aggrieved  by the aforesaid decision the appellant  filed  a Writ petition in the High Court which was dismissed. The appellant appealed to this Court and contended that  the first  appointment,  by  direct  recruitment,  of  a  person belonging  to the Scheduled Castes was of Shri  Balwant  Rai made  in  1979, that was at Point No. 1 in the  Roster,  and should  have gone to a Balmiki or Mazhbi Sikh but  since  no person  belonging  to these communities was  available  Shri Balwant Rai who belonged to a Scheduled Caste was appointed. Relying  on the clarification contained in the letter  dated April 8, 1980 it was submitted that the vacancy at Point No. 5 reserved for Scheduled Castes was to be carried  forwarded to  point  No. 7 and Shri G.S. Samra had to he  adjusted  at Point  No.  7 in the Roster, that respondent  No.3  being  a Mazhbi  Sikh  could not claim to be placed at  Point  No.  7 against  a  vacancy  which  was  reserved  for  a  candidate belonging to Scheduled Castes other than Balmikis and Mazhbi Sikhs  and that he could the before be only  placed  against the vacancy at Point No. 9 in the Roster. The  appeal was contested on behalf of Respondent No. 3  who urged  that  in  view  of the  order  dated  May  5,1975,50% vacancies of the quota reserved for Scheduled Castes have to be  offered  to  Balmikis and Mazhbi Sikhs  and  since  Shri Balwant  Rai  belonging  to a  Scheduled  Coste  other  than Balmikis & Mazhbi Sikhs had been appointed in 1979, the next post  should  go to Balmikis and Mazhbi sikhs, and  on  that basis, respondent No. 3 was entitled to be appointed against the second post at point No.7 of the Roster and Shri 596 GS.  Samra  could only be appointed against  third  post  at Point  No.  9  in the Roster.  It was also  urged  that  the clarification  contained in the letter dated April  8,  1980 could  only have prospective operation with effect from  the date  of  its issue, and the sub  roster  indicated  therein could  be given effect to only from that date, and  on  that basis also respondent No3 was entitled to be placed  against Point  No.  7 in the 100 point roster and  Shri  GS.   Samra against Point No. 9 in the said roster. Allowing  the appeal and setting aside the judgment  of  the High Court, this Court, HELD  :  1. (a).  There is no dispute in the  instant  case, that  respondent  No3 has been appointed  against  the  post reserved for members of Scheduled Castes and the question is about  the  inter  se placement  of  two  persons  appointed against  vacancies reserved for Scheduled Caste  candidates. The Circular dated March 6, 1961 does not deal with the said question  and  it has to be dealt with on the basis  of  the instructions  contained in the orders dated May  5,1975  and April 8,1980. (605-E) Jagjit  Singh  v.  State of Punjab,  [1978]  3  S.C.R.  547, explained and distinguished. 1.(b).  Respondent  No.3 can only be treated  to  have  been appointed  against the vacancy at point No. 9 in the  Roster and  on that basis he must be placid below the appellant  in the  seniority list.  Respondent No 2 is directed to  revise the   seniority   list  of  the  members  of   the   Service accordingly.    The   appellant   would   be   entitled   to consequential  benefits accruing as a result of revision  in the seniority. (605-F) 2.  The letter dated April 8, 1980 gives  clarifications  on

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11  

certain doubts that had been created by some Departments  in the  matter of implementation of the instructions  contained in  the  earlier letter dated May 5,1975.   Since  the  said letter  dated April 8, 1980 is only clarificatory in  nature there is no question of its having an operation  independent of  the  instructions contained in the letter dated  May  5, 1975  and the clarifications contained in the  letter  dated April  8,1980 have to be read as a part of the  instructions contained in the earlier letter dated May 5, 1975. (603-E) 3.  A statute which is explanatory or clarificatory  of  the earlier enactment is usually held to be retrospective. 597 Craies on Statute Law 7th Edn. p. 58, relied on. (603-F) 4. All appointments against vacancies reserved for Scheduled Castes made after May 5,1975 (after May 14,1977 in so far as the  Punjab Superior Judicial Service is concerned) have  to be made in accordance with the instructions as contained  in the  letter dated May 5, 1975 as clarified by  letter  dated April 8, 1980. (603-F) 5.  The  appointment of Shri Balwant Rai in 1979 has  to  be treated   to   be  an  appointment  made  under   the   said instructions  and operation of these instructions cannot  be postponed  till April 8, 1980.  The sub-roster as  indicated in  the letter dated April 8, 1980 would have to be  applied in  respect  of  the  post on which  Shri  Balwant  Rai  was appointed  in  1979  and  the said  appointment  has  to  be regarded  as having been made against the vacancy  at  Point No.  1  in  the roster which was reserved  for  Balmikis  or Mazhbi  Sikhs  but  since  no Balmiki  or  Mazhbi  Sikh  was selected  for  that post, the said vacancy was  assigned  to Shri  Balwant  Rai who belonged to a Scheduled  Caste  other than a Balmiki or Sikh. (603-H, 604-A) 6.  The  vacancy  at  Point No. 1  which  was  reserved  for Balmikis  or  Mazhbi Sikhs could not he carried  forward  in view  of the directions contained in the letter dated  April 8, 1980. (604-A) 7. The next post reserved for Scheduled Castes at Point  No. 5  in  the  roster was meant for a  person  belonging  to  a Scheduled Caste other than Balmikis and Mazhbi Sikhs.  (604- A) 8.  In  the selections that were made in 1981  and  1982  no person  belonging  to a Scheduled Caste  was  selected  and, therefore, posts at Point Nos. 5 and 6 in the Roster  became available  to  candidates in the general  category  and  the vacancy  at  Point No. 5 reserved for Scheduled  Castes  was carried forward to point No. 7. (604-B) 9.  In  1986,  two persons belonging  to  Scheduled  Castes, namely  Shri G.S Samra and respondent No. 3  were  selected. (604-B) 10.  Since  the post appoint No. 5 which  had  been  carried forward  to  point  No.  7  was  reserved  for  a  candidate belonging to a Scheduled Caste other than Balmiki or  Mazhbi Sikh  it  had to be assigned to Shri G.S. Samra  falling  in that  category  and respondent No.3 who was  a  Mazhbi  Sikh could only be ap- 598 pointed  against the reserved vacancy at Point No. 9 in  the Roster.   Respondent No.3 can not claim that the vacancy  at Point No.7 should be assigned to him. If respondent No.3. is adjusted against the vacancy at Point No.9 in the Roster, he has  to be placed in seniority below the appellant  who  was appointed against Point No. 8 in the Roster. (604-C)

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11  

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.241 of 1993. From  the Judgment and Order dated 9.10.1991 of  the  Punjab and  Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Petition No.  5727  of 1991. Harish  N. Salve Jagdish Singh Kuhar, and A.K.  Mahajan  for the Appellant. Ujagar  Singh, Ms. Naresh Bakshi R.S. Yadav and G.K.  Bansal for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.C.  AGRAWAL  ,J.  : This appeal relates to  the  inter  se seniority  of  the  appellant and respondent no.  3  in  the punjab Superior Judicial Service (hereinafter referred to as ’The  Service’).   The appellant and respondent No.  3  were both  appointed to the Service on May 26, 1986 on the  basis of  selection by direct recruitment.  The appellant  belongs to the general category whereas respondent No. 3 is a Mazhbi Sikh, which is a Schedule Caste in Punjab. The  recruitment  to  the  Service  is  governed  by  Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules, 1963 (hereinafter  referred to as ’The Rules’).  By Rule 8-A, which was inserted in  the rules  by notification dated June 14,1977, the  instructions issued by the State Government from time to time in relation to reservation of appointments or posts for Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes were made applicable for the purpose of making appointments to the posts in the Service.  The orders of  the  State Government relating to persons  belonging  to Scheduled Castes in this regard which have a bearing in this appeal are as follows (1)  Letter  dated June 6, 1974 from the  Secretary  to  the Government  of  Punjab,  Welfare  of  Scheduled  Castes  and Backward Classes Department to all Heads of Department  etc. It was communicated that it had been decided to increase the percentage  of  reservation  in direct  recruitment  in  all services from 20% to 25% in the case of members of Scheduled Castes and from 2% to 5% in the case of members belonging to Backward Classes.  In the said letter, it was also indicated 599 that  the  vacancies  to  be reserved  for  the  members  of Scheduled  Castes in a lot of 100 vacancies would be at  the points specified below 1, 5, 9, 13, 17, 21, 25, 29, 33, 37, 41, 45, 49, 53, 57, 61, 65, 69, 73, 77, 8 1, 85, 89, 93 and 97 and so on. It was also directed that the Roster already existing  would not   be   abondoned,  but  would  now  be   maintained   in continuation  from the vacancy in the existing  Roster  last filled  up according to the new pattern of reservation  that has  been prescribed in the earlier paragraphs in  the  said letter. (2)  Circular  dated November 19,1974  relates  to  carrying forward   of   reservation   for   members   of    Scheduled Castes/Backward   Classes.   It  was  directed   that   "the reservation  should  be  carried  forward  from  vacancy  to vacancy  in  the  same block until a Scheduled  Caste  or  a Backward  Class person, as the case may be, is appointed  or promoted in the same block.  It was further directed that if all  the vacancies in any block determined on the  basis  of prescribed Roster are filled up by other category-person due to non-availability of Scheduled Castes or Backward  Classes persons,  the reservation should be carried forward  to  the subsequent  blocks.   The  said  letter  required  that  the reservation  should  be  carried  forward  from  vacancy  to vacancy  in  each block and from block to  block  until  the carried  forward vacancies are filled up by the  members  of the  Scheduled  Castes  or Backward Classes.   It  was  also

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11  

provided  that only one reserved vacancy out of the  carried forward vacancies should be filled in a block of appropriate Roster  in  addition  to the normal reserved  point  of  the block. (3)  Letter  dated May 5, 1975, from the  Secretary  to  the Government,  Punjab, Welfare of Scheduled Castes &  Backward Classes  Department  addressed to all Heads  of  Departments etc.   It was communicated that the Government have  decided that  henceforth,  50% vacancies of the quota  reserved  for Scheduled  Casstes should be offered to Balmikis and  Mazhbi Sikhs, if available, as a first preference from amongst  the Scheduled Castes candidates. (4)  Letter  dated.  April 8, 1980 addressed  by  the  Under Secretary  to the Government of Punjab,  Welfare  Department Reservation  Cell,  to all Heads of  Departments  etc.   The position  with regard to the implementation of  instructions regarding  reservation for Mazhbi Sikhs and  Balmikis  under the letter dated May 5, 1975 was clarified as follows               "i) Combined merit list can be disturbed while               giving appointment 600               to  the  candidate belonging to  Balmikis  and               Mazhbi Sikhs.               ii) On the basis of 50% reservation the  first               reserved  vacancy can be offered  to  Balmikis               and  Mazhbi  Sikhs although his  name  may  be               below in the merit list.               iii)On the basis of 50% reservation,  Balmikis               and  Mazhbi Sikhs 1, 3, 5 and so  on  reserved               vacancies shall go to the candidates of  these               castes  if  available  and 2,4, 6  and  so  on               reserved vacancies shall go to other Scheduled               Castes candidates.               It  is clarified here that these  instructions               are  to be implemented when the names  of  the               candidates  of Balmikis and Mazhbi  Sikhs  are               included  in the merit list  after  selection.               If no candidate belonging to these communities               has  been selected or less candidate  selected               then the reserved vacancy should be filled  up               from   amongst  the  other  Scheduled   Castes               candidates meaning thereby no reserve  vacancy               reserved  for Balmkis and Mazhbi Sikhs  should               be carried forward." After  the  introduction  of Rule 8-A  in  the  Rules,  four persons  were appointed by way of direct recruitment to  the Service  in  the year 1979.  One out of them,  Shri  Balwant Rai,  belonged to a Scheduled Caste (other than Balmikis  or Mazhbi  Sikhs).  Thereafter, in 1981, one post  fell  vacant but  no  person  belonging to a Scheduled  Caste  ’could  be selected and the candidate belonging to general category was appointed  against  the  said  post.   In  the  year   1982, selection  was made for two posts but only one person  could be selected and he also belonged to the general category and no  person belonging to a Scheduled Caste was available  for appointment.   In 1986, six persons including the  appellant and  respondent No.3 were appointed on the basis  of  direct recruitment.  Out of those six persons, four belonged to the general  category and two belonged to Scheduled Caste.   One of  the  two persons was Shri G.S. Sarma who belonged  to  a Scheduled Caste other then Balmikis or Mazhbi Sikhs.  In the merit  list for the said selection the appellant was  placed at No. 1, Shri G.S. Sarma was at No. 2 and respondent no.  3 was at No. 5. As per the Roster, Shri G.S. Samra was  placed at  Point No.7, the appellant at Point No.8  and  respondent

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11  

no.  3 at Point no. 9. After joining the Service, Shri  G.S. Samra  resigned from the same and had ceased to be a  member of the Service prior to April 1, 1988. In  the  tentative  seniority list of  the  members  of  the Service as on April 1, 601 1988,  the  appellant  was  placed  at  Serial  No.  52  and respondent No. 3 was placed at Serial No.53. Respondent No.3 submitted  a  representation against his  placement  in  the seniority list and claimed that he should be placed  against the post reserved for Scheduled Caste at Serial No. 5 in the Roster and on that basis he should be given the seniority of the  year  of 198 1. He also submitted that since  he  is  a Mazhbi  Sikh,  he is entitled to preference over  Shri  G.S. Samra who belonged to a Scheduled Caste other than  Balmikis and  Mazhbi Sikhs, and he claimed that he should  have  been placed  at  Point  No.7 in the Roster and  Shri  G.S.  Samra should  have  been placed at Point No. 9 and on  that  basis also   respondent  no.  3  is  senior  to   the   appellant. Representation was also invited from the appellant. in  this regard.  After considering the said representations the High Court,   on  its  administrative  side,  decided  that   the respondent  No. 3 was entitled to be placed above Shri  G.S. Samra  in view of the Circular Letter dated May 5, 1975  and that  he should have been placed against Point No. 7 in  the roster  and Shri G.S. Samra should have been placed  against Point No.9 in the Roster.  On that basis the seniority  list was revised and respondent No.3 was placed at Serial No.  52 while  the appellant were placed at Serial No. 53.   Feeling aggrieved  by the revision in the seniority,  the  appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court which was  dismissed by  the High Court by judgment and order October 9,  199  1. This  appeal  is directed against the said judgment  of  the High Court. There is no dispute that appellant has been rightly assigned Point  No. 8. If Respondent no. 3 has to be  assigned  Point No.7 as found by the High Court, then he would be senior  to the appellant but if Respondent No. 3 is assigned Point  no. 9 then appellant would be senior to Respondent no. 3 It  is, therefore,  necessary to determine whether respondent No.  3 is  entitled  to be placed at Point no. 7 in the  Roster  in place of Shri G.S. Samra who should be placed at Point  No.9 or that the respondent no.3 should be assigned Point No.9 of the Roster.  The said question requires consideration of the various orders relating to reservation for Scheduled  Castes to  which  reference has been made  earlier.   As  indicated earlier by letter dated June 6, 1974 points 1, 5, 9, 13, 17, 21, 25, 29, 33, 37,41, 45, 49, 53, 57, 6 1, 65, 69, 73,  77, 81, 85, 89, 93 and 97 in the Roster are reserved for members of  Scheduled Castes.  By letter dated May 5, 1975,  50%  of the vacancies of the quota reserved for Scheduled Castes are required  to  be offered to Balmikis and  Mazhbi  Sikhs,  if available, as a first preference from amongst the  Scheduled Castes candidates.  In view of the clarifications  contained in  the  letter  dated April 8, 1980 on  the  basis  of  50% reservation  the  first reserved vacancy can be  offered  to Balmikis and Mazhbi Sikhs although his name may be below  in the merit list and on the basis of 50% reservation,  amongst the vacancies reserved for Scheduled Caste, vacancies 1,  3, 5  and  so  on would go to Balmikis  and  Mazhbi  Sikhs,  if available, and reserved vacancies 2, 4, 6 and so on would go to other Scheduled 602 Castes  candidates.  It has also been clarified that  if  no candidate  belonging  to  the communities  of  Balmikis  and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11  

Mazhbi Sikhs was selected or less number of candidates  were selected  then  the reserved vacancies should be  filled  up amongst  the other Scheduled Castes candidates and  that  no vacancy  reserved  for Balmikis and Mazhbi Sikhs  should  be carried  forward.  In view of the  aforesaid  clarifications out  of  the  posts reserved for  Scheduled  Castes  in  the Roster, there was reservation for Balmikis and Mazhbi  Sikhs on the posts against the following points in the Roster 1, 9, 17, 25, 33, 41, 49, 57, 65, 73, 81, 89, and 97. There was reservation for members of Scheduled Castes  other than  Balmikis  and Mazhbi Sikhs on the  posts  against  the following points in the Roster: 5, 13, 21, 29, 37, 45, 53, 61, 69, 77, 85, and 93. The  learned counsel for the appellant has urged that  since these  orders relating to reservation for  Scheduled  Castes became  applicable to the Service with effect from June  14, 1977,  when Rule 8-A was inserted, all appointments  to  the Service  after June 14, 1977 have to be made  in  accordance with  these  orders.   The  submission  is  that  the  first appointment, by direct recruitment, of a person belonging to the  Scheduled Castes was of Shri Balwant Rai made in  1979. That  was  at point No. 1 in the Roster.  That  should  have gone  to  a  Balmiki or a Mazhbi Sikh but  since  no  person belonging  to those communities was available, Shri  Balwant Rai,  who belongs to a Scheduled Caste other  than  Balmikis and Mazhbi Sikhs, was appointed.  It has been further  urged that  in view of the clarification contained in  the  letter dated  April  8. 1980, a vacancy reserved for  Balmikis  and Mazhbi  Sikhs is not required to be carried forward and  the Balmikis  and  Mazhbi  Sikhs  cannot  claim  reservation  in respect  of  the  next  vacancy at Point  no.  5  which  was reserved for Scheduled Castes other than Balmikis and Mazhbi Sikhs and they can only claim the vacancy that was  reserved for Balmikis or Mazhbi Sikhs at point No.9. It was submitted that Shri G.S. Samra who belonged to a Scheduled Caste other than Balmikis and Mazhbi Sikhs was entitled to be  appointed against  the reserved vacancy at Point No.5 reserved  for  a candidate belonging to a Scheduled Caste other than Balmikis and  mazhbi Sikhs but since at the time of  selections  that were made in the years 1981 and 1982, no person belonging to a Scheduled Caste was available.  The vacancy at Point No. 5 reserved  for Scheduled Castes was carried forward to  point no.  7 and Shri G.S. Samra had to be adjusted at point  No.7 in  the  Roster.  The submission is that respondent  no.  3, being  a Mazhbi Sikh, could not claim to be placed at  point No. 7 in the Roster against a vacancy which was reserved for a  candidate  belonging  to a Scheduled  Castes  other  than Balmikis and 603 Mazhbi Sikhs and he could be only placed against the vacancy at point No.9 in the Roster. The  learned  counsel for the respondent No.3 on  the  other hand has urged that in view of the order dated May 5,  1975, 50%  vacancies  of the quota reserved for  Scheduled  Castes have  to be offered to Balmikis and Mazhbi Sikhs  and  since Shri  Balwant Rai belonging to a Scheduled Caste other  than Balmikis  and Mazhbi Sikhs had been appointed in  1979,  the next  post  should go to Balmikis and Mazhbi Sikhs,  and  on that  basis,  respondent No.3 was entitled to  be  appointed against  the  second post at point No. 7 of the  Roster  and Shri  G.S. Samra could only be appointed against third  post at  point  No.9 in the roster.  In the alternative,  it  was urged  that  the order dated April 8, 1980 could  only  have prospective operation with effect from the date of issue  of the  said  order and the sub-roster indicated  by  the  said

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11  

order  could be given effect to only from that date  and  on that  basis  the first post reserved  for  Scheduled  Castes should go to Balmikis or Mazhbi Sikhs and on that basis also respondent No.3 was entitled to be placed against point No.7 in  the  100point roster and Shri G.S. Samra  against  point No.9 in the said roster. From  a  parusal of the letter dated April 8,1980,  we  find that it gives clarifications on certain doubts that had been created by some Departments in the matter of  implementation of  the instructions contained in the earlier  letter  dated May  5,1975.   Since the said letter dated April  8,1980  is only  clarificatory in nature, there is no question  of  its having   an  operation  independent  of   the   instructions contained   in  the  letter  dated  May  5,  1975  and   the clarifications  contained in the letter dated April 8,  1980 have  to be read as a part of the instructions contained  in the  earlier letter dated May 5, 1975.  In this  context  it may be stated that according to the principles of  statutory construction a statute which is explanatory or clarificatory of   the   earlier   enactment  is  usually   held   to   be restrospective.  (See:  Craies on Statute Law, 7th  Ed.,  p. 58).   It  must, therefore, be held  that  all  appointments against  vacancies reserved for Scheduled Castes made  after May 5, 1975 (after May 14, 1977 in so far as the Service  is concerned),   have  to  be  made  in  accordance  with   the instructions as contained in the letter dated May 5, 1975 as clarified by letter dated April 8, 1980.  On that view,  the appointment of Shri Balwant Rai in 1979 has to be treated to be  an  appointment  made under the  said  instructions  and operation  of  these instructions cannot be  postponed  till April  8, 1980.  If the matter is considered in  this  light then  the sub-roster as indicated in the letter dated  April 8,  1980 would have to be applied in respect of the post  on which  Shri Balwant Rai was appointed in 1979 and  the  said appointment  has to be regarded as having been made  against the  vacancy  at  point No 1. in the the  roster  which  was reserved  for Balmikis or Mazhbi Sikhs but since no  Balmiki or Mazhbi 604 Sikh  was  selected  for that post,  the  said  vacancy  was assigned  to  Shri Balwant Rai who belonged to  a  scheduled Caste other than a Balmiki or Mazhbi Sikh.  The said vacancy which was reserved for Balmikis or Mazhbi Sikhs could not be carried  forward in view of the directions contained in  the letter  dated  April 8, 1980.  The next  post  reserved  for Scheduled Castes at point No. 5 in the roster was meant  for a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste other than  Balmikis and Mazhbi Sikhs.  In the selections that were made in  1981 and  1982  no  person belonging to  a  Scheduled  Caste  was selected and, therefore, posts at Points nos. 5 and 6 in the Roster  became  available  to  candidates  in  the   general category  and  the  vacancy  at  Point  no.5  reserved   for Scheduled Castes was carried forward to point No.7 In  1986, two persons belonging to Scheduled Castes, namely Shri  G.S. Samra  and respondent No.3 were selected.  Shri  G.S.  Samra belonged to a Scheduled Caste other than Balmiki and  Mazhbi Sikh whereas respondent No. 3 was a Mazhbi Sikh.  Since  the post  at point No.5 which had been carried forward to  point No.7  was reserved for a candidate belonging to a  Scheduled Caste  other  than  Balmiki  or Mazhbi Sikh  it  had  to  be assigned  to  Shri G.S. Samra falling in that  category  and respondent  No.  3  who  was a  azhbi  Sikh  could  only  be appointed against the reserved vacancy at point No.9 in  the Roster.  Respondent No. 3 can not claim that the vacancy  at Point No.7 should be assigned to him.  If respondent No.3 is

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11  

adjusted  against the vacancy at Point No. 9 in the  Roster, he has to be placed in seniority below the appellant who was appointed against point No. 8 in the Roster. In  the  judgment under appeal, the High  Court  has  placed reliance  on  the instructions dated March 6, 1961  and  the decision  of this Court in Jagjit Singh v. State of  Punjab, [1978]  3 S.C.R. 547.  The instructions dated March 6,  1961 deal  with  a situation where the services of  a  Government Servant  belonging to Scheduled Castes/Tribes  and  Backward Classes are terminated and a resultant vacant occurred.   It has been directed as under               "With a view to safeguard the interests of the               members  of  the Scheduled  Castes/Tribes  and               Backward Classes, it has been decided that  if               the services of a Government Servant belonging               to Scheduled Castes/Tribes or Backward Classes               are  terminated, the resultant vacancy  should               not   be  included  in  the  normal  pool   of               vacancies to be filled in accordance with  the               Block System but should be filled up on ad hoc               basis  from the candidates belonging to  these               castes  and  classes.   In  other  words   the               intention is that the posts vacated by members               of   Scheduled  Castes/Tribes   and   Backward               classes should remain earmarked and be  filled               up by members belonging to these Classes." 605 In  Jagjit  Singh’s  case,  this  Court  was  dealing   with appointments to the Punjab Civil Service (Executive Branch). These   selection  was  made  for  appointment  against   12 vacancies  in  the said Service and other vacancies  in  the Allied  Services.  Two of the vacancies in the Punjab  Civil Service  were  reserved  for  Scheduled  Castes  candidates. Three  persons  were  selected from  among  the  members  of Scheduled  Castes.  The appellant in the said appeal was  at third  place  in  the merit list  of  the  Scheduled  Castes candidates.  The first two candidates on the merit list were appointed and the appellant was appointed on the post of "A" Class   Tehsildar   in   one   of   the   Allied   Services. Subsequently,  one  of  the  two  candidates  who  had  been appointed  to the Punjab Civil Service resigned  his  office and  a  question  arose  as to  whether  the  appellant  was entitled to be appointed to the Punjab Civil Service against the  vacancy  arising  on  account  of  resignation  of  the Scheduled  Castes candidate who had been appointed  earlier. The  appellant  laid his claim for such appointment  on  the basis of the instructions contained in the circular of March 6, 196 1. The said claim of the appellant was upheld by this Court  and it was held that the resultant vacancy caused  by resignation of one of the Scheduled Castes candidate  should have  gone  to the appellant.  The Circular dated  March  6, 1961  and  the decision in Jagjit Singh v. State  of  Punjab (supra) do not have a bearing on the question in controversy in  the instant case because here there is no  dispute  that the  respondent  No.3 has been appointed  against  the  post reserved for members of Scheduled Castes and the question is about  the  inter  se placement  of  two  persons  appointed against  vacancies reserved for Scheduled Caste  candidates. The Circular dated March 6, 1961 does not deal with the said question  and  it has to be dealt with on the basis  of  the instructions  contained in the orders dated May 5, 1975  and April 8, 1980. For  the reasons aforementioned the appeal is  allowed,  the judgment  and the order of the High Court dated  October  9, 1991  is  set aside.  The Civil Writ Petition filed  by  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11  

appellant  in the High Court is allowed and it  is  declared that  respondent  No.3  can only be  treated  to  have  been appointed  against the vacancy at Point no.9 in  the  Roster and  on that basis he must be placed below the appellant  in the  seniority list.  Respondent No.2 is directed to  revise the   seniority   list  of  the  members  of   the   Service accordingly.   The  appellant would be  entitled  to  conse- quential  benefits  if any, accruing to him as a  result  of such  revision  in the seniority.  The parties are  left  to bear their own costs. N.V.K.                       Appeal allowed. 606