http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  316 of 1999

PETITIONER: JATINDER PAL SINGH & OTHERS

RESPONDENT: STATE OF PUNJAB

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 16/09/1999

BENCH: A.S.ANAND CJI & K.VENKATASWAMI & G.B.PATTANAIK & S.P.KURDUKAR & M.JAGANNADHA RAO

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT

DELIVERED BY: M.JAGANNADHA RAO,J.  

M.JAGANNADHA RAO,J.

     In  this  judgment we shall deal with certain  appeals relating  to officers of the State of Punjab.  We shall also deal with Interlocutory Applications Nos.  10-12/98 filed by the  Railways  and IAs 4-6 by the Union of India.  We  shall also  deal  with  certain contempt  applications  and  other Interlocutary applications.

     I.   C.A.Nos.   316-317/99  The two  appeals  C.A.Nos. 316- 317/99 have been preferred by the general candidates of Punjab  against  the judgment of the Punjab &  Haryana  High Court  in  CWPs  10756  of  1997 and  10759  of  1997  dated 8.10.1998.   The  High Court, in the judgment under  appeal, followed Jagdish Lal & Others vs.  State of Punjab [1997 (6) SCC  538] in preference to the judgment in Ajit Singh Januja &   Others  vs.   State  of   Punjab  [1996  (2)  SCC  715], hereinafter  called  Ajit  Singh No.I.   The  officers  here belong to the Punjab Education Department and the contest is for  the post of Principals governed by the Punjab Education Service (School and Inspection Cadre)(Class II) Rules, 1976. Today,  we  have delivered judgment in IAs 1 to 3  filed  in Ajit Singh by the State of Punjab (C.As.  3792-94/89).  That judgment  will  be  described here as Ajit  Singh  (II)  for convenience.   The  facts of these two Civil Appeals are  as follows:   C.W.P.   No.10756/97 was filed by Ms.   Gurbachan Kaur  and  6 others (Head Mistresses) all belonging  to  the reserved  category praying for a writ of certiorari to quash the  promotion order dated 3.7.97 and for a mandamus seeking promotion  of  the  said  writ  petitioners  as  Principals. Similarly,  C.W.P.   No.10759  of 1997 was filed  by  Charan singh  and  9  others (Head Masters) all  belonging  to  the reserved  category for similar relief and also for promoting the  writ  petitioners in the place of the  opposite  party. They  impleaded  the  appellants   (general  candidates)  as respondents  in  the writ petition.  The appellant  Jatinder Pal  Singh  in CA No.316 of 1999 was a respondent in  C.W.P. 10759/97.   The  array  of the parties shows that  the  writ petitioners   (Head  Masters/Head    Mistresses)   (reserved category) were all working as Head Masters in 1997 while the non-official  respondents (general candidates) were  working

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

as Senior Lecturer/Principal or as Deputy District Education Officers.   The  general candidates have come up  in  appeal because  the High Court has followed Jagdish Lal.  So far as this  department  is  concerned, the relevant rules  are  as follows.   Under Rule 10 of the Class II Rules, the posts of Principal,   Deputy  District   Education  Officers,  Senior Lecturers  etc.  are to be filled up by promotion in respect of 75% and 25% by direct recruitment.  Under Class II Rules, 1976,   Sub-  clause  (3)  of   Rule  10  states  that   all appointments  to  the  posts shall be made on the  basis  of seniority-cum-merit  and no member of the service shall have any  right  for promotion merely on the basis of  seniority. Rule  12 of the Rules states that inter se seniority of  the members of the service shall be determined by the continuous length  of  service  on  a post counted  from  the  date  of appointment etc.  appendix B (Rule 9) specifies the required years  of teaching experience as head of High/Higher Schools (i.e.   Head  Master/Head Mistress) or equivalent post.   As stated in Ajit Singh No.II, the seniority rule of continuous officiation  is interlinked with the promotional rule  based on  equal  opportunity and cannot be delinked.   Admittedly, the  promotion  of the reserved candidates from the post  of Master/Mistress to the post of Head Master/Head Mistress was OBgoverned  by roster points in Punjab, by the Circular dated 19.7.69  referred  to  in  our judgment  in  Ajit  Singh  II delivered  today,  which  stated  that  ‘roster  points  are seniority  points’.  The writ petitioners  (Master/Mistress) who  belonged  to the reserved admittedly got  promotion  as Head Master/Head Mistress on the basis of such a roster.  On the  date when the impugned order promoting the  respondents was  made  (i.e.   3.7.1997), the law as laid down  by  this Court  in  Ajit Singh’s case (judgment dated  1.3.1996)  was holding  the field.  Inasmuch as subsequently, on 7.5.97 the judgment  of  this Court in Jagdish Lal was  delivered,  the reserved  candidates  filed these two writ  petitions  which were  allowed under the impugned judgment following  Jagdish Lal.

     In  the  light  of  our  judgment  in  Ajit  Singh  II delivered  today,  it  is clear that the  respondents  (writ petitioners)  cannot  rely  on  Jagdish Lal.   The  case  is governed  by Ajit Singh No.1 as affirmed in Ajit Singh No.II both  in  regard  to seniority and  prospectivity  based  on R.K.Sabharwal  [ 1995 (2) SCC 745].  Therefore, the  appeals are  allowed and the writ petitions are dismissed subject to the  principles laid down in Ajit Singh II.  It will be  for the  State  of  Punjab to implement Ajit Singh  II  both  in regard  to seniority as stated in Points 1 to 3 therein  and as  to prospectivity of R.K.  Sabharwal and Ajit Singh  No.1 as  explained in Point 4 in Ajit Singh No.2.  The respective cut off dates of Sabbarwal and Ajit Singh No.1 shall have to be  adhered  to as stated in Ajit Singh No.II.   II.   I.As. 1-3 in C.P.Nos.148-150/97:  These IAs have been filed by the petitioner, party-in person, who is a reserved candidate, in the CPs which were disposed of on 17.3.1997.  The petitioner was  promoted  as Superintendent Grade II on  10.7.87  while Rewa   Singh   (general    candidate)    was   promoted   as Superintendent  Grade  I  on   3.3.89.   Some  more  general candidates  were  promoted  as Superintendents  Grade  I  on 1.4.96.   His  grievance  is about the above  promotions  of general  candidates.  (Petitioner has since been promoted as Superintendent  Grade  I  in  April,  1997).   The  Contempt Petitions  148-150  of 1997 were dismissed by this Court  on 17.3.97  stating that there was no contempt or breach of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

interlocutory  orders  of this Court  dated  9.8.94/16.10.95 passed  in Ajit Singh No.1.  In these IAs and in his written submissions  petitioner contends that roster points have  to be applied on vacancy basis and as and when vacancies arise, even  if the roster has exhausted itself.  This plea  cannot be accepted in view of Sabbarwal.  Petitioner also relies on Jagdishlal  which contention can no longer survives.   There are  thus no merits in these IAs.  They are dismissed.  III. IAs.   by Union of India:  IAs 4 to 6 in IAs 1 to 3 in  Ajit Singh  No.1:  IAs 4 to 6 are filed by the Union of India  in IAs  1 to 3 in CA Nos.3792-94/89 Ajit Singh’s case.  We have disposed  of  these IAs 1 to 3 filed by the State of  Punjab for  clarification  by  our  judgment  delivered  today  and described  it as Ajit Singh No.II.  The Union of India wants Ajit Singh No.1 to be confirmed.  That has been done.  These IAs  4 to 6 stand disposed of.  IV.  IAs.  for  impleadment: IAs 7 to 9 in IAs 1 to 3 in Ajit Singh No.1:  IAs 7 to 9 are filed in IA 1 to 3 in CA Nos.3792-94 of 1989 for impleadment of  the All India Confederation of SC/ST Organisations.  The IAs  are  allowed.  Our Judgment in Ajit Singh II  delivered today  shall govern.  V.  IAs by Railways:  IAs 10 to 12  in IAs 1 to 3 in Ajit Singh No.1:  .ls1

     Seniority  of roster point promotees will be  governed by Virpal as explained in Ajit Singh No.II.

     IAs 10-12 of 1998 are by the Railways in IAs 1 to 3 in Ajit  Singh’s case.  (On 18.1.1999, by mistake, it is  shown that  these  IAs are allowed.  We recall the said order  and restore  the  IAs to file).  The Railways want to  say  that Union  of India vs.  Virpal Singh [1995 (6) SCC 684] has not been  correctly  decided.  The same point was raised by  the reserved  candidates in the IAs 1 to 3 filed in Ajit Singh’s case  by  the  State of Punjab for clarification.   We  have dealt with this aspect in our main judgment in IAs 1-3/97 in Ajit  Singh  No.2 and rejected the same.  That  will  govern these  IAs.   In fact, admittedly Railways have  implemented Virpal  as  per  their orders dated 28.2.97  in  respect  of selection  and  non-selection  posts.  Thus,  there  are  no merits  in  these  IAs  10-12  and they  are  liable  to  be dismissed.  In other words, the question of seniority of the roster  point  promotees  will be on the basis of  what  was decided in Virpal and Ajit Singh No.1 and as explained under Points 1 to 3 in Ajit Singh No.II.

     Prospectivity  of  Sabbarwal and Ajit Singh No.1:   So far  as the ’prospectivity’ based on Sabbarwal is concerned, the  decision on Point 4 of Ajit Singh No.II will apply.  So far  as  prospectivity of Ajit Singh No.1 is concerned,  our decision  in  Ajit Singh No.II will apply in  principle  but with  a  slight modification of the cut off date  as  stated above.   It  appears that in the Indian Railways which is  a very  huge organisation, after Ajit Singh No.1 was  decided, the  said judgment could not be taken up for  implementation immediately.    Therefore,   there   were  certain   further prOBomotions  after  1.3.96  on the basis  of  the continuous officiation   of  the  roster   point  promotees   (reserved candidates)  even  though  several  general  candidates  had reached the promotional level before the reserved candidates moved  further  upwards.  The Railways made a  special  plea through  the learned Additional Solicitor General, Sri  C.S. Vaidyanathan  that such reserved candidates be not  reverted from  the  higher  post if promoted before 1.4.97.   We  are acceding to this request made on behalf of the Railways as a special  case  but  subject  to a reservation  -  which  was

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

accepted  by learned senior counsel.  We agree that there is no  need to revert those reserved category officers, if they were  promoted  even beyond 1.3.96 but before  1.4.97.   But their promotions shall have to be deemed ad hoc as they were otherwise  irregular  and  further their  seniority  in  the promoted  category  shall however have to be  determined  by following  Virpal  and Ajit Singh No.1 as explained in  Ajit Singh  No.II  as if they were not so promoted.  To  give  an example  - in the case of roster points at two Levels,  i.e. from  Level  1  to Level 2 and Level 2 to Level  3,  if  the reserved  candidate  was promoted before 1.4.97 to Level  4, such  reserved  candidate need not be reverted.  If  by  the date  of promotion of the reserved candidate from Level 3 to Level 4 before 1.4.97, the senior general candidate at Level 2  had reached Level 3, he has to be considered as senior at Level  3  to the reserved candidate because the  latter  was still  at  Level  3  on that date.  But if  such  a  general candidate’s seniority was ignored and the reserved candidate was  treated  as senior at Level 3 and promoted to Level  4, this  has to be rectified after 1.3.96 by following  Virpal, Ajit  Singh No.1 as explained in Ajit Singh No.II.  In other words,  if  a  reserved candidate was promoted  to  Level  4 before  1.4.97,  without considering the case of the  senior general  candidate  who  had  reached Level  3  before  such promotion  such reserved candidate need not be reverted, but the  said  promotion  to  Level  4 is  to  be  reviewed  and seniority  at  Level 3 has to be refixed and on  that  basis promotion/seniority  at  Level  4 (as and when  the  general candidate  is  promoted to Level 4) is again to be  refixed. The  seniority of the reserved candidate at Level 4 will  be refixed  on  the basis of when his turn would have come  for promotion  to  Level  4, if the case of the  senior  general candidate was considered at Level 3 in due time.  Subject to the above, IAs 10 to 12 are dismissed.

     VI.  IAs by Karnataka Officers:  IAs 13 to 15 in IAs 1 to 3 in Ajit Singh NO.1:  IAs 13 to 15/98 have been filed by certain  officers of Karnataka State who are respondents  in pending  SLP  (C) Nos.24115-16 of 1996.  By an  order  dated 9.1.1998,  this Court directed that the said SLPs be  listed after the decision of the Constitution Bench.  No orders are necessary  in these IAs.  The Civil Appeal Nos.   316-317/99 and the IAs filed in CP.148-150/97 and the various other IAs filed  in  IAs  1 to 3 in Ajit Singh No.1  are  disposed  of accordingly.