On February 28, 1997, the Indian Railways issued a circular stating that reserved category candidates who were promoted through roster points could not claim seniority over general category candidates who were promoted later. This circular was based on the Supreme Court’s ruling, which held that while reserved candidates could be promoted earlier through roster points, they would not automatically become senior to general candidates who were promoted later to the same level. The Supreme Court further clarified that once a senior general category candidate reached the same level as a reserved category candidate promoted earlier, the general candidate would regain seniority, unless the reserved candidate had already been promoted to a higher post by that time.
Similarly, the State of Punjab followed this approach by revising seniority lists and granting further promotions to senior general category candidates who had reached the same level as earlier promoted reserved candidates. However, during this time, another three-judge bench of the Supreme Court ruled that the general rule in Service Rules, which grants seniority based on continuous officiation, should also apply to roster point promotions. This ruling emphasized that denying seniority to reserved candidates based on roster points would amount to discrimination, ensuring that seniority must be determined based on continuous officiation rather than just the mode of promotion.
Issue before the Court
Due to conflicting judgments, the State faced uncertainty and brought the matter before the Supreme Court for clarification. The key issues were:
- The seniority of Roster Point Promotees – Whether reserved category candidates promoted earlier due to roster points, could retain seniority over general category candidates who were later promoted despite being senior in the lower category.
- Validity of the 'Catch-Up' Principle – Whether general category candidates could reclaim seniority once promoted, overriding the advantage given to reserved category candidates under the reservation policy.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioners (general category candidates) argued that their seniority should remain intact when they reach the same level as reserved candidates promoted earlier through reservation policies. They relied on Ashok Kumar Gupta v. State of UP (1997), asserting that promotion is a statutory, not a fundamental right, as per Articles 16(4) and 16(4-A) of the Constitution.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondents (State of Punjab) supported Ajit Singh Januja and Virpal Singh Chauhan, contending that general category candidates should regain seniority if they reach the same promotional level as reserved candidates, who should not retain seniority solely based on roster point promotions. The reserved candidates, citing Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana (1997), argued that once promoted through roster points, their seniority should be protected, as reservation policies aim to uplift disadvantaged groups.
Analysis of the Court
The Supreme Court ruled that reserved category candidates (roster point promotees) cannot claim seniority in the promoted category over senior general category candidates from the lower level. If a senior general candidate is promoted later but before the reserved candidate’s further promotion, the general candidate remains senior at that level.
The Court overruled Jagdishlal v. State of Haryana (1997), holding that roster-based promotions do not determine seniority, and upheld Ajit Singh Januja v. State of Punjab (1996) as correct. It stated that inter se seniority must be maintained, meaning that if a general candidate reaches Level 2 (L-2) before a reserved candidate moves to Level 1 (L-1), the seniority at L-2 must be modified to place the general candidate above the reserved candidate.
Additionally, if a reserved candidate was promoted to L-1 without considering the seniority of a general candidate who later reached L-2, the promotion must be reviewed without reverting the reserved candidate. The same applies at higher levels, ensuring that a reserved candidate remains junior to a senior general candidate from the previous level.
This judgment reinforces that roster-based promotions do not grant automatic seniority, and seniority must be determined fairly across all levels.
