Holding

The exemption under Rule 12 is valid but cannot obliterate the promotion rule; vacancies after 21‑Jan‑1991 must be filled in a 70% exemptee and 30% qualifier ratio, with promotion based on seniority‑cum‑merit and no preference for five‑attempt qualifiers.

Summary

The case concerned promotion of clerks to Assistant/Senior Assistant in Punjab. The 1984 Rules required passing an examination for promotion, but a 1991 notification exempted clerks with 18 years of service from the exam under Rule 12. This created two groups – exemptees and qualifiers – leading to disputes over vacancies, seniority, and whether the exemption invalidated the examination rule. The Supreme Court held that while the exemption power under Rule 12 is valid and must be exercised with recorded reasons, it cannot erase the underlying promotion rule. Consequently, vacancies before 21‑Jan‑1991 must be filled by qualifiers, and vacancies thereafter are to be shared in a 70:30 ratio between exemptees and qualifiers, with promotions governed by seniority‑cum‑merit. The Court also rejected any preference for candidates who passed the exam within five attempts over those who passed in more than five attempts. Directions were issued to implement the quota and to regularise promotions and reversions.

Issues considered

Whether Rule 12 of the Punjab State Assistant Grade Examination Rules, 1984 is invalid for being unbridled
Whether the 21‑January‑1991 notification exempting clerks with 18 years of service is valid despite lack of recorded reasons
Whether the exemption can effectively nullify the examination‑based promotion rule
Whether exemptees and qualifiers should be treated at par for promotion
Whether candidates who passed the exam within five attempts should have preference over those who passed in more than five attempts
How vacancies should be allocated between exemptees and qualifiers

Subjects

service lawpromotionexemptionseniority-cum-meritRule 12quotaadministrative lawpublic service

Judgment

SAROJ RANI AND ANR. ETC. ETC. A
v.
ST A TE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

AUGUST 24, 1999

[SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND A.P. MISRA, JJ.] B

Service law-Promotion-Examination for-Clerks promoted to the
post of Assistant on passing an examination-Clerks having put in 18 years
of service exempted from taking examination- Exemptees filling almost all
vacancies of Assistant-Dispute between exemptees and qualifiers of C
examination-Held, exemption to a rule cannot efface the Rule itself-Vacancies
decided to be filled in the ratio of 70 : 30 between the exemptees and the
qualifiers-Punjab State Assistant Grade Examination Rules, 1984-Rule 12.

Service Law-Promotions-Examination for-Rule providing for
exemption of any class or category from examination for reasons to be D
recorded in writing-Held, does not confer unbridled power-Punjab State
Assistant Grade Examination Rules, 1984-Rule 12.

Service law-Promotions-Examination for-Rule Providing for
exemption of any class or category from examination for reasons to be E
recorded in writing-Notification exempting a certain class did not contain
reasons for such exemption-However Record of events and correspondence
which led to such exemption showing reasons therefor-Held, notification is
not invalid-Punjab State Assistant Grade Examination Rul~s, 1964-Rule
12.
F
Service law-Seniority-Inter se seniority between promotees-
Promotees having cleared Departmental Examination for promotion-Rule
protecting seniority of those who cleared the examination in five chances-
Promotion to be made on the basis of seniority cum merit-Held, those who
passed examination in five chances ~ould not be given any preference over
those passing it in more than five chances-Punjab State Assistant Grade G
Examination Rules, 1984-Rule I 0.

The dispute in this appeal relates to the rival claims of clerks in various
departments of the State of Punjab to promotion to the post of Assistant.
Initially promotion to the post of Assistant (later on re-designated as Senior H
691
692 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. l S.C.R.

A Assistant) from the post of clerk was made purely on the basis of seniority-
cum-merit. In 1984, Punjab State Assistant Grade Examination Rules, 1984
were framed and under the said Rules, only those clerks who passed the
examination prescribed under the Rules could be promoted to the post of
Assistant. The promotions were to be made from amongst the qualifiers on
B the basis of seniority-cum-merit.

The Punjab State Assistant Grade Examination Rules, 1984 was
amended on S.12.1984 and seniority of even those clerks who cleared the
Assistant Grade Examination in two chances was protected. On 16.9.1985, .
'
the Rules were again amended and seniority of those who passed the
C Assistants Grade Examination in four chances was protected. On 18.10. 1986,
number of chances were further enhanced to five.

On the repeated representations of those who could not qualify the
Assistant Grade Examination.in spite of their long services, by a notification
. dated 21.1.1991, the Government exempted all clerks who completed 18
D years of service as a clerk from taking the Assistant Grade Examination for
promotion to the post of Assistant. The notification was issued under Rule
12 of the Punjab State Assistant Grade Examination Rules, 1984 which
provided.that if the Government is of the opinion that it is necessary or
expedient to do so, it may, by order, for reasons to be recorded in writing,
E exempt any class or category of persons from the operation of the Rules of
1984. The exemption was to operate prospectively.

There arose a dispute between (a) those who had qualified for promotion
after taking the Assistant Grade Examination (the qualifiers) and those who
had been exempted from the examination under the notification dated 21.1.1991
F (the exemptees); and (b) those who had cleared the examination within five
attempts and those who had cleared the examination in more than five attempts.
Several Writ Petitions were filed by the aggrieved parties.

On there being a conflict between two judgments of the High Court in
G respect of validity of the notification dated 21.1.1991, the matter was referred
to a Full Bench of the Court. The Full Bench in Surinder Jit Singh and
Others v. State of Punjab and Ors., (1994) 4 Vol. 98 SLR 702 upheld the
validity of the notification dated 21.1.1991. It further held that the notification
was to be prospective in operation and the exemptees under it were to be
treated at par with the qualifiers and promotion to the post of Assistant was
H to be made on the basis of seniority-cum-merit.
SAROJ RANI v. STATE 693
After the pronouncement of the Judgment by the Full Bench, several A
employees who had been promoted to the higher post of Assistant after
21.1.1991 on the basis of the their having qualified in the examination were
reverted and the exemptees who were senior to them were promoted. Again,
several Writ Petitions were filed challenging both the validity of the
notification dated 21.1.1991 and the consequential reversions. High Court B
again upheld the validity of the notification dated 21.1.1991.

The aggrieved parties filed appeals before this Court contending, inter
alia, that-

1. Grant of exemption to clerks who have completed 18 years of service C
as clerks from the Assistant Grade Examination results into nearly all the
vacancies of Assistant being filled up by the exemptees as they are more in
number than the vacancies accruing and also as they are senior to the
qualifiers and thus notification dated 21.1.1991 completely abrogates the
• very purpose and basis of the Punjab State Assistant Grade Examination
~~1™; D
2. No reasons were recorded in the notification dated 21.1.1991 while
granting exemption to certain candidates from passing the examination and
therefore, the exemption granted was not in accordance with Rule 12 of the
Punjab State Assistant Grade Examination Rules, 1984;
E
3. Rule 12 of the Punjab State Assistant Grade Examination Rules,
1984 is invalid as the power granted under it is without any guidelines and
is unbridled; and

4. Preference ought to be given to those clerks who have cleared the F
examination in first five chances over those who qualified in more than five
chances.

Before this Court, the counsel appearing for the parties suggested that
to bring peace and amity between the litigating employees and to save the
validity of the notificatfon dated 21.1.1991, a quota should be fixed for G
promotion to the post of Assistant between the exemptees and the qualifiers
in the ratio of 70% and 30%. The counsel for the State also made a
statement that the State would not come in way of the agreement between the
exemptees and the qualifiers.

Disposing of the Appeals, the Court H
694 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999) SUPP. I S.C.R.

A HELD: 1.1. An exception to the rule cannot efface the rule itself,
similarly exemption clause in a rule cannot obliterate the very rule itself.
When a clause exempts a class or category of person from application of any
rule, the exemption itself denotes it to be of persons in a small circle out
of the bigger circle. But it cannot be said that exemption can destroy the
B bigger circle from which it owes its own existence. [711-A-B)

1.2. It is within the legitimate jurisdiction of the State to decide as
policy on any situation emerging from time to time. But it is always better
for the State to consider all the pros and cons affecting the interest of all
before 1aying down any policy. A short sighted policy or a policy without
C proper application of mind, brings parties in the litigating fray. However, the
understanding reached between all interested contesting parties brings the
curtain down of long two rounds of litigation. [712-H; 713-A)

1.3. The qualifiers at the examination and exemptees would form one
coherent class as eligible for promotion to be considered when any vacancy
D arises, on the basis of the principal of seniority-cum-merit. In other words,
there would be no preference to those who have qualified or become eligible
earlier. All would be at par. Thus there cannot be any distinction or preference
inter se between them. [710-F)

2. Granting an exemption to those who completed 18 years of regular
E service as clerk itself reveals the reason, viz. their experience for working
this long period. This apart, records placed before the High Court reveals
that there was protracted meetings, communications between the employees
union, demanding the abolition of the Assistant Grade Examination with the
Finance Secretary and the Government after due consideration issued the
notification dated 21.1.1991. In other words, reasons were there on record.
F [706-H; 707-A, BJI

3. Rule 12 of the Punjab State Assistant Grade Examination Rules, 1984
cannot be held to be without any guidelines or unbridled. There is in built
check in the rule itself, as before exercising the power, certain conditions
G have to be fulfilled, viz., (a) State must form its opinion; (b) it pass an order in
writing; and (c) it must record its reasons in writing. [706-E-Fl

4. It is not in dispute that the basis for promotion to the post of
Assistant from amongst the eligible candidate is seniority-cum-merit. Eligible
candidate in this context means all those who passed the examination in less
H than or more than five chances. They constitute as one group. There is no
SAROJ RANI v. STATE 695
division among the qualifiers either under the rules or any order. This one A
cohesive group has to wait for promotion till vacancy arises. The promotion
from among these eligible candidates, when principle of seniority-cum-merit
is to be applied, there cannot be any preference inter se among the said two
groups:. Thus, no preference can be given to those who has qualified in first
· five chances over those who qualified in more than five chances. (708-E-F) B
5. For the aforesaid reasons, the following directions are issued:

(1) All vacancies on the post of Assistant/Senior Assistants prior to
21st January, 1991 are to be filled up by those who qualified by passing the
examination and exemptees would have no claim on such vacancies.
c
(2) All vacancies after 21st January, 1991 shall be filled in the ratio
of 70 per cent and 30 per cent between exemptees and qualifiers in the
examination, respectively, for each year in question till all the existing
qualifiers are absorbed.

(3) All promotions or reversions made has to be readjusted within the D
aforesaid frame work, irrespective of any interim orders then in force.

(4) Any incumbent who worked on the post of Assistant/Senior Assistant
on account of promotion orders and in case they have to be reverted or have
been reverted, any salary or consequential amount paid to such employees E
for working on the post of Assistant/Senior Assistant shall not be taken
back from them. Similarly, if any employee gets promotion to the post of
Assistant/Senior Assistant from an earlier date, he/she will not be entitled
to any arrears of salary. 1713-C, D, E, FJ

Surender Jit Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors., (1994) 4 Vol. F
98 SLR 702 and State of Orissa and Ors. etc. etc. v. R. C. Raul and Ors., etc
.etc., [1993) 2 sec 486, referred to.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 11660-61 of
1995 Etc. Etc.
G
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.11.1994 of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court in C.W.P.No.13810 and 9809of1994.

P.N. Misra, (Sanjay Sarin) for Ashok Mathur, Ms. Manjula Gupta, P.K.
.Goplaney, Dr. Meera Aggarwal, R.C. Mishra, Rajiv Talwar, Rajiv Dutta, S.P.
Singh, K.K. Jagia, Jasbir Malik, Uma Dutta, N. Ganpathy, (Pradeep Gupta) for H
696 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. l S.C.R.

A K.K. Gupta and Manoj Swarup for the appearing parties
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

MISRA, J. Leave granted in the Special Leave Petition Nos. 376-379 of
1999.
B
It is very common scenario in a service to see litigation spurting whenever
more than one avenue is opened in any recruitment or promotion. It may be
between direct recruits or promotees or inter se within a class creating two
or more groups for promotion to a next higher grade. Sometime it is more out
C exuberance of one or the other group to have greater lion share in a higher
grade or may be on account of some ambiguous instruction or an order
without proper application of mind or any rule shrinking, extinguishing or
effecting ones right, inevitably the litigation opens up. It further multiplies on
account of amendments, orders etc. during pendency of litigations may be on
...
account of interim orders passed by courts, bringing in new persons, class
D or groups into this fray. It is this which destandarises the efficiency of service
class as not only lot of energy adrift in pursuing this but it fans poison within
the two contesting such classes. The present group of cases is also one of
such case, details of which we are referring hereunder.

E The aforesaid appeals arise after the conclusion of spate of litigations
in its first leg, when their grouse not being satisfied they rolled into second
round. The present second leg of dispute is raised by group of clerks werking
in the various departments of the Government of Punjab. There are two sets
of contest, the one is inter se between the group which had passed the
examination under the Punjab State Assistant Grade Examination Rules, 1984
F (hereinafter referred to as the '1984'. Rules'), viz., the one who has passed
within five chances and the others who passed in more than five chances.
The other set is between the group who passed the examination irrespective
of number of chances and the group who were granted exemption from
appearing in the examination under Rule 12. The exemptees under it are those
G who completed 18 years of their regular service. The claim for promotion of
all these groups are for the posts of Assistant (redesignated as Senior
Assistant). Before reverting to the facts of each of the aforesaid appeals, it
is necessary to give short summary of the aforesaid rules and conditions of
service preceding these rules. Prior to the aforesaid Rule of 1984 promotion
from the post of clerk to the post of Assistant were made purely on the basis
H of seniority-cum-merit having requisite period of experience and qualification.
SAROJ RANI v. STATE [MISRA, J.) 697
Thus came change in policy of the government. In order to bring up meritorious A
and efficient employees, promotion were decided to be only to those who
pass an examination under Rule 4 of the aforesaid 1984 Rule, Rule 4 made it
obligatory for the first time on all the holders of substantive post of clerks
to be considered for next higher post of Assistant if they qualify the Assistant
Grade Examination to be conducted in accordance with Rules 5, 6 and 7. Rule B
4 is quoted hereunder :

"Eligibility for promotion to the post of Assistant

(1) No person shall be eligible for appointment by promotion to the
post of Assistant unless in addition to fulfilling the qualifications and
experience prescribed for appointment by promotion to the post of C
Assistant, he qualifies the test:

Provided that a person who has already qualified the Assistant
Grade Examination inter-alia in terms of Punjab Government Circular
No. 4809-G 11-57/21176, dated the 23rd October, 1957, or who was
holding on regular basis the post of Assistant on the 23rd October, D
1957, shall not be required to qualify the test;

Provided further that if a person holding the post of Assistant or
a high post, on provisional basis, on the commencement of these rules
is of the age of fifty years or more; he shall also not be required to
qualify the test; E
Provided further that a person who has been appointed by
promotion to the post of Assistant or to any higher post on provisional
basis before the commencement of these rules, shall be required to
qualify the test within a period of three years from such commencement
and failure to qualify the test within the specified period shall result F
in reversion of such person to the post of clerk or to the post by
whatever designation called from which he was appointed by promotion
to the post of Assistant on provisional basis.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (I) where no
person, who has qualified the test, is available for promotion to G
the post of Assistant in a service, the appointing authority may
appoint a person by promotion to the post of Assistant on
provisional basis till a person who has so qualified the test
becomes available in that service.
~Then came the first amendment in the said Rule by amending Rule 10(1) H
698 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. l S.C.R.

A on 5th December 1984, which protected the seniority of those who could not
clear the Assistant Grade Examination in the first chance. So even if one
qualifies the test within first two chances, he is assigned the seniority in the
cadre of Assistant in accordance with their seniority in their substantive post.
Next amendment was on 16th September, 1985 in Rule 10(2) under which
instead of two chances four chances were substituted. The third amendment
B was on 18th October, 1986 under which instead of four chances it was
substituted by five chances. Thereafter, number of instructions were issued
by the respondent one of such was on 4th January, 1988 by which it was
clarified that persons who have cleared the Assistant Grade Examination
within 5 chances will be given the seniority in order of seniority of substantive
C rank. Thereafter, under the instructions dated 30th August 1989, it was further
clarified that persons who passed the Assistant Grade Examination within 5,6,
and 7 chances should not be given the seniority till the decision of Civil Writ
Petition No. 392 of 1989 on account of interim order dated 16th March, 1989
passed in that case. Both the appellants in Saroj Rani case are those who
have passed their examination on November 1990 but were promoted on
D 30.12.1992.
This policy of promotion only to those who pass the examination under
the aforesaid Rule continued for some time. It seems the other clerks, senior
clerks etc. who could not qualify in the examination in spite of their long
services felt heart bum and started representing the government for their
E promotion without taRing recourse to the examination based on their experience,
service record. This pressure brought in another change in the government
policy, which led to the issuance of the impugned Notification dated 2 t st
January, -1991 exempting all such employees who completed 18 years of
service as clerk from taking recourse through examination for promotion. This
F notification was issued under Rules 12 of the aforesaid Rule. Rule 12 is
quoted hereunder:

"12. Power to Grant Exemption:

Where the Government is of the opinion that it is necessary or
G expedient so to do, it may, by order for reasons to be recorded, in
writing exempted any class or category of persons from the operation
of these rules and such exemption shall operate prospectively."
....
This gave birth to a distinct class to lay their claim for promotion which
inevitably, effected the other class of clerks who became eligible by passing ·
H the examination under the aforesaid Rule.
SAROJ RANI v. STATE [MISRA, J.] 699

Thus on the issuance of this notification all those who completed 18 year of A
regular service became eligible for being considered for promotion to the post
of Assistant/Senior Assistant. This class admittedly is ever increasing as all
those who in turn completes 18 years of regular service would qualify to this
group and be also eligible for promotion. This led into two clear sources of
promotion one who became eligible after passing the examination. under Rule
4 and the other, the exemptees under the said Notification dated 21st January, B
1991. issued under Rule 12. This led to filing of number of writ petitions
challenging the aforesaid Notification dated 21st January, 1991. In Civil Writ
Petition No. 13310 of 1991, Ravi Shankar v. State, the High Court quashed
this notification holding it to be invalid, while in another civil Writ Petition
No. 9828of1991, the same Court upheld the said notification. In the same first C
round of litigation in another civil Writ Petition No. 11023of1991, Surinderjit
Singh and other v. State of Panjab, same question was raised, whether
persons who passed the examination prior to 21st January, 1991 could be
treated senior to the exemptees on 21st January, 1991. including validity of
Notification dated 21. l.l 99 l. In this though specifically the virus of this
Notification dated 21.1. 1991 was not challenged but only order dated 28.6.1991 D
under it, but the Bench in view of the two conflicting decisions of the same
Court, one holding the Notification dated 21st January, 1991 valid and the
other invalid and also as this issue went to the very root felt to resolve this
which was effecting large number of State employees, hence referred it to the
Full Bench. The Full Banch in Surinder Jit Singh and Ors. v. State of Panjab E
and Ors., (l 994) 4 vol. 98 Service Law Reporter Page 702 upheld the validity
of the said Notification dated 21st January, 1991. It further held that the

- notification to be prospective in operation and exemptees under it to be
treated at par with those who qualified in the examination and promotion to
the post of Assistant/Seniof.Assistant to be made on the principle of seniority-
cum-merit As a consequence, the respondent issued letter dated 18th May F
1994, issued to the various head of the departments to take necessary steps
to implement the judgment of this Full Bench, viz., Surinder Jit Singh (supra).

In spite of this, doubt arose as to whether the vacancies which occurred
after 21st January, 1991 are to be filled only by the exemptees namely, those
who have completed 18 years of regular service or it should also go to those G
who passed the examination on or before the said date. In the absence of any
instruction either way some of the heads of the departments took steps and
demoted the senior Assistant who were promoted after 21st January, 1991 on
account of their eligibility of having passed the examination. Some of them
stayed their hands with hope that some policy and guideline may be issued H
700 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A to implement the said judgment. However, reversion started of the qualifiers
in the examination by the respondent in view of this Full Bench. This is
because these two classes constituted as one group for promotion and on
the principle of seniority-cum-merit, those who were seniors unless found
unfit were to be promoted first. It is not disputed, exemptees number being
large and they invariably being senior, chances of promotion of examination
B qualifier become very remote on existing vacancies as their tum could only
be after such seniors exemptees were promoted. It is at this point of time a
serious issue was raised inter se between the exemptees and those having
passed the examination which led to the second round of litigation. Number
of writ petition were filed in the High Court challenging the impugned
C notification and consequential orders including reversions on number of
grounds including that they have already cleared their probation on the post
of Senior Assistant on promotion and were fully eligible and qualified hence
cannot be reverted. Since the aforesaid appeals raise similar issues within the
aforesaid periphery, we are disposing them off compositely by means of this
common order.
D
Now we proceed to refer to the facts and submissions made by various
learned counsels for the parties in each of the aforesaid appeals.

The aforesaid appeal of Saroj Rani and Another (C. A. No. 11660 of
E 1995) also arises out of such petitions which in addition to the challenge of
Notification dated 2 l. l.l 991 also challenges the validity of Rule 12 being
unbridled and unguided. Submission of learned senior counsel Mr. P. P. Rao
is that conferment of such unbridled power on the State demonstrates how,
its exercise, through Notification dated 21. l.l 991 has rendered the aforesaid
Rule 1984 redundant. He submits the grant of exemption under it results into
F filling up of cent percent vacancies going to exemptees excluding completely
the other group of eligible candidates. This erodes the very purpose for which
the aforesaid Rule was framed. The submission is Rule 12 is inconsistent with
Rules 4, 6, 9, and 11. Further the Full Bench in Surenderjit Singh (supra) never
directed to revert any person who is qualified and promoted. it only declared
G that the exemptees should be treated at par with persons who have qualified
through examination. Putting at par means both should be treated alike and
not to defeat and totally surrender the right of one group to the other. In case
they are reverted they will never get a chance for promotion in rest of their
service career. As a small example it was submitted, the appellant belongs to
the Irrigation Department of the Government and according to the averment,
H under the Notification dated 21 January, 1991, 925 candidates have been
SAROJ RANI v. STATE [MISRA, J.] 701

exempted and on the then vacancies existing, 250 qualified persons were A
promoted who qualified in the examination, out of which 187 were promoted

-
after 2 l stJanuary, l 99 l. Now they have to give way to exemptees who are
large in number. It was submitted, the number of exemptees qualifying will be
an on going process and qualifiers of examination, who had to undertake extra
effort to qualify, their number being small, in contrast to the largeness of B
exemptees, they will never get a chance to be promoted. This in turn will not
only disheartened the meritorious employee but will knock their incentive
down. This obliterates the very objective of l 984 Rules and it brings to stand
still its various provision under it. Hence submitted, the Notification dated
21st January, 1991 and the said instruction dated 18th May, 1994 must go. In
this appeal learned senior counsel Mr. P. P. Rao, while repelling the challenge C
that the aforesaid Full Bench forecloses this submission as it upheld the
validity of Notification dated 2 l.1.1991, the submission is that exemption
noti'tication was challenged on a limited ground that no reasons were recorded
in it while granting exemption which is an essential ingredients under Rule 12.
However, no challenge was made nor any consideration is given that the
impugned notification completely abrogates the very purpose and base of D
1984 Rules and nullifies Rule 4. This annihilates both the foundation of the
said Rule and the qualifiers under it, all over the State of Punjab hence this
requires due consideration by this Court in the larger interest of the dimension
and disgruntlement of the employees all over the State. He submits even
dismissal of the special leave petition on 8th April, 1994 filed against the E
judgment of Full Ban ch decision of Surenderjit Singh (supra) does not conclude
the matter because the area in which the appellants have pressed their grievance
in this writ petition is not covered by the said Full Bench decision. This apart,
in addition since the dismissal of the special leave petition was in limine
without adjudicating the issues on merit would not foreclose this issue, as
this Court has yet not considered or decided the matter. Further the Court has F
· only put the exemptees at par with qualifiers but what would be at par has
not been considered by the State neither any policy nor any guideline has
been laid down. State should not make qualifiers promotion as an illusion. By
the impugned order the High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the
validity of Rule 12 and the said Notification dated 21st January, 1991 and the G
instruction dated 18th May, 1994. It held that promotion to the post of
Assistant (Designated as Senior Assistant) in view of admitted position that
promotion to be on the basis of seniority-cum-merit, a senior person would
be entitled to be promoted first unless his record reveals him to be unfit Both
the appellants in this appeal were promoted after 21st January, 1991.
H
702 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A So far in the appeal of Dhanna Singh and Other, (C. A. No.11661 of
1995) same question is raised with almost similar facts as in the case of Saroj
Rani and Another, and learned counsel for the appellant Shri P. N. Puri adopts
the same.

Learned counsel Shri Ashok Mathur for the appellants in Ravi Lamba
B and Other, (C.A. No. 3315 of 1997) has challenged another Full Bench decision
of Panjab and Haryana High Court decided on .17th September, 1996 in civil
Writ Petition No. 16959 of 1994. Baldev Raj and Others, v. The State ofPanjab
and Other. The question raised in this appeal is;

Whether the persons who have passed the examination within five
C chances shall have preference for promotion over the persons who passed
the test in more than five chances on the date of vacancy and also whether
the exemptees could be put at par with the candidates having passed the test
in first five chances and the other who have passed in more than five
chances?.
D
The appellants really have challenged the Government order dated 17th
November, 1994 which is an office order passed. The direction issued under
it is quoted hereunder : ·

"(I) The officials mentioned in Annexures who w~re promoted as
E Assistants on the basis of the number of chances. of passing the
Assistant Grade Examination, vide orders dated 20.8.1990 issued vide
Endst. No. 1017/90 Estt. I (3)/11586 dated 21.8.1990and orders dated
7.9.1990 issued vide Endst. No. l/l 7/90-Estt-I (3) 12995 dated 10.9.1990,
subject to the result of various writ petitions pending in the Hon'ble
High Court of Panjab and Haryana but their tum for promotion to the
F post of Senior Assistant does not come on the basis of seniority -
cum-merit, are hereby reverted from the post of Senior Assistant.

(ii) the dates of promotion of remaining Senior Assistants from
amongst the officials promoted vide orders dated 20.8.1990 and
7.9.1990 are readjusted in accordance with their seniority-cum -
G merit as per Annexure-11.
(iii) 8 Clerks named in Annexure-111 who had completed 18 years of
regular Service as Clerks/Senior Clerks/junior Assistants upto
23-10-1992 (i.e. the last date upto which promotions have been
made) are exempted from passing Assistant Grade Examination
H with effect from the dates mentioned against their names and the
SAROJ RANI v. STATE [MISRA, J.] 703
persons at S. N. 2 to 8 namely Sarvshri Jaswant Singh, Tarilochan A ·
Singh, Bishan Dutt, Sadipt Kumar, Ashok Kumar S/o Shri Kulwant
Rai, Ashok Kumar S/o Shri Narinder Nath and Varinder Nayar are
promoted as Senior Assistants in the pay scale of Rs.1800-40-
.... 2000-50-2400-60-60-2700-75-3000-100-3200 with effect from the due
dates as mentioned against the names, Shri Pawan Kumar figuring
at Sr. No. l has been considered for promotion but found unfit B
for promotion on the basis of his service record.

(iv) Consequently, against the two posts of Sr. Assistants, which
become available from 27.5.1992, Smt. Sudesh Sharma D/o Sh.
Mohinder Singh Dhillon, have been found fit for promotion
against the said vacant post w.e.f 27.5.1992 on the basis of C
seniority-cum-merit and eligibility and, are accordingly promoted
to the post of Senior Assistants in the pay Scale of Rs. 1800-
3200 w.e.f. 27.5.1992.

(v) The dates of promotions as Sr. Assist of officials promoted after
the order mentioned in (I) above and upto 23.10.92. and those D
mentioned in (ii). (iii) and (iv) above are adjusted/re-adjusted as
per Annexure-IV."

r But to put the matter straight the said order also records the following:-
"The above promotions/reversions and changes in the dates of
promotions are further subject any subsequent orders of the Hon'ble E
Court.
r Dated the l 7. I I.I 994 P.S. Ahuja
Chandigarh Joint Secretary, Secretariat
Administration." F

. Thus the said directions were specifically made subject to any orders
of a Court. The appellants further seek direction through their writ petition
that they be permitted to continue working as senior Assistants in pursuance
to their promotion order which were admittedly prior to 21st January, 1991.
The impugned Full Bench finally held; G
"Persons who passed the test within first five chances shall not have
preference over the ones who passed the test in more than five
chances in case the latter are available or all are available on the dates
the vacancy arises. The exemptees from passing eligibility test having
rendered 18 years of service would be at par with the candidates who H
704 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A passed the test in less than or more than five chances on the dates
of vacancy arises and as a necessary corollary promotions would be
effected on·the basis of seniority-cum-merit. The vacancies shall be
filled in accordance with the date on which these became available
from amongst the persons eligible on that date on the principle of
seniority-cum-merit irrespective of the fact that they have passed
B within five on more than five chances. Rule 10(2) is rule regarding
fixation of seniority by protecting the same and a rule providing for
eligibility or qualification for promotion."
r
The appellant in this case has also challenged the decision of the High
c Court so far it holds, in case of one vacancy and employees who have passed
the said examination in the first five chances would not get priority over the
employees who have passed in more than five chances and vacancy is to be
filled on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. The challenge is if that be so the ~
very purpose to bring in more meritorious employees would be defeated. The ''
contention is, the High Court was in error in putting two groups of those who
D have passed test within five chances and another in more than five chances
at par at the time of filling the vacancy. This appeal also challenges the
putting of exemptees at par with other eligible persons who have passed the
examination. For this similar submission is made as in the case of Saroj Rani _.,..
and Another.
E
The appellants of Punjab Ministerial Qualified Assistant Association
(C.A. No. 3316 of 1997) raises the similar question as in the case of the
aforesaid appeal of Ravi Lamba and other. Learned counsel Shri P.N. Mishra •
in addition emphasised that the order dated 21st January, 1991, does not
record the reasons. Hence violative (lf Rule 12 thus liable to be struck down.
F He submits where the rule obliges reasons to be recorded, it must be recorded.
He relied on [ 1993] 2 SCC 486 State of Orissa and Other etc. etc. v. R. C. Rout
and Other etc. etc.
I
)
In Tarlok Singh and Other (C.A. No. 1329 of 1999) all the appellants ''>··,
though passed the examination under the aforesaid Rules prior to 21st January, .
G 1991 within five chances but were promoted after 21st January, 1991 in view
/I
.'
of the interim order dated 30th April, 1997 passed by this Court in special
leave petition filed against the order of Full Banch dated 17th September, 1996
Beldev Raj (supra).The appellants were ordered to be reverted to give way
to the eligible exemptees. The submission in this case was the same as in the
H case of Panjab Ministerial Qualified Assistant Association appellants. The
'~
SAROJ RANI v. STATE (MISRA, J.] 705
interim order dated 30th April, 1997 is quoted hereunder: A
"Special Leave granted.

Printing dispensed with. Issue notice in the stay application. In
the meanwhile, there shall be interim stay of the operation of the
impugned order. It is, However, clarified that neither the tendency of B
the appeal nor the interim stay granted by us today, come in the way
of those who have qualified by passing a required test to be promoted
when due."

In Sukhdev Singh Sarpa/ etc. (CA No. of 1999@ SLP (C) Nos. 376-379
of 1999) appellants are exemptees who claim in view of the Full Bench Decision C
in Surenderjit 'Singh (supra) to be promoted first on the existing vacancy
after 21st January, 1991 though were promoted after 21st January, 1995 but
were reverted in view of the interim order dated 4th December, 1995 passed
by this Court which is quoted hereunder :
"Special leave granted.
D
Printing dispensed with. Pending appeal there will be stay of the
operation of the impugned order. This will not preclude promotion to
those who have qualified by passing the required test."

The grievance is that they should not have been reverted on account
of the interim order as there was no.such direction. According to the appellants E
on 5th January, 1996, the Government issued a letter for implementation of the
interim order dated 4th December, 1995 passed by this Court but by this it
never ordered any reversion of all those employees who have already been
promoted as senior Assistant. It is significant that finally State took decision
vide Notification dated 3rd March, 1998 to abolish Assistant Grade Examination,
thus consequently issued a letter dated 9th March, 1998. On doubt being F
expressed the Government also issued a clarificatory letter dated 17th August,
1998. The case of the appellant is. that respondent itself misinterpreted the
said clarificatory letter dated 17th August, 1998, and passed reversion order
of the appellant on 26th November, 1998. It is this reversion order which is
under challenge in the writ petition of the appellants, However, the High Court G
dismissed the writ petition against which this appeal is preferred.

In the aforesaid appeals the questions raised are;

(a) Whether Rule 12 of the 1984 Rule invalid?

(b) Whether the notification/order dated 2·1st January, 1991 is valid? H
706 SUPREME COURT REPORT~ (1999] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A (c) Whether in terms of Full Bench decision in Surenderjit Singh
(supra) on the facts and circumstances of this case, are the
exemptees going to fill up to cent percent vacancies of Assistant
in case yes, is it not necessary for the State Government to come
out with some policy or guideline to redress the grievance of
those who passed the examination prior to 21st January, 1991?
B
(d) What meaning is to be given to the Full Bench decision in
Surenderjit Singh (supra) according to which the exemptees
have been placed at par with those who qualified in the
examination?

C (e) Whether a person who has passed the test in first five chances
has preference over the persons passing the test in more than
five chances?

(f) Whether exemptees who were promoted in view of Full Bench
decision in Surenderjit Singh (supra) their reversion in terms of
D the interim order passed by this Court could be held to be valid?
'
(g) Whether, the reversion of qualifiers in the examination in view
of interim order of this Court, who were pr~moted to the post
of Assistants prior to 21st January, 1991 coul~ be held to be
valid?
E Having given our consideration to the various arguments raised by
learned counsel for the parties so far the question of validity of Rule 12, viz.
Question number (a), we have perused the impugned judgment which
considered this question in depth and concluded after due consideration by
upholding its validity. It holds rightly, Rule 12 cannot be held to be without
F any guidelines or is unbridled. It hold, in effect there is in built check in the
rule itself, as before exercising the power, certain conditions have to be
fulfilled, viz. (a) State must form its opinion, (b) it pass an order in writing;
and (c) it must record its reasons in writing. We have also examined similar
submissions before us, to which we do not find any merit, and hold impugned
G order was justified in upholding the validity of Rule 12 which does not require
any interference. So far the validity of notification/order dated 2 lst January,
1991 the question numbers (b), (c) and (d) could be disposed of under one
head. Countering the submissions for the respondents learned counsel for the
appellants submits that test of validity; of this notification in the earlier Full
Bench decision was confined to the question, whether reasons were recorded
H in this order or not in terms of Rule 12. The Full Bench held that granting an
SAROJ RANI v. STATE [MISRA, J.] 707
exemption to those who completed 18 years of regular service as clerk itself A
reveals the reason, viz, their experience for working this long period. The
apart, records were placed before the Full Bench and it recorded that the
relevant record reveals, there was protracted meeting, communications between
the employees union demanding the abolition of the Assistant Grade
Examination, with the Finance Secretary and the Government after due
'consideration issued the impugned Notification dated 21st January, 1991. In B
other words reasons were there on record. Thus, the court while upholding
the order, rejected the contention that there were no reasons recorded. In this
second leg of litigation an attempt is made by various learned counsel to
challenge this order even on this ground but we feel the matter stands
concluded by the decision of Full Bench in Surenderjit Singh (supra). Hence C
for this reason and also for the reason recorded in the impugned orders we
do not feel it to be fit case to interfere on this ground. However, learned senior
counsel Mr. P.P. Rao submits with vehemence, in the present series of appeals
the invalidity of the impugned order dated 21.1.1991 is raised on the ground
which was neither raised nor was an issue earlier. Submission is, this order D
is passed even if reasons recorded, without application of mind, as its
consequential effect on the other group of qualifier in the examination or on
1984 Rules were never considered. Submission is in granting exemption to
those who completed 18 or more years in the regular service, whose number
being very large and promotion being on seniority-cum-merit, the exemptees
inevitably being senior, chances of promotion to this other group is completely E
eliminated. Promotion to this group can only be when eligible candidates in
the exemption group is exhausted. Thus, practically in spite of qualifying and
being eligible they will never be promoted hence the very base of 1984 Rules
to give incentive to the qualifiers is eroded. Such exercise of power of
granting exemption cannot be exercised to eliminate the other group or to p
invalidate any rule. In any case at least there should have been some guideline
or such policy to project the interest of this other group. This order dated
21.1.1991 makes Rule 4 and the policy behind 1984 Rule redundant.

This submission which goes to the root and effect clerks of the State
employees all over the State and were not raised in the first leg of litigation G
and on the facts and circumstances of this case, we proceed to consider this
to bring to an end, as far as possible this long drawn litigation.

However, unfortunately we find in the present case the appellants have
not given any details except the figures which we have recorded above with H
708 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A respect to the Irrigation Department and there are some figures given by the
interveners in their application. The contention for the appellants is, since the
State has not chosen either to give any figures or even to file counter affidavit
before the High Court in the appellants' writ petition, out of which arises the
aforesaid appeal of Saroj Rani and others, hence th~ averrnents and ground
B raised in the writ petitions should be accepted. Contention is, there is specific
plea and ground that the resultant effect of the impugned Notification dated
21st January, 1991makes1984 Rules redundant. Since this issue touches the
very foundation effecting large number of employees, we thought it proper
in the larger public interest, to grant opportunity to the State to bring correct
facts •and figures on record and also to place State stand in this regard.
C . Accordingly, learned counsel appearing for the State of Panjab took time to
place on affidavit the relevant facts and figures and the stand of the State.
One affidavit dated 3rd August, 1999 has been filed before us by the State,
sworn by Shri Megh Raj, joint Secretary to the Government Department of
Personnel. About this and question Nos. (b), (c) and (d), we shall be dealing
D in the later part of our judgment.

So far the question No. (e) regarding the preference inter se between
the candidates who passed the test within first five chances and the other
who passed in more than five chances. We find the reasons given by the High
Court in the impugned judgements including the Full Bench, Baldev Raj
E (supra) to be well considered, which does not call for any interference. It is
not in dispute, the promotion to the post of Assistant from amongst the
eligible candidate is seniority-cum-merit. Eligible candidate in this context
means all those who passed the examination in less than or more than five
chances. They constitute as one group. There is no division among the
p qualifiers either under the rules or any order. This one cohesive group has
to wait for promotion till vacancy arises. The promotion from among these
eligible candidates, when principle of seniority, cum-merit is to be applied,
there cannot be any preference inter se among the said two groups. Thus
impugned order has rightly concluded, no preference can be given to those
who has qualified in first five chances over those who qualified in more than
G five chances.

In the appeal of Punjab Ministerial Qualified Assistant (C.A. No. 33 16/
97) the question raised is regarding inter se seniority for promotion between
those who passed examination in five chances and another in more than five
H chances. In view of our finding recorded above we conclude, the decision of
SAROJ RANI v. STATE [MISRA, J.] 709
the High Court holding both the said class at par, is just and proper, which A
does not call for any interference. The appellants in these appeals are all
those who qualified and became eligible for promotion prior to 21st January,
1991 but in the absence of vacancies existing they were only promoted after
this date. However, their right as against the exemptees would depend on our
decision of questions No. (b) to (d) which we would be dealing later as B
aforesaid.

It is also relevant to refer that the aforesaid Full Bench, though upheld
the validity of the notification/order dated 2 Ist January 1991, but held it to
be not retrospective in operation. This part of the order is not under challenge.
The result is, it comes into operation only from 21.1.1991. Thus to any C
vacancy filled up prior to the said date, there could possibly be no dispute
even as against the exemptees, as their right could only be on the vacancies
occurring on or after 21.1.1991. Hence so far the appellants, viz., the qualifiers
in the examination in Ravi Lamba and others (C.A. No. 3315/97) who were
admittedly promoted prior to this date, their promotion would not be affected D
and so cannot be held to be illegal. So we hold these promotions to be valid.
Thus the cancellation of their promotion and reversion by the respondent
cannot be upheld. The stand that they were reverted because of the said
interim order passed by this Court cannot be accepted. Firstly, there was no
such direction by this Court to revert them, secondly, when the said Full
Bench held the order dated 21.1.1991 not to be retrospective these appellants E
whose promotions were earlier to this date are placed outside the disputed
area.

So far question number (/) which is in issue in the appeal of Sukhdev
Singh Sarpal (CA No. of .1999)@ SLP (C) Nos. 376-379 which relates to F
exemptees, who were promoted after the Full Bench decision of Surenderjit
Singh (supra) oil or after 21st January, 1995 but were reverted in view of the
interim order passed by this Court. They challenged the reversion order. The
High Court neither scrutinise nor adjudicate this question raised, which it
should have. It only observed that the appellant may seek their remedy from
this Court as reversion was based on the interim order passed by this Court. G
We do not find anything in the interim order of this Court which directed their
reversion. This Court merely stayed the impugned order pending appeal.
However, since the matter is before us, so far the claims of exemptees, we
have no hesitation to hold, if exemptees are grouped with other group of
qualifiers, the promotion of the exemptees invariably has to be first because H
710 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999) SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A of their seniority on the principle of seniority-cum-merit, for a vacancy occurring
on or after 21.1.1991. Thus their reversion prima facie cannot be upheld. This
of course is also subject to our decision on questions (b), (c) and (d). Similarly
in the appeal of Dhanna Singh (C.A. No. 11661/95) the question raised is the
same as in the case of Saro} Rani and others.

B This takes us to the remaining questions, viz. (b). (c) and (d). This is
the main thrust of submission which has been strenuously contended before
us by the various learned counsel for the appellants. It is for this, we directed
the State Government to file an affidavit. The questions (b), (c) and (d) are
inter linked, hence we are considering and adjudicating them under one head.
C The question raised under this head is truly the validity of Notification dated
21.1.1991, specially on account of the resultant aftermath of the decision i!l
the Full Bench in Surenderjit Singh (supra). One of the question raised is, if
on account of this exemption notification, all vacancies after 21. l. i 991 are
going to be filled only be the exemptees , does it not make Rule 8 redundant
and if so then whether this notification is liable to be struck down, specially
D in the absence of any guideline or policy of the State to salvage this situation.
The submission is that this notification could only be saved if State either
has provided or is ready to provide respite to the qualifiers in the examination,
by reopening the door of their promotion by dividing the quota inter se
between the exemptees and qualifiers in some reasonable ratio. Further they
E submit, what meaning is to be given to the finding of the Full Bench that both
exemptees and the qualifiers in the examination will be at par. Does at par
mean exclude the qualifiers to give way only to the exemptees?

So far this last point which is under head (d) i.e., what meaning to be
given when court said, place exemptees and qualifiers in the examination at
F par. In our considered opinion, it only means, the qualifiers at the examination
and exemptees would form one coherent class as eligible for promotion to be
considered when any vacancy arises, on the basis of the principle of seniority-
cum-merit. In other words there would be no preference to those who have
qualified or become eligible earlier. Ali would be at par. Thus there· cannot be
G any distinction or preference inter se between them. Next to test the validity
of this impugned notification, its consequential effect is to be examined on
the facts of this case, for which we gave opportunity to the State to place
them on record. So, answer to question Nos. (b) and (c) would depend on
the analysis of facts placed by the State. The case for the appellants is, by
the grant of exemption, all vacancies pccurring from 2 l. l_.1991. until March
H 1998, when this aforesaid rule was withdrawn, would go to the exemptees
SAROJ RANI v. STATE [MISRA, J.] 711

alone, filtering out the qualifiers in the examination for all times. It is on this A
premise it is submitted that it makes Rule 4 redundant.

Prima fade after hearing learned counsels for the parties, we felt impressed
by this submission. It is also settled, an exception to the rule cannot efface
the rule itself, similarly exemption clause in a rule cannot obliterate the very B
rule itself. When a clause exempts a class or category of person from application
of any rule, the exemption itself denotes it to be of persons· in a small circle
out of the bigger circle. But can it be said that exemption can destroy the
bigger circle from which it owes his own existence. Now we proceed to test
this submission, whether it is true or not that the exemptees will occupy
almost cent per cent vacancies and in case yes, whether there is any Government C
guideline or if not whether State feels to consider to lay down some principle
or guideline to save from this attack of the validity of the said notification.

The State has filed its affidavit dated 3rd August, 1999 as aforesaid, We
have gone through the sar:ne and also its annexure. Its annexure gives clear D
picture of the number of employees who have completed 18 years of service,
number of employees who have qualified in the examination the total number
of vacancies to be filled from 21.1.199 l to 3.3 .1998 in the various departments
of the State Government. The States affidavit also gives its own conclusion
in this regard. Relevant portion of the affidavit is quoted hereunder:
E
"From the information received from various Heads of Departments in
the State of Panjab transpires that in most of the cases, the number
of exemptees .... were in excess as compared to the number of qualified
persons/vacancies available ...... had the promotions of exemptees not
been stayed, the net effect of the exemptions order on promotions.... F
between 21.1.1991 and 3.3.1998 would have been that the maximum
number of vacancies (except in a few Departments) which became
available during the aforesaid period, would have gone to the
exemptees."

We ourselves scrutinised the details given in the annexure, we find G
barring very few departments, almost in every department, the exemptees
number is far more than the vacancies during the said period. The annexure
also reveals during 21. Ll 991 to 3.3.1998 total number of exemptees are 7609
(Seven thousand six hundred and nine) and total number of vacancies available
for promotion is only 3328 (Three thousand three hundred and twenty eight). H
712 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A In this figure. the affidavi~ almost admits that qualifiers in the examination
would have no chance or very remote chance in only few departments for
promotion. In other words, the sphere of exemption destroys the qualifiers of
any chance to be promoted.

When this situation emerged, we asked learned counsel for the State as
B to what would be the State stand which has not been stated in this affidavit.
For this, he sought further time to seek instructions from the State. On the
other hand both learned counsels for exemptees and qualifiers fairly proposed
and were agreeable for fixing the quota between exemptees and qualifiers in
the ratio of 70% and 30% based on the approximate number of exemptees who
C were eligible for promotion and the approximate number of qualified persons
who were eligible for promotion during the period 21.1.1991 to 3.3.1998. This
would not only save the impugned Notification dated 21.1.1991 but will bring
peace and amity to the concerned employees of the State. So we, without
expressing any final opinion on the point in issue, adjourned this case for the
D State counsel to obtain the instruction. Subsequently, learned State counsel
made the following statement based on the instruction.

"If the exemptees and those who have passed the qualifying
examination come to an agreement for a proportionate sharing of
vacancies for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant in the ratio
E of 70 per cent for the exemptees and 30 per cent for the qualifying
candidate for every year with effect from 21st January 1991, the State.
will not come in the way of such Settlement, if it receives the approval
of the Court."

F As recorded earlier, which is reiterated again by the learned counsels
appearing for all the parties, viz., exemptees and qualifiers that they are
agreeable of this ratio of 70 per cent and 30 per cent for their promotion. It
was expected from the State to have come out with its own clear policy
decision as the present piquant situation is its own creation. First it decided
to promote the incumbents only on the principle of seniority cum merit, then
G brought in 1984 Rules to promote only through examination who passes it and
next by granting exemption to a class of employees, creating two channels
for promotion which is subject matter of consideration and finally even
dissolving this by withdrawing the Rule of promotion through examination.
Of course, it is within the legitimate jurisdiction of the State to decide as
H policy on any situation emerging from time to time. But it is always better for
SAROJ RANI v. STATE [MISRA, J.] 713
the State to consider all pros and cons affecting the interest of all before A
laying down any policy. A short sighted policy or a policy without proper
application of mind, brings parties in the litigating fray. However fortunately,
in view of understanding reached between all interested contesting parties, .
the State has also agreed in this situation to accept and honour this consensus,
which brings the curtain down of long two rounds of litigation. We commend B
the spirit shown by all the concerned employees. It is this spirit of give and
take which not only creates good congenial atmosphere in the working field
but also curtails long unfortunate innings in the courts of law.

For the aforesaid reasons emerging from the facts and circumstances of
this case we issue the following directions : C
{l) All vacancies on the post of Assistants/Senior Assistants prior
to 21st January, 1991 are to be filled up by those who qualified
by passing the examination and exemptees would have no claim
on such vacancies.
D
(2) All vacancies after 2lsfJanuary, 1991 shall be filled in the ratio
of 70 per cent and 30 per cent between exemptees and qualifiers
in the examination, respectively, for each year in question till all
the existing qualifiers are absorbed.
(3) All promotions or reversions made has to be readjusted within E
the aforesaid frame work, irrespective of any interim orders th~n
in force.
(4) Any incumbent who worked on the post of Assistant/Senior
Assistant on account of promotion orders and in case they have
to be reverted or have been reverted, any salary or consequential F
amount paid to such employees for working on the post of
Assistant/Senior Assistant shall not be taken back from them.
Similarly, if any employee gets promotion to the post of Assistant/
Senior Assistant from an earlier date, he/she will not be entitled
to any arrears of salary.
G
(5) State shall complete this exercise of promotion on the above said
formula on or before the 31 December, 1999; till then the existing
arrangement shall continue.
(6) So far two appellants in the appeal of Ravi Lamba, since they
were promoted prior to 21st January 1991, for which there is no H
714 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999) SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A dispute and their reversion order being held illegal, they may be
promoted forthwith and they may not be asked to wait for the
final exercise of promotion in all other cases.

In view of our aforesaid findings we dispose of the aforesaid appeals
in terms of the said directions. Cost on the parties.
B
B.K.M. Appeals disposed of.

<

-

..