Holding

The provision of consequential seniority under Article 16(4A) introduced by the 85th Amendment is effective only from 17 June 1995 and does not apply retrospectively to promotions made in 1985, so the appellant is not entitled to seniority.

Summary

Shiv Nath Prasad, a Scheduled Caste candidate, was appointed Assistant Engineer in Madhya Pradesh and promoted to Executive Engineer in 1980 against a reserved post. General‑category engineers, senior to him in the feeder cadre, were promoted to the same post in 1985. The State Administrative Tribunal and the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the general‑category officers were entitled to seniority for subsequent promotions. Prasad appealed, contending that the 77th and 85th constitutional amendments (Article 16(4A)) introduced reservation in promotion with consequential seniority, thereby granting him seniority. The Supreme Court observed that the 85th amendment, which created consequential seniority, became effective only from 17 June 1995 and was not retrospective to the 1985 promotions. Consequently, the earlier 1975 government circular, which denied seniority to roster‑point promotees, applied, and the High Court’s decision was affirmed.

Issues considered

Whether general‑category candidates are entitled to higher seniority in the Executive Engineer cadre despite being senior in the feeder cadre.
Whether reserved‑category candidates promoted against a quota acquire seniority over general‑category candidates based on length of service in the promoted post.
Whether the 77th and 85th constitutional amendments (Article 16(4A)) are retrospective to promotions made before 17 June 1995 and thus applicable to the present case.
Whether the Madhya Pradesh Lok Seva (Anusuchit Jatiyon…) Acts of 1994 and 2002 provide for consequential seniority to roster‑point promotees.

Legislation cited

Subjects

Reservation in promotionConsequential seniorityArticle 16(4A)Seniorities in public serviceMadhya Pradesh service lawRoster‑point promotionConstitutional amendment retrospective effectScheduled Caste

Judgment

[2008] 1 S. C.R. 530

A SHIV NATH PRASAD
V.
SARAN PAL JEET SINGH TULSI & ORS.
(C.A. Nos. 1078-1081 of 2005)
JANUARY 10, 2008
B
(A.K. MATHUR AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ.)

Constitution of India, 1950:
'"
Article 16(4-A) - Provision for reservation in matters of
c promotion with consequential seniority - HELD: would, as per
85th amendment, be effective w.e.f. 17.6.1995 i.e. date from
which 77th amendment came into force - On facts, since
seniority would be determined as per relevant rules or
Government circulars as applicable in the year 1985 and at
D that time there being no provision for consequential seniority
in such matters, incumbent was not entitled to seniority on
)-
account of his accelerated promotion against reserved quota
- Madhya ,Pradesh Lok Seva (Anusuchit Jatiyon, Anusuchit ~ ....
Jan Jatiyon Aur Anya Pichhade Vargon Ke Liye Arakshan)
E Adhiniyam, 1994 - Madhya Pradesh Lok Seva (Anusuchit
Jatiyon, · Anusuchit Jan Jatiyon Aur Anya Pichhade Vargon Ke
Liye Arakshan) Sansodhan Adhiniyam, 2002 - M.P Civil
Service (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961.
The appellant was selected as Assistant Engineer in
F the Madhya Pradesh Public Works Department through 1'
the State Public Service Commission under the quota •
reserved for the Scheduled Castes. In the gradation list
dated 1.4.1982 the reserved category candidates were
shown below those of the general category. The appellant
G was promoted as Executive Engineer against the
reserved post in the year 1980, whereas the respondents,
though senior to the appellant, were promoted in the
general quota in the year 1985. In the provisional gradation
list published in the year 1991 the appellant and a few
H 530
SHIV NATH PRASAD v. SARAN PAL JEET SINGH 531

... TULSI & ORS .

other candidates promoted as Executive Engineer agaim~t A
the reserved posts were shown senior to the general
category candidates who were senior as per the gradation
list of 1982 but promoted later to the post of Executive
Engineer in the general quota. This was challenged before
the State Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal directed 8
that all the Executive Engineers promoted as such in the
~- general quota and senior to the appellant Scheduled
Caste candidate, be considered for promotion to the post
of Superintending Engineer; and, consequently, to further
promotion as Chief Engineer from the date prior to the c
date on which the appellant was promoted. The High
Court declined to interfere.
In the instant attpeal, it was contended for the
appellant-reserved ca gory candidate, that in view of the
17th and 85th amendments in the form of Article 16(4-A) D
i of the Constitution, incorporating the concept of
.>. ~ consequential seniority to the candidates promoted
against the reserved quota, the law laid down in Ajit Singh-
I* and Ajit Singh-II** lost its basis and, therefore, the same
was no more applicable. E
Dismissing the appeals, the Court

"" HELD: 1.1 The 17th amendment in the Constitution
was inserted by Article 16 (4A) with effect from 17.6.1995
-+ enabling the State to make provision for reservation in F
,
• the services under the State in favour of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes in matter of promotion
which was not there prior to the amendment, but it did
not provide any benefit of seniority. Therefore, again Article
16 (4A) was amended by the Constitution (85th
G
Amendment) Act, 2001 with effect from 17 .6.1995
providing 'consequential seniority' as a result of which
the candidates who have been given promotion against
reserved category could possibly claim consequential
seniority. In fact, both these amendments in Article 16 (4A)
H
532 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 1 S.C.R.

A facilitated the rules to be framed by the State to provide ~

reservation in promotion and consequential seniority with
effect from 17.6.1995. [para 7] [540-C, D, E]
1.2 Earlier the Madhya Pradesh Lok Seva (Anusuchit
Jatiyon, Anusuchit Jan Jatiyon Aur Anya Pichhade Vargon
B Ke Liye Arakshan) Adhiniyam, 1994 was in force
whereunder it was only provided that the State
Government could by notification, provide roster-point -1
promotion to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
in the services. But, in pursuance of the 77th and 85th
c constitutional amendment, the Madhya Pradesh Lok Seva
(Anusuchit Jatiyon, Anusuchit Jan Jatiyon Aur Anya
Pichhade Vargon Ke Liye Arakshan) Sanshodhan
Adhiniyam, 2002 was framed which came into force by
the notification issued on 13.5.2ot2 extending the benefit
D to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribe
candidates, who got promotion against the reserved post.
[para 8] (541-D, E, F, G]
..
,.. ....
1.3 However, in the instant case, the controversy
dates back to 1985 when the general quota candidates
E were promoted on the post of Executive Engineer and
the appellant respondent was promoted in 1980. At that
time, the circular of the Government of 1975 was in force
and as per that circular, the incumbent was not entitled to
the seniority on account of his accelerated promotion
F against the reserved quota. Neither the 77th nor the 85th t

constitutional amendment was made retrospective from •
1985. The 85th amendment has been made retrospective
with effect from 17.6.1995 only. Therefore, the view taken
by the Division Bench of the High Court is correct and no
G interference is warranted. [para 9] [542-C, D, E]
*Ajit Singh Juneja and others vs. State of Punjab and y
others 1996(2) SCR 125= (1996) 2 sec 715; **Ajit Singh and
others vs. State of Punjab and others 1999(2) Supp. SCR
521 =(1999) 7 sec 209 - relied on.
H
SHIV NATH PRASAD v. SARAN PAL JEET SINGH 533
__,
TULSI & ORS. [A.K. MATHUR, J.]
Iii; _._
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. A
1078-1081 of 2005.
From the final Judgment and Order dated 15.5.2003 of
the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Civil Writ
Petition No. 5634of1999 and Writ Petition Nos. 2006, 1596 &
B
1597 of 2000.
Ill- Dr. Krishan Singh Chauhan, Gyan Mitra, Chand Kiran, K.C.
Lamba and Ramesh Kumar for the Appellant.

P.P. Rao, S.K. Dubey, Pradipti Shrivastava, Miten
Mahapatra, Prakash Shrivastava, M.P. Singh and B.S. Banthia c
for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
A.K. MATHUR, J. 1. These appeals are directed against
the order dated 15th may 2003 passed by the Division Bench D
--1.
.,. of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No. 5634 of
> 1999, whereby Shiv Nath Prasad, appellant (herein) challenged
the order passed by the State Administrative Tribunal challenging
the promotion of petitioner/appellant before us and private

•
,,
respondents who belong to non-scheduled caste. The case of
the appellant (herein) was that he was appointed as Assistant
Engineer in the Public Works Department after selection through
E

' Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission. Petitioner/
'
Appellant (Scheduled Caste) alongwith other Schedule Caste
-.. and other private respondents (non-SC) were selected and F
,J
appointed as Assistant Engineers on the basis of Civil Services
Examination conducted by the Madhya Pradesh Public Service
Commission. The names of scheduled caste candidates
appeared at S.Nos. 23, 24 and 25 below the name of the
respondent Saran Pal Jeet Singh Tulsi (herein). After their
G
-y appointment, they joined the duties on the post of Assistant
Engineer on different dates in the year 1972. The names of the
petitioner/appellant and other scheduled caste candidates were
shown in the select list prepared by the Public Service
Commission in lower position and their seniority was also drawn
H
534 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 1 S.C.R.

A on the post of Assistant Engineer in the order mentioned in the
select list. In the gradation list, issued for the post of Assistant
.. -~

Engineer as on 1.4.1982, the names of the petitioner/appellant
and other scheduled caste candidates duly selected appeared
at S. Nos 187, 189 and 190, while the name of the respondent
B no. 1 (herein) and others appeared between S.Nos 168-186.
Therefore, admittedly, the respondents, (herein) were senior to
the petitioner/appellant. Thereafter, the petitioner/appellant was \0
promoted to the post of the Executive Engineer in July, 1980
against the reserved post of the Executive Engineer, whereas,
c other private respondents (non-scheduled caste candidates)
were not considered for promotion on account of non-availability
of post in general category. But, they were considered and
appointed on the post of Executive Engineer in the year 1985,
i.e. much after the promotions of the scheduled caste candidates
including that of petitioner/appellant before us. A provisional
D
gradation list was issued and published on 18.6.1991 and
objections were invited and that list was finalized on 8.10.1991.
In this gradation list, the candidates who were appointed against
the scheduled caste vacancies were shown above the other
private respondents who were appointed against the general
E quota. Persons who were promoted against the reserved
~
.,.
-
category were placed low in the merit prepared by the Public •
Service Commission, but shown as senior, on account of their ..
earlier promotion on the post of Executive Engineer against
reserved category, and thereby l:iaving march over the persons ,_
F of the general quota, who were promoted later than these ~

candidates, i.e. scheduled castes/scheduled tribes. This list was
challenged before Tribunal and a prayer was made that they be
placed above the scheduled caste candidates, because they
were not superseded by the scheduled caste candidates but
G on account of non-availability of post under general quota, they
could not be promoted. Therefore, there is no case of
supersession and as such, the seniority position of the Assistant
Engineers, prepared on the basis of the merit list of the Public
Service Commission should be followed and they be made
H senior to the persons, who were appointed against the
SHIV NATH PRASAD v. SARAN PAL JEET SINGH 535
TULSI & ORS. [A.K. MATHUR, J.]

scheduled caste quota. It was also contended before the Tribunal A
that on account of General Administration Department circulars
dated 2.5.1975 and 17.5.1975 and as per the provisions of the
M.P. Civil Service (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961
(hereinafter referred to Rules of 1961), they are entitled to be
placed higher in the seniority list of Executive Engineer, though B
they might have been promoted later. This petition was opposed
before Tribunal by private respondents (Scheduled Caste
candidates), as well as by the State. The claim of the petitioner
was denied before Tribunal and according to the return filed by
the private respondents, it was claimed that since the private c
respondents, i.e., scheduled caste candidates were promoted
on recommendation of DPC in different years, therefore, by
virtue of their date of appointment, they became senior to the
person from general quota and as such they are entitled to higher
seniority. The objection of limitation was also raised. The
D
objection of limitation was overruled by Tribunal and Tribunal

• ..
-.J. allowed the application of those applicants and directed to
consider all the petitioners before Tribunal and other persons
similarly selected against general quota, for promotion to the
post of Superintending Engineer from the date prior to the date
on which private respondent no. 2 (petitioner/appellant) was E
promoted by calling a Review Departmental Promotion
Committee and consequently, all benefits to be given to them, if
they were found suitable including for the post of the Chief
-,i. Engineer and if it would become necessary to revert the private
respondent no. 2 (petitioner/appellant) from the post of Chief F
~

Engineer for want of the post, such order shall be made within
two months, however, no arrears shall be paid. Aggrieved
against this order of Tribunal, the present writ petition was filed
by the petitioner/appellant challenging the order of the Tribunal.
G
2. The contention raised before the High Court was that
''(
since the appellant (herein) was promoted to the post of
Executive Engineer earlier than to the respondent (herein) and
thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Superintending
Engineer and the respondent (herein) was promoted to the post
H
536 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 1 S.C.R.

A of Superintending Engineer later, therefore, he cannot be
equated with the petitioner as such order of Tribunal is not
sustainable. He also claimed seniority over the respondent
(herein), because the petitioner/appellant was promoted to the
post of Executive Engineer much earlier than him. He claimed
8 seniority in the cadre of Executive Engineer on account of longer
length of officiation. Therefore, the challenge of the respondent
(herein) before the Tribunal, claiming seniority over and above
him on the post of Execu~ive Engineer was not sustainable and
in that connection, the case of Akhil Bhartiya Soshit Karamchari
c Sangh was relied (AIR 1996 sec 3534). As against this, it was
contended on behalf of respondent (herein) that since the
respondent was placed higher in the seniority in the post of
Assistant Engineer, i.e. the feeder cadre on the basis of the
selection made by the Public Service Commission, therefore,
he will carry his seniority on promotion to the post of Executive
D
Engineer and that seniority cannot be disturbed, simply because
the petitioner got the promotion on the post of Executive
Engineer earlier than the petitioner on account of the reserved ..• "'
post being available, the basic seniority cannot be disturbed
and in that connection, reliance was placed in the case of Ajit
E Singh Juneja and others vs. State of Punjab and others (1996)
2 sec 715 and Ajit Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and
others (1999) 7 sec 209. It was contended on behalf of the
State that on account of the amendment in the Article 16 (4A) in
the Constitution, the law laid down in the case of Ajit Singh I
F and Ajit Singh /!(Supra) lost their basis and, therefore, they are ,-
not applicable. It was also contended by the State that since ~

they were promoted against the reserved category on the post
of Executive Engineer by five years earlier than the general quota
candidates, therefore, they would carry their seniority in the cadre
G of the Executive Engineer from their date of promotion. It was
also contended that subsequently, candidates from reserved '(
category including petitioner/appellant was promoted to the post
of Superintending Engineer on 7.4.1993, while general category
persons as Superintending Engineer on 8.6.1995. In this
H background, the High Court framed two questions which reads
SHIV NATH PRASAD v. SARAN PAL JEET SINGH 537
TULSI & ORS. [AK. MATHUR, J.]
...i- A
• as under:
"1. Whether the general category candidates are entitled
to higher seniority in the promotional cadre of. Executive
Engineer as they were senior in the feeder cadre of
Assistant Engineer irrespective of their date of promotion?
B
2. Whether the reserved category candidates should be
'i-
held to be senior to that of general category candidates
on account of their length of seniority in the cadre of
Executive Engineer from the date of their actual officiation
based on their regular promotion to this post?" c
3. The recruitment to the promotions within the service are
governed by the provisions of the M. P. Public Works Department
Engineering ,
(Gazzetted Service Recruitment) Rules 1969 '
(hereinafter referred to Rules of 1969). The promotion to the
post of Executive Engineer, as per these rules is hundred per D
cent from the post of Assistant Engineer. Therefore, the feeder
...J.. cadre for the post Executive Engineer is Assistant Engineer.
,' I .
The selection is required to be made on the basis of merit-cum-
suitability. It further contemplates that a person with exceptional
merit and suitability can be recommended by the Departmental E
Promotion Committee for promotion to the post of Executive
Engineer and that list is to be sent to the Public Service
Commission for approval and, thereafter, the Government makes
appointment on the recommendation so made by the
--!· Departmental Promotion Committee. Therefore, the feeder F
)< cadre for promotion is the Assistant Engineer on the basis of
seniority list so prepared. But the rules did not provide that in
case the promotion is made against the scheduled caste
vacancy, then how seniority will be assigned. In order to fill up
this gap, Executive Memoranda were issued by the State G
Government on 2.5.1975 and 17.5.1975, which provide for
-y· reservation in promotion as well as provisions made for fixation
of inter-se seniority between those who were promoted against
reserved quota on the basis of roster-point. Para 3(3) of the
Memorandum contemplated that though the persons may have
H
538 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 1 S.C.R.

~
A been promoted against reserved category but their inter-se 4

seniority between the general category candidates and the
reserved category candidates so promoted shall be maintained
as was in the feeder cadre from which they were promoted. In
the present case, the appellant (herein) was not selected on
B account of exceptional merit, but on account of the post being
available against the roster-point, scheduled caste category.
Therefore, his promotion was on account of the reserved quota
and as such he will carry his seniority as was in the feeder post,
i.e., Assistant Engineer. Sub-para 3 of para 3 of the above said
c memorandum, which is reproduced, reads as under:
"All the persons selected in the promoted post including
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe persons, their inter-
se seniority will be determined according to their seniority
in the post from which they have been promoted. But if any
D person has been placed above the persons so promoted
on the basis of his special qualification, his seniority in the
promoted post will be fixed according to his seniority."
),,..
• j ,,
4. Therefore, in this background it was held that the
petitioner/appellant will carry his seniority as was given in the
E
feeder post and he cannot have a march on account of his earlier
promotion against the reserved category. The Division Bench
of the High Court relied on the decision of this Court in the case
of Ajit Singh I and Ajit Singh II (Supra). In this background, High
Court confirmed the order of the Tribunal and dismissed the
F writ petition of appellant aggrieved by this order of the Division
,.
Bench of High Court dated 15.5.2003, the present appeal was "
filed.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that since
the petitioner/appellant was promoted on the post of Executive
G
Engineer in 1980 and respondents were promoted in 1985,
therefore, petitioner/appellant had already had a march over -y

the respondent and he also submitted that by virtue of the 77th
and 85 1h constitutional amendment of Article 16 (4A), the
promotion of these persons shall be deemed to be validly made,
H
SHIV NATH PRASAD v. SARAN PAL JEET SINGH 539
TULSI & ORS. [A.K. MATHUR, J.]

therefore, the petitioners are entitled to that higher seniority and A
consequential benefit of earlier promotion to the post of
Executive Engineer, Superintending Engineer and likewise to
the post of Chief Engineer. It was submitted that this was a
constitutional mandate and Court cannot ignore the
constitutional mandate. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted B
that the view taken by the High Court cannot be sustained. He
also submitted that the ratio laid down in the case of Ajit Singh
I and Ajit Singh II (Supra) does not hold good anymore in view
of the 77th and 851h constitutional amendment and that shall
deem to be come into force retrospectively. Consequently, all c
the benefit given by the petitioner is correct. As against this, the
learned counsel for the respondent strenuously urged before us
that the constitutional amendments i.e. 77th and a5th were
retrospective with effect from 17.6.1995 and it cannot go beyond
that. Therefore, present case has to be decided on the basis of
0
legal position obtaining at the relevant time. The retrospectivity
cannot be given to constitutional mandate beyond what
t •
Parliament has already given.
6. Before we proceed to consider the rival submissions, it
would be appropriate to reproduce both the 77th and a5th E
constitutional amendments. The 77th amendment in the
Constitution was inserted by Article 16 (4A) with effect from
17 .6.1995 enabling State Government to make provision for
reservation in State services in favour of scheduled castes and
-J.
I scheduled tribes in matter of promotion which was not there F
prior to this amendment, but it did not provide any benefit of
seniority. Therefore again Article 16 (4A) was amended by the
Constitution (85 1h Amendment) Act, 2001 with effect from
17.6.1995 providing 'consequential seniority'. Both
amendments reads as under:
G
"(4A) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from
making any provision for reservation in matters of
promotion of any class or classes of posts in the services
under the State in favour of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes which in the opinion of the State are not H
540 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 1 S.C.R.

A adequately represented in the services under the State."
11
(4A) Nothing In this article shall prevent the State
from making any provision for 'reservation In matters
of promotion, with consequential seniority, to any
class' or classes of posts In the services under the
B State In favour of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes which In the opinion of the State
are not adequately represented In the services under
the State."
c 7. As a result of this subsequent amendment which came
into force by the Constitution (851h Amendment) Act, 2001 with
effect from 17 .6.1995, the candidates who have been given
promotion against reserved category could possibly claim a
consequential seniority. In fact, both these amendments in Article
D 16 (4A) facilitated the rules to be framed by the State
Government. Prior to this, the State Government had issued only
executive instructions to cover this omission. This constitutional
.'
mandate came to the rescue of the State so as to enable the
State to provide reservation in promotion and consequential
seniority with effect from 17.6.1995. In fact, these two
E amendments necessitated because of the decision given In the
Ajit Singh II vs. State of Punjab wherein their Lordships observed
as under:
"The roster-point promotees (reserved category) cannot,
F therefore, count their seniority In the promoted category
from the date of their continuous officiation In the promoted
post vis-a-vis the general candidates who were senior to
them In the lower category and who were later promoted.
On the other hand, the senior general candidate at the
G lower level, If he reaches the promotional level later but
before the further promotion of the reserved candidate, he
will have to be treated as senior, at the promotional level,
to the reserved candidate even If the reserved candidate
was earlier promoted to that level. Vlrpal and Ajlt Singh
have been correctly decided and Jagdlsh Lal la not
H
SHIV NATH PRASAD v. SARAN PAL JEET SINGH 541
TULSI & ORS. [A.K. MATHUR, J.]
-lr·
corr~ctly decided. In Jagdish Lal the seniority rule which A
referred to continuous officiation and which applied to
promotions made after providing equal opportunity as per
rules was delinked from the promotion rule and applied to
roster promotees, which was the main reason for arriving
, at a different result." B
8. In fact, by virtue of this ratio laid down the Constitution
'f Bench, .a5th Amendment was necessitated which came by the
Amendment Act of 2001 and it was made retrospective with
effect from 17:6.1995. In case of Ajit Singh 11, all earlier cases
were considered by this Court, therefore, no useful purpose will c
be served by referring to all the decisions referred by learned
,counsei'for the petitioner. After the 95th amendment, the position
· has now been crystallized and the State Government also framed
consequently, Rules of 2002, known as Madhya Pradesh Public
.·Service Commission (Services Promotion Rules 2002). Prior D
---( to that the State Government had already framed the Act known
f ' as Madhya Pradesh Lok Sava (Anusuchit Jatiyon, Anusuchit
Jan Jatlyon Aur Anya Pichhade Vargon Ke Llye Arakshan)
Adhlniyam, 1994. By this Act, the Government only provided
that State Government can by notification, provide roster-point E
promotion to the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes in the
services. This Act came In 1994, but there was no consequential
provision for providing the seniority, therefore, they further framed
the rules, known as Madhya Pradesh Lok Sava (Anusuchlt
-.f· Jatlyon, Anusuchlt Jan Jatlyon Aur Anya Plchhade Vargon Ke
;. F
Llye Arakshan) Sanshodhan Adhlnlyam, 2002, and this came
Into force by the notification Issued on 13.5.2002 by the State
Government. By amending Act of 1994, sub-Section 5-A was
Inserted In Section 5 of the main act of 1994 enabling the State
Government to provide for consequential seniority In favour of G
.,.. scheduled castes and scheduled tribes by framing the rules or
by Issuing Instructions and thereafter, consequently, Madhya
Pradesh Public Services (Promotion) Rules, 2002 was framed
enabling the benefit to scheduled castes and scheduled tribe
candidates, who got promotion against the reserved post.
H
542 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 1 S.C.R.

A Therefore, now, by virtue of the 7?1h and 85 1h constitutional
amendment and consequential Act and rules framed by the State
of Madhya Pradesh, it is possible to prc,vide a proper seniority
to the persons who have been promoted against scheduled
caste and scheduled tribe quota- a seniority as a result of their
B appointment against reserved post of scheduled caste or
scheduled tribe. But, this has all come into force from 2002 only.
9. But in the present case, the issue triggered in the year .;r

1985 and these rules at that time were not in force. Neither the
constitutional amendments had come into force nor were the
c rules. Neither the 77th constitutional amendment nor the 851h
constitutional amendment had been made retrospective from
1985. It has been made retrospective with effect from 17 .6.1995
only. The controversy dates back to 1985 when the general
quota candidates were promoted in 1985 on the post of
D Executive Engineer and the appellant respondent was promoted
in 1980. At that time, the circular of the Government of 1975
~
was in force and as per that circular of the Government,
• <
incumbent was not entitled to the seniority on account of his
accelerated promotion against the reserved quota, as per the
E circular of 1975 as quoted above, he was only entitled to the
accelerated promotion but not the seniority; therefore, in this
view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the view taken by
the Division Bench of High Court is correct and no interference
is warranted in the present case. Consequently, all the appeals
F are dismissed. No order as to costs. -~

R.P. Appeals dismissed. ...