Supreme Court order on Reservations in Promotions 2017. Latest Supreme Court direction on Reservations in Promotions. SC declared that the provisions of the impugned Act to the extent of doing away with the ‘catch up’ rule and providing for consequential seniority under Sections 3 and 4 to persons belonging to SCs and STs on promotion against roster points to be ultra vires Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The judgment will not affect those who have already retired and will not affect financial benefits already taken. Consequential promotions granted to serving employees, based on consequential seniority benefit, will be treated as ad hoc and liable to be reviewed. Seniority list may be now revised in the light of this judgment within three months from today. Further consequential action may be taken accordingly within next three months.
B.K. PAVITRA & ORS. …APPELLANTS VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ...RESPONDENTS
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.2369 OF 2011, 2370-2373 OF 2011, 2374-2377 OF 2011, 2378 OF 2011, 2379 OF 2011, 4320-4327 OF 2011 AND 5280-5286 OF 2011
Supreme Court order on Reservations in Promotions 2017
The Case details are as follows: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2368 OF 2011B.K. PAVITRA & ORS. …APPELLANTS VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ...RESPONDENTS
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.2369 OF 2011, 2370-2373 OF 2011, 2374-2377 OF 2011, 2378 OF 2011, 2379 OF 2011, 4320-4327 OF 2011 AND 5280-5286 OF 2011
J U D G M E N T
...Final words of the judgement are as follows:
- that exercise for determining ‘inadequacy of representation’, ‘backwardness’ and ‘overall efficiency’, is a must for exercise of power under Article 16(4A). Mere fact that there is no proportionate representation in promotional posts for the population of SCs and STs is not by itself enough to grant consequential seniority to promotees who are otherwise junior and thereby denying seniority to those who are given promotion later on account of reservation policy. It is for the State to place material on record that there was compelling necessity for exercise of such power and decision of the State was based on material including the study that overall efficiency is not compromised. In the present case, no such exercise has been undertaken. The High Court erroneously observed that it was for the petitioners to plead and prove that the overall efficiency was adversely affected by giving consequential seniority to junior persons who got promotion on account of reservation. Plea that persons promoted at the same time were allowed to retain their seniority in the lower cadre is untenable and ignores the fact that a senior person may be promoted later and not at same time on account of roster point reservation. Depriving him of his seniority affects his further chances of promotion. Further plea that seniority was not a fundamental right is equally without any merit in the present context. In absence of exercise under Article 16(4A), it is the ‘catch up’ rule which is fully applies. It is not necessary to go into the question whether the concerned Corporation had adopted the rule of consequential seniority.
- In view of the above, we allow these appeals, set aside the impugned judgment and declare the provisions of the impugned Act to the extent of doing away with the ‘catch up’ rule and providing for consequential seniority under Sections 3 and 4 to persons belonging to SCs and STs on promotion against roster points to be ultra vires Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The judgment will not affect those who have already retired and will not affect financial benefits already taken. Consequential promotions granted to serving employees, based on consequential seniority benefit, will be treated as ad hoc and liable to be reviewed. Seniority list may be now revised in the light of this judgment within three months from today. Further consequential action may be taken accordingly within next three months.
