# U.0.1 v. V.S. CHAUHAN

- **Citation:** [1995] Supp. 4 S.C.R. 158
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1995
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/u-0-1-v-v-s-chauhan-13489
- **Pages:** 38

## Headnote

A
B
c
D
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC.
r.
V!RPAL SINGH CHAUHAN ETC.
OCTOBER IO. 1995
1s.c. AGARWAL AND B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, JJ.I
Constitzaion of India-Article 16(4)--ResC1vation-E.xtent and nalllrc
of--U!Jietlter 1Je1111issible for Govcnuncnt to decide-Rese1vation provided as
a li111ited benefit-Hl/1ether constitutionaf-Seroice Law.
Constitution of India-Article 16(4)--Reservation Ill promotio11-Ul/1ct/1cr confers seniolity also---Rese1ved candidate pronioted earlier to
general candidate on the basis of roster in Railways-Whether rese1ved candidate beconzes seniol'-Se1vice Law.
Constitution of lndia-A1tic/e 16(4)--Rese1vation i11 promotion-Object of-Roste1~Applicatio11 of-All reserved posts in a grade filled by
rese1ved candidates-Whether roster applicable thereafte1~Service Laiv.
Constitution of India-Article 16(4)-Reservation in promoE
tion-W71etl1er in relation to 11osts or to vacancies-Se1vice Law.
In the present case, the manner in \\·hich reservation was applied by
the Raih\-·ay Authorities for promotion to a higher grad~ \\-'as challenged
by the general category candidates. There are four grades of guards in the
Raihva)'S Grades 'C', 'B', 'A' and 'A' special. Initial recruitment is n1ade to
F
Grade '(''. Pro111otion is 111ade to higher grades on the basis of senioritycu1n-suitability. 22.5 percent posts are reserved for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes candidates . in promotion. A 100 point roster was
prepared for giving etl'ect to reservation in promotion posts. Seniority in
a grade was determined on the basis of _date of promotion in that grade
G and a reserved category canclidatt! pro1noted earlier than a general
category candidate on the basis of roster \\-'as considered senior to the
general category candidate even though he ma,y be junior to the general
category candidate in the lo\.'t'er grade.
Para 306 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual provided that
H candidates selected for appoint1nent at an earlier selection \vould be senior
158
,
!
.,
U.0.1. v. V.S. CHAUHAN
159
to those selected later. Para 319 provided that an employee promoted to a A
higher grade in his turn after being found suitable should be considered
as senior is that grade to all the others who are subse,1uently promoted.
B
The Railway Board's letter dated August 31, 1982 which dealt with
"reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in promotion in
group 'D' and 'C' on the basis of seniority-cum-suitability
11 provided that
seniority or Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates in comparison to other candidates will continue to be governed by the panel
position in case of categories where training is not provided and in
accordance with the merit position in the examination where training is
provided. Further, letter dated October 20, 1960 provided that reservation C
roster was only a machinery to ensure the prescribed percentage of reservation and should not be related to the question of seniority and confirmation. The same position was reiterated in Railway Board's letter dated
January 19, 1972.
FACTS OF CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9272 OF 1995
D
The general candidates who were promoted to Grade 'A' special lrom
grade 'A' on ad h'oc basis were sought to be ·reverted back to grade 'A' and
candidates from Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes who were junior to
them in grade 'A' were sought to be promoted against the vacancies in E
grade 'A' special. This was challenged by the general category candidates.
The Central Administrative Tribunal allowed the application holding that
seniority in grade 'C' would be the guiding seniority list for the cadre of
guards and a senior general category candidate in the feeder grade would
be senior to a reserved category candidate in the next higher grade even
though the nserved category candidate is promoted earlier.
F
FACTS OF CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9276 OF 1995
Several reserved category candidates, \\'ho were junior to 'W' in the
lower grades of the cadre of Station Masters, were promoted to higher
grade earlier

## Text

_Characters 0–39,946 of 92,377. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39946 for what follows._

A
B
c
D
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC.
r.
V!RPAL SINGH CHAUHAN ETC.
OCTOBER IO. 1995
1s.c. AGARWAL AND B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, JJ.I
Constitzaion of India-Article 16(4)--ResC1vation-E.xtent and nalllrc
of--U!Jietlter 1Je1111issible for Govcnuncnt to decide-Rese1vation provided as
a li111ited benefit-Hl/1ether constitutionaf-Seroice Law.
Constitution of India-Article 16(4)--Reservation Ill promotio11-Ul/1ct/1cr confers seniolity also---Rese1ved candidate pronioted earlier to
general candidate on the basis of roster in Railways-Whether rese1ved candidate beconzes seniol'-Se1vice Law.
Constitution of lndia-A1tic/e 16(4)--Rese1vation i11 promotion-Object of-Roste1~Applicatio11 of-All reserved posts in a grade filled by
rese1ved candidates-Whether roster applicable thereafte1~Service Laiv.
Constitution of India-Article 16(4)-Reservation in promoE
tion-W71etl1er in relation to 11osts or to vacancies-Se1vice Law.
In the present case, the manner in \\·hich reservation was applied by
the Raih\-·ay Authorities for promotion to a higher grad~ \\-'as challenged
by the general category candidates. There are four grades of guards in the
Raihva)'S Grades 'C', 'B', 'A' and 'A' special. Initial recruitment is n1ade to
F
Grade '(''. Pro111otion is 111ade to higher grades on the basis of senioritycu1n-suitability. 22.5 percent posts are reserved for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes candidates . in promotion. A 100 point roster was
prepared for giving etl'ect to reservation in promotion posts. Seniority in
a grade was determined on the basis of _date of promotion in that grade
G and a reserved category canclidatt! pro1noted earlier than a general
category candidate on the basis of roster \\-'as considered senior to the
general category candidate even though he ma,y be junior to the general
category candidate in the lo\.'t'er grade.
Para 306 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual provided that
H candidates selected for appoint1nent at an earlier selection \vould be senior
158
,
!
.,
U.0.1. v. V.S. CHAUHAN
159
to those selected later. Para 319 provided that an employee promoted to a A
higher grade in his turn after being found suitable should be considered
as senior is that grade to all the others who are subse,1uently promoted.
B
The Railway Board's letter dated August 31, 1982 which dealt with
"reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in promotion in
group 'D' and 'C' on the basis of seniority-cum-suitability
11 provided that
seniority or Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates in comparison to other candidates will continue to be governed by the panel
position in case of categories where training is not provided and in
accordance with the merit position in the examination where training is
provided. Further, letter dated October 20, 1960 provided that reservation C
roster was only a machinery to ensure the prescribed percentage of reservation and should not be related to the question of seniority and confirmation. The same position was reiterated in Railway Board's letter dated
January 19, 1972.
FACTS OF CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9272 OF 1995
D
The general candidates who were promoted to Grade 'A' special lrom
grade 'A' on ad h'oc basis were sought to be ·reverted back to grade 'A' and
candidates from Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes who were junior to
them in grade 'A' were sought to be promoted against the vacancies in E
grade 'A' special. This was challenged by the general category candidates.
The Central Administrative Tribunal allowed the application holding that
seniority in grade 'C' would be the guiding seniority list for the cadre of
guards and a senior general category candidate in the feeder grade would
be senior to a reserved category candidate in the next higher grade even
though the nserved category candidate is promoted earlier.
F
FACTS OF CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9276 OF 1995
Several reserved category candidates, \\'ho were junior to 'W' in the
lower grades of the cadre of Station Masters, were promoted to higher
grade earlier than 'W' because of preferential promotion on the basis of G
reservation. \.Vhen 11 vacancies arose in the category of Station Superin~
tendents, names of 33 reserved category candidates, many of whom were
junior to 'W', were considered to the exclusion of 'W'. 'W' challenged. this
and sought revision of the seniority list prepared by the Railway
Authorities in all the grades of the station masters' category. The Central H
160
SUPREME COURT REPORTS /1995] SUPP. 45.C.R.
A Administrative Tribunal allo\\ing the original application of 'W' held that
B
c
· seniority in the grade in which 'W' \Vas n·orking should be reworked taking
into account the date of actual proniotion in case of general categor)'
candidates and the date on \Vhich the reserved category candidates \Vould
have bt'en granted promotion in that grade had there been no reservation.
However, the Tribunal declared that seniority in lower grades should not
be disturbed because of the delay on part of 'W' in approaching the
Tribunal.
FACTS OF CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9275 OF 1995
The total sanctioned strength of the category of Superintendents was
· 13. Out of them, 3 posts were vacant. Of the remaining 10, only 2 posts
were being held by general category candidates and 8 by the reserved
category candidates. Fur interview for proniotion to the posts which were
vacant, the Railway Authorities sought to call the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes candidates junior to 'X'. 'X' challenged this and
D succeeded before the Central Administrative Tribunal.
FACTS OF CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9274 OF 1995
Candidates belonging to general category challenged the proposed
promotion of reserved category candidates in the cadres of Office SuperE
intendents Grades I and II and Head Clerk on the ground that the
representation of reserved category candidates in those grades had already
exceeded the percentage reserved for them. The Central Administrative
Tribunal allowed the application and held that rule of reservation must be
applied \\'ith reference to posts and not \v:ith reference to vacancies. The
F
apptllants bef'ort.~ this Court contrnded that reservation should he applied
to vacancies and not to total nu111brr of posts in the cadre.
G
H
On appeal, this Court
HELD : JN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9272 OF 1995
1. There is no uniform or prescribed method of providing reservation.
The extent and nature of reservation is a matter for the State to decide
having regard to the facts and requirements of each case. It is open to the
State to say that while the rule of reservation shall be applied and the roster
followed in the matter of promotions to or within a particular service, class
or category, the candidate promoted earlier by virtue of the rule of rcserva-
(
U.O.l. v. V.S. CHAUHAN
161
tion/roster shall not be entitled to seniority over his senior in the feeder A
category and that as and when a general candidate senior to him in the feeder
category is promoted, such general candidate will regain his seniority over
the reserved candidate notwithstanding that he is promoted subseqJJent to
the reserved candidate. There is no unconstitutionality involved in this. It is
permissible for the State to so provide. [178-C-F, G]
Indra Sawhn_ey v. Union of India, [1992] Suppl. 3 SCC 217, relied on.
National Federation of State Bank of India v. Union of India and Ors.,
[1995] 3 sec 432, referred to.
2.1. The Rule of reservation in the Railway services in the category
of Railway Gnards, whether in the matter of initial appointment or in the
matter of promotion from o_ne grade to another, is provided by the circulars/letters of the Railway Board. [178-H, 179-A]
Akhil Bliartiya Soshit Karamcha1i Sangh v. Union of India, [1981] 1
sec 264, referred to.
2.2. The aforesaid circulars/letters providing for reservation in
favour of Schedule Castes/Scheduled Tribes candidates, rosters and their
operation and on the subject of seniority as between general candidates
B
c
D
and reserved category candidates, being in the nature of special rules E
prevail over the general instructions contained in Indian Railway Establishment Manual. [180·Hl
23. So far as several grades among Railway Guards are concerned, the
relevant service conditions do not provide for any training followed by examination on promotion from one grade to another. Hence, the seniority
between the reserved category candidates and general candidates in the
promoted category shall continue to be governed by their panel position. In
case of non- se]ection posts as no "panel" is prepared or is necessary to be
prepared, "panel" should mean the panel prepared by the selecting authority
F
at the time of selection for Grade 'C'. It is the seniority in this panel which G
must be reflected in each of the higher grades. This means that while the rule
of reservation gives accelerated promotion, it does not give the acceleratedor what may be called, the consequential - seniority. In this sense, the rule
confers a limited benefit - a qualified benefit. [179-D-F]
2.4. There is, however, one situation where this rule may not have any H
•
162
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A
practical relevance. In a given case, it may happen that by the time the senior
general candidate gets promoted to the higher grade, the junior reserved
category candidate (who was promoted to the said higher grade earlier) may
have got promoted to yet higher grade. It is obvious that in such a case, the
rule evolved in the aforesaid circulars does not avail the senior general canB
c
didate for there can be no question of any seniority as between, say, a person
in 'B' grade and a person in 'A' grade. [179-G-H, 180-A]
2.5. The seniority position in the promoted category as between
reserved candidates and general candidates shall be the same as their inter
se seniority position in Grade 'C' at any given point of time provided that
at that given point of time, both the general candidate and the reserved
category candidates are in the same grade. This rule operates whether the
general candidate is included in the same batch of promotees or in a
subsequent batch. In other words, even if a Scheduled Castes/Scheduled
Tribes candidate is promoted earlier by virtue of rule of rese~ation/roster
than his senior general candidate and the senior general candidate is
D promoted later to the said higher grade, the general candidate regains his
seniority over such earlier promoted Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes
candidate. The earlier promotion of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled
Tribes candidate in such a situation does not confer upon him seniority
over the general candidate even though the general candidate is promoted
E later to that category. [183-H, 184-A-B]
F
G
H
3.1. Once ·the number of posts reserved for being filled by reserved
category candidates in a cadre, category or grade (unit for application of
rule of reservation) are filled by the operation of roster, the object of rule
of reservation should be deemed to have been achieved and thereafter the
roster cannot be followed except to the extent indicated in para 5 of R.K
Sabharwa/. While determining the said number, the candidates belonging
to the reserved category but selected/promoted on their own merit (and
not by virtue of rule of reservation) shall not be counted as reserved
category candidates. [183-E]
3.2. The percentage of reservation has to be worked out in relation
to number of posts in a particular cadre, class, category or grade (unit for
the purpose of applying the rule of reservation) and not with respect to
vacancies. (183-F]
R.K. Sabha1wal v. State of Punjab, [1995] 2 SCC 745, followed and
'
'
-.
U.0.1. v. V.S. CHAUHAN
163
applied.
G.C. Jain v. Divisional Rail Managei; Central Railway, (19XI) I SLR
598 and General Manager, Southem Railway & Anr. v. Rangadzari, [1962] 2
SCR 687, referred to.
A
4. The Railway Authorities shall follow the rules laid down in paras
B
2.5, 3.1 and 3.2 above with effect from the date of judgment in R.K.
Sabharwal, i.e., February HI, 1995. [186-G]
R.K. Sabhaiwal v. State of Punjab, [1995] 2 SCC 745, relied on.
IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9276 OF 1995
c
5.1. The Railway Authorities have not observed the principle that the
reservation must be vis-a-vis posts and not vis-a-vis vacancies. They had
also not kept in mind the rule of seniority in the promotion posts enunciated in the Railway Board's circulars. Yet another principle which the D
authorities appeared to have not observed i_n practice is that once the
percentage reserved for a particular reserved category is satisfied in that
service category or grade (unit of appointment) the rule of reservation and
the roster should nu longer be followed. [191-B-C]
5.2. The review of all the promotions may not be advisable at this
distance of time. It is evidently for this reason that this Court has directed
in R.K. Sabha1wal that the rule affirmed therein should be applied only
prospectively. [191-D-E]
R.K. Sabhanval v. State of Punfab, [1995] 2 SCC 745, referred to.
6.1. While the rule enunciated in para 2.5 above would be applicable
in the case of non selection posts, in the case of selection posts, the said
rule would be applicable subject to the rider that the panel referred to in
the circulars/letters of Railway Board would mean panel prepared at the
E
F
thne of making selection for pro1notion to the said selection posts and not G.
the panel prepared at the time of entry into the initial grade. [192-D, BJ
6.2. Rules cimtained in 3.1. and 3.2 above would apply to both
selection and non-selection posts.
IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9275 OF 1995
H
164
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 11995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A
7. It'is evident that out of the cadre-strength of thirteen there were
B
c
three vacancies fHJ the date of filing of the original application before the
Tribunal and of the ren1aining ten posts, only tw·o were occupied by the
members of Scheduled Castes. Since the representation of Scheduled
Castes is already far beyond their lJUOta, no further Scheduled Castes
candidates could have been considerl:'d for the ren1aining three vacancies.
This means that the Scheduled Castes candidates can be considered only
as and along with general candidates but not as me1nbers belonging to a
reserved category. [194-ll-C]
R.K. Sahhwwa/ v. State of Punjab, [1995] 2 SCC 745, applied.
IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9274 OF 1995
8. The contention urged by the appellants is concluded against the
appellant by the decision of this Court in R.K. Sabharwal. 111e appeal is
dismissed with the clarification that the members of Scheduled CasD
!es/Scheduled Tribes can also compete as general candidates. [195-B]
R.K. Sabhanval '·State of Punjab, [1995] 2 SCC 745, followed.
(Ed.- TI1is Court took notice of the piquant situations arising due to
the provision of reservation in promotion and reiterated the principle
E
atlirmed in Indra Saw/mey that providing reservation in promotion is not
warranted by Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India.) (195-C]
F
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, [1992] Supp. 3 SCC 217, referred
to.
CIVIL APPELLATE/ORl(i!NAL JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal
No. 9272 of 1995.
From the Judgment and order dated 21.1.87 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench al Allahabad in Registration No.
G 647 or 1986.
Altaf Ahmed, Additional Solicitor General, KN. Shukla, N.N. Gos-
\varni, V.C. Mahajan) Rajeev Dhawan, Sr. Advs, Hemant Sharma, A.K.
Sharma, T.C. Sharma, W.A. Uuadri, Y.P. Mahajan, P. Narsimhao, S.K.
Bandopa<lhya , K.B. Rohatgi, Ms. Aparna Rohatgi, S. Kachwah, S. SubH
timaran, U.A. Rana, K. R. Nagaraja, Rajiv Tyagi, Anand Prasad, Advs.
U.0.1. v. V.S. CHAUHAN [B.P.JEEV!\N REDDY J.J
165
\vith Lhcm for the appearing parties.
A
The .l udgmcnt of the Court was delivered by
B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J. CA Nos. 9272-73 & 9277 of 1995 (arising
out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 6468 of 1987, 1682/88, and 8111/94), C.A. No.
2261/87, 5044/89, 4436/90, 18/90, W.P. (C) 1208/87 and 565/93. (Main B
Opinion)
Leave granted in Special Leave Petitions.
1. These appeals/writ petitions raise an important but difiicult question concerning the nature of rule of reservation in promotions obtaining c
in the Railway service and the rule concerning the determination of
seniority between general candidates and candidates belonging to reserved
classes in the promoted category. The issue is best illustrated by taking the
facts in the first of these matters, viz., Union of India and 01!. v. Vi1pal
Singh Chauhan, Civil Appeal No. 9272/95 arising from Special Leave D
Petition (C) No. 6468 of 1987. The appeal is preferred against the judgment
of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Allahabad Bench) disposing of
Original Application No. 647 of 1986 with certain directions. [It was
originally filed as a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court which, on
the constitution of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Allahabad Bench),
was transferred to the Tribunal.] It was filed by, what may be called for the
sake of convenience, employees not belonging to any of the reserved
categories (hereinafter referred to as "general candidates" - which means
open competition candidates). The Railway Administration as well as the
employees belonging to reserved categories, i.e., Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes were impleadcd as respondents. The writ petition/original application came to be filed in the following circumstances :
Among the category of Guards in the Railway service, there are four
categories, viz., Grade 'C', Grade 'B', Grade 'A' and Grade 'A' .special.
E
F
The initial recruitment is made to Grade 'C' and they have to ascend rung G
after rung to go upwards. The promotion from one grade to another in this
category is by seniority-cum-suitability. In other words, they are "nonselection posts". The rule of reservation is applied not only at the initial
stage of appointment to grade 'C' but at every stage of promotion. The
percentage reserved for Scheduled Castes is fifteen percent and for
Scheduled Tribes 7.5%, a total of 22.5 percent. To give effect to the rule H
A
B
c
166
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
of reservation, a forty-point roster \Vas prepared in which certain points
were reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes respectively,
con1111cnsurate \Vith the percentage of reservation in their fuvour. For
Scheduled Castes candidates, the places reserved in the roster \Vere : l, 8,
14, 22, 28 and 36 and in the case of Scheduled Tribes candidates, they were
: 4, l7 and 31. Subsequently, a hundred-point roster has been prepared,
again reflecting the aforesaid percentages.
2. Jn the year 1986, the position was that both the petitioners in the
original application (general candidates) and the party-respondents in the
said original application (members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes) were in the grade of Guards Grade 'A' in the Northern Railway.
On August l, 1986, the Chief Controller, Tundla passed orders promoting
certain general candidates on ad hoc basis to Grade 'A' special. Within
less than three months, however, they were sought to be reverted and in
their place, members of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes were sought
D to be promoted. Complaining that such a course of action is illegal,
arbitrary and unconstitutional, the general candidates approached the High
Court, which petition, as stated above, was transferred to the Tribunal. The
general candidates asked for three reliefs, viz., (a) to restrain the Railway
authorities from filling up the posts in the higher grades in the category of
E
F
Guards by applying the rule of reservation; (b) to restrain the Railway
Administration from acting upon the illegal seniority list prepared by them;
and ( c) to declare that the petitioners (general candidates) are entitled to
be promoted and confirmed in Guard Grade 'A' special on the strength of
their seniority earlier to the reserved category employees. Their contention,
in short was (l) that once the quota prescribed for a reserved category is
satisfied, the rule of reservation - or the forty-point roster prepared to give
effect to the said rule · cannot be applied or followed any longer and (2)
that the forty-point roster is prepared only to give effect to the rule of
reservation. ft may provide for accelerated pro111otion but it cannot give
seniority also to a reserved category candidate in the promoted category.
According to them, the seniority in Guard Grade 'C' should govern and
G should be reflected in all subsequent grades notwithstanding the earlier
promotion of the members of the reserved categories. Their case was that
even if a reserved category member 'X' is promoted from Grade 'C' to
Grade 'B' earlier than his senior 'Y' (general candidate), the position
should be that when the general candidate also gets promoted later to
H Grade 'B' he should regain is seniority over 'X' in Grade 'B' which means
(
•
U.O.l. r. V.S. CHAUHAN IB.P.JEEVAN REDDY,J.)
167
that in Grade 'B', 'Y' again bccon1es senior to 'X'. They submitted that this
should be the rule to be followed lo ensure that command of Articles 14
an<l 16 of the Constitution of J~dia prevails. They relied upon two decisions
of the Allahabad High Court and another decision of Madhya Pradesh in
support of their contention. They also relied upon certain circulars of the
Railway Board in this behalf.
3. The case of the Railway Administration (Respondent Nos. 1 to 4
A
B
m the original application) was that the Administration is maintaining
separate seniority lists for each of the grades in the category of Guards
according to the policy in vogue. The ad hoc promotions of general
candidates ordered on August 1, 1986 were irregular inasmuch as the C
seniors in the category of Grade 'A' Guards were ignored and juniors
promoted by the Chief Controller, Tundla. The Chief Controller, Tundla
,;,as not competent to order the said ad lzoc promotions. The promotions
ordered later of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes candidates is strictly
in accordance with the seniority position in Grade 'A' and is unobjecD
tionable. The Administration submitted that seniority is determined on the
basis of the date of promotion and since promotion effected applying the
forty-point roster cannot be said to be an ad lzoc promotion, a Scheduled
Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidate promoted earlier to a particular grade
becomes senior to another candidate, general or otherwise, who is
promoted to that grade later. In short, according to them, the date of E
promotion to a particular grade determines the seniority in that grade.
4. The reserved candidates (respondents in the original application)
supported the stand of the Administration. They submitted that the
seniority list pertaining to Ciuards (Jradc 'C' is not relevant and cannot be
F
followed in the matter of promotion to Grade 'A' special from Grade 'A'.
For the purpose of promotion lo Grade-A special, the seniority list pertaining to Grade 'A' should be followed and since in that grade, the
Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes candidates were seniors, they were
entitled to be promoted to Grade 'A' Special earlier than their juniors in
that seniority list. They suhmittcd that the seniority in a grade should be G
determined according to the date of promotion/appointment to that grade
and not in any other manner. They submitted that inasmuch as in the higher
grades, the representation of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes members
was quite inadequate, the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes candidates
obtained rapid promotions from one grade to another but it is neither H
A
B
168
SUPREME COURT REPORTS I 19951SUPP.4 S.C.R.
contrary to the rules nor is it inconsistent \Vith Articles 16 and 14. In fact,
the very rule of reservation in pron1otions is n1eant LO increase the representation of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes candidates in the higher
echelons of services quickly. No exception can be taken to the said rule)
they submitted.
5. Since the Tribunal has strongly relied upon two decisions of the
Allahabad High Court and a decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court,
it would be appropriate to refer to their ratio brie!ly.
6. In Civil Writ Petition No. 1809 of 1972, J.C. Mallik v. Union of
C India, the Allahabad High Court hdd that the rule of rese.rvation or the
forty-point roster, as the case may be, cannot be followed and applied once
the representation of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes in a particular
grade, cadre or service, reaches the prescribed level of percentage. In other
words, once the quota of 221/2'J1, in favour of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled
Tribes is satisfied, the rule of reservation/forty-point roster can no longer
D be followed and applied. It may be mentioned that this decision has since
been referred with approval in the Constitution Bench decision in R.K.
Sabha1wal v. State of Punjab, [1995] 2 SCC 745.
7. The other decision of the Allahabad High Court is in Second
E Appeal No. 2745 of 1983 arising from Suit No. 308 of 1981, M.P. Dwidedi
v. Union of India and 01'·., The learned District Judge, whose decision was
under appeal in the said second appeal, had decreed the suit filed by the
general candidates in the following words : "The defendants-appellants,
their agellts and servants are restrained by means of pern1ancnt injunction
F
from filling up the posts of higher grade in the category of Guards by way
of reservation in favour of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates in excess of fixed by Railway Board. Their claim for declaration to
the effect that they are entitled to be promoted to the higher grades in the
category of Guards on the strength of their seniority list prepared by the
defendant for Guards Grade-C on their initial grades is also decreed".
G When the matter came to the High Court, the learned Single Judge, who
disposed of the second appeal, held :
H
11Aftcr having considered the entire position I an1 of the opinion
that in the present case promotion from grade 'A' to 'A' Special
cannot be n1a<lc on the basis of reservation so long as (Juards
belonging to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes class in grade
..
U.0.1. v. V.S. CHAUHAN [ll.P . .IEEVAN REDDY. .I.]
169
'A' Special are in excess of the percentage reserved for them. The
position. h(1\vever, \viii ;_ihvays ren1ain fluctuating an<l \Vil! have to
be rc\'ic\vcd hy the <lUthorities f"ron1 time to time. But the right of
Schc<lulcd Castes an<l Sche<lukd Tribes candidates to promotion
merely on the basis of their scniority-cun1-suitability without any
reference to reservation \viii not he barred. As and \vhen percentage of Scheduled Castes ilrH.l Scheduled Tribes Guards in grade
Special goes down below the requisite percentage their right to
promotion on the basis of reservation will revive. Subject to this
modification the decree for injunction passed by the Court below
is confirmed and the appeals arc dismissed.
11
8. The judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court is in G.C. Jain
v. Divisfrmal Rail Ma11age1; Central Railway, reported in (1986) J S.L.R. 598.
The passage relied upon by the Tribunal reads thus :
A
B
c
'Those SC & ST candidates who have come or been promoted due D
to reservation quota, having already jumped the queue, cannot be
permitted to compete with general candidates for further promotion. They are a special class by themselves and they have on!)' to
go to the reserve quota for further promotion. If the reserve quora
is already full in the next grade, the SC & ST candidates just below
that grade in the reserve quota will have to wait till vacancy occurs
E
in the higher grade in the reserve quota. However, we \Vant to
make it clear that this will not apply to such SC & ST candidates
\vho on their own in competition with the general candidates have
attained their present position and not due to reservation, they are
entitled to con1pctc further \Vith the general candidates and they
F
will not be affected for promotion in the general quota even if the
reserved quota is full in the next higher gradetf.
9. On the basis of the aforesaid decisions and certain circulars of the
Railway Board, which will be referred at a later stage, the Tribunal laid
down the following principles in Para - 26 of its judgment. (We have split G
up the paragraph into several sub-paras to bring out the several principles
distinctly) :
"26. To clarify the position further we will enunciate the principles
of determining .seniority in situations as are under c..lispulc h~re.
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
170
SUPREME COURT REPORTS I 19951SUPP.4 S.C.R.
The basic seniority in grade '(''\viii he the guiding seniority list for
the cadre of guards.
Rcservalions in promotions \voul<l be n1adc against posts in the
grades and not against vacancies.
Persons who are promoted iiy virtue of the application of roster
would be given accelerated promotion but not the seniority.
The seniority in a particular grade amongst the incumbents available for promotion to the next grade will be recast each time new
incumbents enter from the lower grade on the basis of the initial
grade 'C' seniority
i.e. a senior grade 'C' Guard who gets
promoted to grade 'B' or from grade 'B' to grade 'A' and so on
will find his position amongst the incumbents of that grade on the
basis of the original grade 'C' seniority.
Such persons as arc superseded for any reasons other than on
account of reservation will be excluded. A person superseded on
account of a punishment or unfitness will count his seniority on
the revised basis and not on original grade 'C' seniority.
The reserved community candidates who are senior not by virtue
of reservations but by the position in grade 'C' selections which
the grade 'C' seniority list will automatically take care of, will not
wait for reservation percentage to be satisfied for their promotion.
They will get promoted in their normal turn irrespective of the
percentage of rcscr\·c<l cun1111unity can<li<lates in the higher grade.
Others who get promoted as a result of reservation by jumping the
queue will wait for their turn.
Reservation will again have to be applied on depletion of the
reservation quota in the higher grade to make good the shortfalls."
10. The Tribunal directed that a fresh seniority list be drawn in the
light of the principles enunciated by it in Para-26 and promotions made on
that basis. The Tribunal rejected the contention of the general candidates
that "no promotions at all be made for reserved community candidates
because quota is full". Similarly, it rejected the contention of the general
>
U.0.1. v. V.S. CHAUHAN [B.P. JEEV AN REDDY, J.]
171
c<.indidalcs (petitioners in the original application) that all promotions in
A
the higher grades shall be ma<le on the has is of the seniority list pertaining
lo Grade 'C' alone. It held that the scnioritv list will he separately prepared
for each grade in accordance \Vilh the principles enunciated hy it and that
the list must be updated every time there is promotion to that category. It
clarified that a reserved corn111unity candidate \Vho gets pro1notion on his
own merit and not on the basis of rule of rcservation-cun1- forty-point
roster will be entitled to be promoted irrespective of the quota position.
But those reserved community candidates who obtained. promotion by
jumping the queue on the basis of rule of reservation will gel the promotion
on the basis of the revised seniority list to be prepared in accordance with
the directions contained in Para-26.
B
c
11. The Indian Railway Establishment Manual, Volume-I, contains
instructions regulating inter alia seniority of non-gazetted Railway servants.
They are contained in Chapter-lll. Para 306 says, "candidates selected for
appointment at an earlier selection shall be senior to those selected later D
irrespective of the dates of posting except in the case covered by paragraph
305 above". Para 309 reads : "SENIORITY ON PROMOTION. - Paragraph 306 above applies equally to seniority in pfo1notion vacancies in one
and the same category due allowance being made for delay, if any, in
joining the new posts in the exigencies of service.TT Para 314 says that subject
to Paragraph 302 to 306, "when the dates of appointment lo the grade are E
the same, the date of entry into the grade next below it shall -det~rmine
seniority". Para 319 deals \Vith seniority on promotion to non-selection
posts. This paragraph states that "promotion lo non-selection posts shall
be on the basis of seniority-cum-suitability, suitability being _judged by the
authority cnn1pctent lo fill the
post~ hy oral and/or \Vrittcn test or a
departn1ent<JI exan1ination or a trade test
or by scrutiny of record of
service as considered necessary.'
1 It further says that
11a railway servant,
once promoted in his turn after being found suitable against a vacancy,
\Vhich is non-fortuitous, should be considered as senior in that gradC to all
others who arc subsequently promoted after being found suitable."
F
G
12. So far as the rule of reservation is considered it has been
applicable to Railway service by orders issued by the Railway Board from
time to time pursuant to and in obedience to the policy decisions of the
Ministry of Horne Affairs. The decision of this Court in Akhil Blzartiya
Soshit Karamchwi Sangh v. Union of India, [1981J 1 SCC 264 refers to the H
A
B
c
D
E
F
172
SUPREME COURT REl'ORTS [1995) SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
several orders issued from time to ti1nc in this behalf. They are also found
at pages 4 to 6 (Chapter-I) and pages 59 to 89 (Chapter-Ill) of the
Brochure on Reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in
Railway Services (Third Edition 1985). We do not think it necessary to
refer to them in this .iudgrnent since we are concerned herein not with the
validity of the rule of reservation hut with its nature and its effect upon the
question of seniority. We shall, therefore, refer to the Railway Board's
circulars alone relevant on this aspect. Here too, we will refer first to orders
applicable to non-selection posts. Railway Board's letter dated 13th
August, J 959 is of a general nature. It says that "as a general rule the
seniormost candidate should be promoted lo a higher non-selection post,
subject to his suitability. Once promoted against a vacancy which is nonforluitous, he should be considered as senior in the grade to all others who
are subsequently promoted". [Printed at page 507 in Chapter-XII of the
Brochure aforesaid*. The Railway Board's letter dated August 31, 1982 (at
page 512 · Chapter XII of the Brochure) deals with the subject "Reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in promotion in Group
'D' and 'C' (Clause IV and lll, on the basis of seniority-cum-suitability".
Para-4 of the letter reads:
"Against the above background, the matter has been reviewed by
the Board. It has been decided that posting of Scheduled
Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates on promotions in non-selection
posts should also be done as per the reserved points on the roster
subject, howeve1; to the co11ditio11 that seniority of the Scheduled
Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates in comparison to other can·
didates will continue to be governed by the panel position in the
case of categories \Vhere training is not provided and in accordance
\vith the tncrit position in the cxan1ination \Vhcrc training is
provided."
(Emphasis added)
G
13. It is evident that this letter is speaking of the seniority position in
H
the initial entry category/grade. It says that while posting shall be done as
*
1l1e several circulars and orders issued by the ll<lilway Board from time to time are
arranged chapter-wise in the said Brochure. Chapter-V deals with Rosters. Chapter-IX
with promotion lo non-selection posts and Chapter-XII with confirmation and
seniority. The Brochure is published hy the Government of India. Minishy of Rai\\vays
(Railway Board), New Delhi.
•
U.0.1. v. V.S. CHAUHAN (B.P.JEEVAN REDDY,J.]
173
· per rOster points, seniority shall continue to be governed by the ranking
A
given in the selection list/panel. This clearly brin&< out the departure being
made from the normal principle that the date of entry in a category/grade
determines the seniority.
14. Indeed, the Railway Board's letter dated January 19, 1972 (pages
194--195 - Chapter-VIII dealing with promotion to selection posts - of the
Brochure) shows that even in the case of promotions made on the basis of
merit, the same principle applies.
15. The Railway Board's letter dated October 20, 1960 referred to in
B
the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in G.C. Jain says, "seniority C
of SOST employees will be determined under the normal rules. The
reservation roster is considered only a machinery to ensure the prescribed
percentage of reservation for SOST employees and should not be related
to the question of seniority and confirmation. If any of the SC/ST employee
is confirmed in the post by virtue of roster, such confirmation will not give
them any benefit in respect of seniority." Again, the very same idea stated D
clearly. :
16. At page 503 of the Brochure, in Chapter-XXII, dealing with
confirmation and seniority, Railway Board's letter dated February 11, 1972
is extracted, the relevant portion whereof reads:
E
"Sub : Reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes - Application of roster both at the time of initial
recruitment and confirmation.
Reference Board's kncr No. E (SCI) 62Cl\ll5/7 dated 20th
F
April 1963 which provides that the reservation roster is lo be
applied only at the time of initial recruitment and that confirmation
should be made in the order of seniority which in the case of
non-trained categories is determined on the basis of the position
in the panel supplied by the Railway Service Commission and in G
the Case of trainee categories on the basis of the merit position in
the examination.
2. The Board after careful consideration have decided that in the
posts filled by direct recruitment on or after the date of issue of
this letter, reservation may be made for Scheaulcd Castes and H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
l74
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
Sche<lulc<l Tribes both and the time of initial appointment on
ten1porary basis as \Veil as at the ti1nc of confirmation. In posts
ff/led by pronzntion, howci'et, no rese1vatio11 is ad111issiblc at the stage
of co11fi1111alio11 ofproniofces and the existing procedure of conji"!n1ing e111ployees in order of their panel position 1nay continue."
(Emphasis added)
17. Again at page 508, extracts of Railway
January 19, 1972 are set out, which read :
Board's letter <lated
"3. The seniority of candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes vis-a-vis others will continue to be determined
as at present, i.e., according to the panel position in the case of
categories where training is not provided and in accordance \Vit h
the merit position in the examination where training is pro\~<lcd.
11
And finally at page 512, the circular/letter of the Railway Board
dated August 31, 1982 is set out, which has already been extracted hereinbefore.
18. Pausing here for a moment, we must explain what does panel
mean
and signify in the case of promotions. Though we enquired
repeatedly, this aspect could not be clarified by the learned Additional
Solicitor General. In particular, we wanted to know whether a panel is
prepared only in the ease of selection posts or is it also prepared in the
case of non-selection posts. The s~veral instructions in Indian Railway
Establishment Manual are also not helpful on this aspect. We are, therefore, Jell to interpret the cxpn:ssion oursclvc~. Having regard to the fact i,
that in all the above circulars/letters, the expression "panel" has been used.·;,
to denote a merit list or sck:cl list, as it may be called, \Ve think
it~."
reasonable to understand as a panel \vhich is prepared in the case of
selection posts only. In the case of non-selection posts, there is no question
of such a panel. In their case, the senior is promoted automatically unless
he is found to be unsuitable to hold the promotion post.