Holding

Seniority and prospectivity of reserved and general candidates must be fixed in accordance with Ajit Singh II, applying the cut‑off dates therein, with promotions before 1 March 1996 remaining valid and no contempt found.

Summary

The case concerned seniority disputes between reserved‑category candidates promoted by roster and general‑category candidates in the Haryana civil services. The appellants, who were reserved candidates, claimed that circulars issued by the Haryana Government (9‑Feb‑1979 and 10‑Jan‑1997) correctly excluded their seniority at the roster point, while the respondents argued for seniority based on continuous service. The Supreme Court applied the principles laid down in Ajit Singh I, Ajit Singh II and R.K. Sabharwal, holding that seniority and prospectivity must be fixed according to those decisions and the respective cut‑off dates. It was held that any promotion made before 1 March 1996 would not be reversed, but seniority of general candidates who attained the Deputy Superintendent rank before the relevant cut‑off dates must be re‑fixed over the reserved candidates. The Court also dismissed the contempt petition, finding that the status‑quo order was complied with. All three appeals were disposed of in accordance with the above principles.

Issues considered

The effect of the 1979 and 1997 Haryana Government circulars on seniority of reserved candidates promoted by roster.
How seniority should be determined between reserved and general candidates under the Punjab Financial Commission and Civil Secretariat Service Rules.
Whether the principles of Ajit Singh I, Ajit Singh II and R.K. Sabharwal are applicable and what cut‑off dates govern seniority.
Whether the status‑quo order dated 9‑Dec‑1996 was violated, giving rise to contempt.

Subjects

reservationseniorityroster promotionservice lawseniority cum meritprospectivitycontemptstatus quoHaryana civil service

Judgment

A SUBE SINGH BAHMANI AND ORS. ETC. ETC.
v.
ST A TE OF HARY ANA

SEPTEMBER 16, 1999

B [DR. A.S. ANAND, C.J., K. VENKATASWAMI, G.B. PATTANAIK
S.P. KURDUKAR AND M. JAGANNADHA RAO, JJ.]

Service Law :

c Punjab Financial Commission Class Ill Rules, 1957/Punjab Financial
Commission Officers (Group B) Service Rules, 1986/Punjab Civil Secretariat
(State Service, Class Ill) Rules, 1952/Punjab Civil Secretariat (State Service
::
Class II) Rules, 1963-Reservation in Promotion-Government of Haryana
Circulars dated 9.2.1979 and 10.1.1997 stating that on promotion at roster
point, the reserved candidates would not count their seniority-Held, the
D Circulars correctly reflect the legal JJ.osition'-Seniority of reserved candidates
on roster promotion, would be Governed by the Principles laid down in Ajit
Singh II-As regards prospectivity of R.K. Sabharwal and Ajit Singh 1,
respective cut off dates of each of these decisions as applied in Ajit Singh II
will apply.
E In the State of Haryana the posts of clerk, Assistant and Deputy
Superintendent were covered under Class III posts and the post of
Superintendent and equivalent posts fell under class II posts. To implement
. reservation, there was provision for roster promotion at class III level from
the post of clerk to the post of Assistant and from the post of Assistant to
F the post of Deputy Superintendent. Beyond that there was no reservation in
class II or class I posts. The Government of Haryana issued a circular on
9.2.1979 to the effect that on promotion at the roster point, the reserved
candidates would not count their seniority. This was reiterated by another
circular dated 10.1.1997 issued after,Ajit Singh l* which was decided on
1.3.1996.
G
The appellant (in Civil Appeal No. 5324 of 1999) a reserved category
candidate and roster point promotee, claimed that he was promoted as Deputy

H
Superintendent on 15.5.1986 and was further promoted as Superintendent
on 6.1.1988. He claimed seniority over respondents No. 2 to 6 (general
candidates) senior to him at lower level and were promoted as Deputy
562
-
SUBE SINGH BAHMANI v. ST ATE 563
Superintendents on 16.11.1988, 20.9.1989, 11.8.1992, 8.11.1995 and A
8.12.1995 much after his further promotion as Superintendent on 6.1.1988.
The State government filed a counter affidavit stating that on account of
some dispute raised by other reserved candidates the date of promotion of the
appellant was altered from 6.1.1988 to I0.4.1989. The case of appellant was
rejected by High Court. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the present appeal.
B
The three appellants in C.A. No. 5325/99 were reserved candidates.
Respondents No. 2 to 8 were senior to the appellants as clerks. The three
appellants were promoted as per roster from clerks to Assistants and then
as Deputy Superintendents. Respondents No. 2 to 8, who were promoted as
Deputy Superintendents after the roster promotion of the appellants as C
Deputy Superintendents, filed a writ petition in the High Court claiming
seniority over the appellants. The High Court allowed the writ petition
following the decision in Ajit Singh I. Aggrieved, the reserved candidates
filed the present appeal.

The two appellants in C.A. No. 5326/99 were reserved candidates and D
respondents 2 to 8 were general candidates. The promotion of the appellants
from clerk to Assistant and Assistant to Deputy Superintendents were by
way of roster. The appellants were promoted as Deputy Superintendents on
23.6.1995 and 23.11.1995 respectively whereas respondents 2 to 5, who were

.. senior to them at lower level were all promoted as Deputy Superintendents
on 18.3.1996. the respondents filed writ petitions before the High Court E
claiming seniority over the appellants. The High Court allowed the writ
petitions. The reserved candidates filed the present appeal.

A contempt petition was also filed by some of the reserved candidates
alleging violation of order dated 9.12.1996 passed by this Court in SLP No. F
23107of1996 (giving rise to C.A. No. 5325/99) maintaining the status quo
and providing that any promotion thereafter would be subject to the result
of the special leave petition. The State of Haryana filed I.A. No. 3 of 1997
for clarification as it felt that the order dated 9.12.1996 was in conflict with
that passed on 4.12.1996 in Chander Pal v. State ofHaryana, (1997) 10 SCC
474. (}

Disposing of the matters, the Court

HELD : 1. All the three appeals (i.e. C.A. No. 5324of1999 and 5325-
26 of 1999) will be governed by the decision in Ajit Singh II in regard to
seniority as also in regard to prospectivity of Ajit Singh I** and R.K. H .
564 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A Sabharwal. The respective cut-off dates of each of these decisions as applied
in Ajit Singh II will apply. 1569-GJ

*Ajit Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors., 119991 Supp. 2 SCR,
relied on

B **Ajit Singh Januja v. State of Punjab, 11996) 2 SCC 715 and R.K.
Sabharwal v. State of Punjab, (1995) 2 SCC 745, explained and affirmed.

2.1. As regards the appellant in CA No. 5324 of 1999, though he
claimed to have been promoted as Superintendent on 6.1.1988, on account
of some disputes raised by other reserved candidates his date of promotion
C has been altered by the Government as 10.4.1989. That will mean that
respondent No.2, a general candidate, has reached the level of Deputy
Superintrndent on 16.11.1988 before the appellant was promoted as
Superintendent, on 10.4.1989 and long before the decision in Ajit Singh I
..
(i.e. 1.3.1996); and as stated in Ajit Singh II, it does not matter whether the
D, general candidate reaches the level of Deputy Superintendent before or after
Ajit Singh I**, respondent No. 2 has to be considered senior to the appellant
at the level of Deputy Superintendent. [569-C-D)

*AjitSingh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors. (1999) supp-2 SCR relied
on.
E 2.2. So far as respondents No. 3 to 6 and other respondents (general
candidates) are concerned, they can have no claim against the appellant as
none of them reached the level of Deputy Superintendent before 10.4.1989.
[569-E]

2.3. If respondent No. 2 (general candidate), in spite of being senior at
F the level of Deputy Superintendent, was not considered for promotion as
Superintendent when the appellant was promoted as Superintendent, it will
be necessary to consider his case vis-a-vis the appellant for fixing up their
inter se seniority at the level of Superintendent. Seniority of respondent
No.2 would be fixed accordingly. However, since the appellant was promoted
G as Superintendent before 1.3.1996, he would not be reverted. (569-F-G)

3.1. So far as the three appellants (reserved candidates) in C.A. No.
5325of1999 are concerned, appellant No.1 'G.S.' became Superintendent
on 11.2.1985, and none of the general candidates reached the level of Deputy
Superintendent before that date. Thus, the writ petitioners (general candidates)
H can have no claim against 'G.S.' nor against other reserved candidates who
SUBE SINGH BAHMANI v. ST ATE 565

. had become Superintendents even before 'G.S.'. (571-GI A
3.2. The other two appellants 'SS' 'BL' were promoted as
Superintendents on 3.4.1991 and 8.7.1991 respectively, and all the four
general candidates (writ petitioners) had reached the level of Deputy
Superintendent before 3.4.1991. These four general candidates have therefore
a rightful claim for seniority over appellants 'SS' and 'BL' and another B
reserved candidate 'SM' at the level of Deputy Superintendent, and have to
be treated as senior to the three reserved candidates at that level. Their
seniority would be fixed accordingly. However, promotions made prior to
1.3.1996 would stand and there will be no reversions. (572-A-CI

3.3. If the seniority of the four general candidates has not been taken C
into account when the reserved candidates were promoted as Superintendents
and above, the same has to be reviewed. The promotion to and the seniority
at the level of Superintendent and Under Secretary between the four writ
petitioners (general candidates) and 'SS', 'BL' and 'SM' has, therefore, to
be reviewed because their case is not like the case of Appellant No.1 'GS'. D
Ajit Singh II will have to be implemented as regards seniority and prospectivity
of Sabharwal and Ajit Singh I. The respective cut off dates have to be adhered
to. [572-D-EJ

- Ajit Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors., [19991 Suppl. 2 SCR,
relied on. E
4.1. The two appellants (reserved candidates) in CA No. 5326of1999
were promoted as Deputy Superintendents on 23.6.1995 and 23.11.1995
respectively whereas respondents No.2 to 5 (general candidates) who were
senior to tliem as Assistants were all promoted as Deputy Superintendents
on 8.2.1996 before Appellant No.I was promoted as Superintendent on F
18.3.1996. Respondents 2 to 5 have therefore to be treated as senior to her
at the level of Deputy Superintendent and the seniority at the level will have
to be refixed and if the case of the senior general candidates at the level of
Deputy Superintendent was not taken into account while promoting the
reserved candidate as Superintendent, the said promotion will have to be G
reviewed and seniority has to be refixed at the level of Superintendent also.
Seniority is to be fixed as stated in Ajit Singh II. Further, 'prospectivity' of
-· SabhJ~al and Ajit Singh I as stated in Ajit Singh II will also be followed.
The respective cut off dates of Sabharwal and Ajit Singh I have to be adhered
to. Seniority of appellant No. I would be reviewed accordingly.
[572-F-H; 573-AJ H
566 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

, A 4.2. Respondents No. 6 to 8 (general candidates) can have no claim
against appellant No.I inasmuch as they did not get promotion as Deputy
Superintendents before she was promoted as Superintendent. [573-E)

5. As regards the contempt petition, the Status quo order dated
9.12.199.6 and I.A. No.3 of1999, the judgment delivered in Ajit Singh JI lays
B down the manner in which seniority has to be decided. The order dated
4.12.1996 passed in Chandar Pal's case has also been explained, but
the'Prospectivity' of Sabharwal and Ajit Singh I will be as stated in detail
in Ajit Singh II. The status quo order dated 9.12.1996 does not present any
difficulty because the order also states that any promotion given shall be -(

C subject to the result of the special leave petition. It can not be said that any
contempt has been committed when promotion orders where passed on
19.2.1997 for that was done bonafide in implementation of the order dated
4.,12.1996. [574-F; 576-A)

AjitSingh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors., (1999) Suppl. 2 SCR, relied
D on.
Chander Pal v. State of Haryana, [1997] 10 SCC 474, referred to.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5324of1999
Etc. Etc.
E
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.7.96 of the Punjab and Haryana
High Court in C.W.P. No. 5533of1996. -

D.D. Thakur, Dr. Rajiv Dhawan, H.N. Salve, Chand Kiran, Dr. K.S.
Chauhan, Suresh Kait, Prem Malhotra, Jasbir Malik, Vijay Hansria, Sunil K.
F Jain, Ajay Kumar Gupta, Raj iv Garg, N.D. Garg, Preetesh Kapur, Atul Shanna,
(
H.R. Balmiki, N.N. Bhat, Bhup Singh Mehra, Dr. K.P.S. Dalal and Prabhash K.
Yadav for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G
M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J. Leave granted in special leave petitions.

These three appeals arise out of the dispute between general candidates
and reserved candidates in Haryana in regard to their seniority. The appellants
are the reserved candidates. In Haryana, it is important to note that the
H Government had issued a Circular on 9.2.79 that on promotion at the roster
SUBE SINGH BAHMANI v. STATE [M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.] 567
point, the reserved candidates would not count their seniority. This was A
reiterated by an elaborate Circular dated 10.1.97 recently issued after Ajit
Singh, [1996] 2 SCC 715 (hereinafter called Ajit Singh No. I) was decided by
this Court on l.3.1996. Before us, the learned senior counsel for the State of
Haryana, Sri Rajeev Dhawan submitted that the said Circulars correctly reflect
the legal position.
B
Today, we have delivered judgment in IAs 1 to 3 filed by the State of
Punjab in C.As.3792-94/89 ( Ajit Singh's case). We shall describe it as Ajit
Singh No.2. We agree that the above Circulars correctly reflect the legal
position.

There are three Civil Appeals before us. The first of these appeals is
c
Sube Singh Rahmani v. State ofHaryana, (Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C)
No. 16648/96). This appeal is filed against the judgment of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court in C.W.P. 5533 of l996 dated 10.7.96. The second one
Gian Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana, (Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C)
No. 23107/96) is also against the judgment dated 10.7.96 in C.W.P. 5397/96. D
The appellants belong to the reserved category. The third Civil Appeal arising
out of SLP(C) 4945/97 Kamal Kanta and Anr. v. State of Haryana is filed
against the judgment of the same High Court dated 16.1.97 in C.W.P. 4592/
96. The appellants are again reserved candidates. We shall refer to the relevant
niles in each of these three cases.
E
In Sube Singh Rahmani 's case, the Rules are as follows. The posts
belong to the Punjab Financial Commission Officers governed by ( Group B)
Service Rules, 1986 which consists of Superintendent and equivalent post in
Class II. Below that, the post of Clerk, Assistant and Deputy Superintendent
which are Class II posts, are governed by the Punjab Financial Commission F
Class III Rules, 1957. In the former, Rule 9(3) provides that the promotion shall
be based on seniority-cum-merit but that no person shall be entitled to claim
promotion on the basis of seniority alone. Rule 11 states that seniority shall
be determined on the basis of continuous length of service. In the latter, i.e.
1957 Rules, Rule 7(2) states that all appointments, whether by promotion or G
transfer shall be strictly by selection while Rule 11 (c) states that seniority
shall be determined in accordance with the seniority in the appointment from
which they are promoted but in the case of Assistant, their seniority shall be
determined in the order they are promoted, as such. Admittedly, there is roster
to implement reservation for promotion at Class III Level from the post of
Clerk to the post of Assistant and from the post of Assistant to the post of H
568 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A Deputy Superintendent. Beyond that there is no reservation in Class II or
Class I posts.

In Gian Singh 's case and in Kamal Kanta 's case, the parties belong to
the Haryana Civil Secretariat Service. The appellants are reserved candidates.
The parties are governed by the Punjab Civil Secretariat (State Service, Class
B III ) Rules, 1952 as _adopted/amended in Haryana (vide notification dated
15.3.78 etc). Rule 6 deals with recruitment including by way of promotion to
the posts of Assistant and Deputy Superintendents. Rule 6(3) requires
promotion by way of 'selection'. Clause 9(c) states that seniority in respect
of those who are promoted shall be determined according to the seniority in
C the appointments from which members are promoted. In the Class II service,
i.e. Superintendents etc. they are governed by the Punjab Civil Secretariat
(State Service Class II) Rules, 1963 (adopted by Haryana by notification dated
25.9.68). Rule 8 of the Rules deals with recrui~ment by promotion and Sub-
clause (3) states that promotion shall be on the basis of seniority-cum-merit
and no person shall be entitled to claim promotion on the basis of seniority
l-
D alone. Rule 10(1) states that seniority shall be reckoned from the date of
continuous appointment. There is roster promotion in Class III and not in
Class IL At the level of Under Secretary and above, they are governed by
the Haryana Secretariat Service (Group-A) Rules, 1979. Admittedly, there is a
roster for reserved candidates so far as Class III posts are concerned but not
E to Class II or Class I posts.
Under all these rules the seniority rule of continuous officiation is
linked up with the promotion rule and cannot be delinked as explained in Ajit
Singh No.2 and applied to the cases of the roster point promotees.

F All these three appeals will therefore be governed by our decision on
Points 1 to 3 in Ajit Singh No.II in regard to seniority and our decision on
Point 4 in that case in regard to the prospectivity ofR.K. Sabharwal [1995 (2)
SCC 745] and Ajit Singh No.l [1996(2) SCC 715]. The respective cut off dates
of each of these decisions as explained in Ajit Singh No.2 will apply.
¢

G We shall now take up the special factual points arising in these three
cases.

(A) Sube Singh Bahmani (Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C)No.166481 ....
96:

H There is one important aspect of the case which deserves notice. It is
SUBE SLNGH BAHMANI v. STATE [M. JAGANNADHA RAO. J.) 569
the claim of the sole appellant, Sube Singh Bahmani that he has been promoted A
as Dy. Superintendent (see p.192) on 15.5.86 subject to the result of Chander
Pal v. State of Haryana since disposed of by judgment reported in [ 1997 (10)
SCC 474]. He contends that he has also been promoted as Superintendent on
6.1.88 and that respondents 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 have been promoted as Deputy
Superintendents on 16.11.88, 20.9.89, 11.8.92, 8.11.95 and 8.12.95, much after B
his further promotion as Superintendent on 6.1.1988 and that the other
respondents have not even reached the level of Deputy Superintendents by
that date.

But as per the counter filed by the State of Haryana in this Court dated
14.1.97 (see p.209 of paper book), it is clear that on account of some dispute C
raised by other reserved candidates (like Sri Ravi Prakash), the date 6.1.88 of
promotion of the appellant as Superintendent has been altered by the
government as 10.4.89 (vide Govt. Order dated 19.2.90) (p.145). That, in our
view, makes all the difference. That will mean that the 2nd respondent (Darshan
Singh) (1st writ petitioner) (general candidate) has reached the level of Dy.
Superintendent on 16.11.88 before Sube Singh Bahmani was promoted as D
Superintendent on 10.4.89. It is true, the fact that Sube Singh Bahmani was
promoted as Superintendent before 1.3.96 would require his not being reverted.
But Darshan Singh, the 2nd respondent has become Dy. Superintendent on
16.11.88, long before Ajit Singh No. I and as stated by us in Ajit singh No.ll,
it does not matter whether the general candidate reaches the level of Dy. E
Superintendent before or after Ajit Singh No.I. Darshan Singh has to be
considered senior to Su be Singh Bahmani at the level of Dy. Superintendent.
Of course, so far as respondents Nos. 3 to 6 and other respondents
(general candidates) are concerned, we are of the view that they can have no
claim against Sube Singh Rahmani as none of them reached the level of Dy.
Superintendent before 10.4.89. F
Thus, if 2nd respondent, Darshan Singh (general candidate), in spite of
his seniority at the level of Dy. Superintendent was not considered for
promotion as Superintendent when Sube Singh Bahmani was promoted as
Superintendent, it will be necessary to consider his case vis-a-vis Sube Singh
Bahmani for fixing up their inter-se-seniority at the level of Superintendent. G
We direct accordingly. However, this appeal will succeed as against other
private respondents (i.e. other than respondent 2), subject of course, to the
principle relating to prospectivity of Sabharwal and Ajit !Wlgh No. l, as
explained in Ajit Singh No. II, and the respective cut off dates as stated
therein will apply. H
570 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A This Appeal is disposed of accordingly.

(B) Gian Singh 's case : Civil Appeal arising out of CWP. 5397196
(SLP(C) 23107196).

The three appellants are reserved candidates. The respondents 6 to 9
B are also reserved candidates. All 7 of them were impleaded as respondents
2 to 8 in the writ petition. The respondents 2 to 4 were the writ petitioners
(general candidates). The writ petition was allowed following Ajit Singh No.I.

In order to appreciate the factual issues arising in the case, we have to
note the following relevant dates. We have analysed the variot!s dates of
c appointments/promotions as disclosed from PP. 60, 77, !08-109 of iff'e paper
book and the printed Tabular statement filed in the case. It will be sufficient
to note the following dates. (It is convenient to adopt the array of parties as
in the CWP).

D Writ petitioners:
General candidates Clerk Asstt. Deputy Supdt. Dy.!Under
(as on 1996) Supdt. Sec1y

(I) Balwant Kr 13.58 6.5.85 6.9.91
Gupta Under
E
Secretary (WP I )
(R2 in CA)
(2) S.B.Bhatia 19.1.59 13.3.87 18.6.93
Under Secretary
(WP 2)(R3 in CA)
F
(3) R.D. Gupta, Supdt. 7.4.60 30.4.90 3.4.91
(WP3)(R4 in CA)
(4) H.C.Chhabra, Supdt. 4.l l.60 7.1.91 8.7.91
(WP4)(R5 in CA)
G Respondents in W.P.:
Reserved candidates
(I) Sagar Mal, Dy. Secy. 16.11.60 23.1.87
(R2 in WP)(R6 in CA)
(2) Chanan Ram, 14.5.65 53.90
H
SUBE SINGH BAHMANI v. STATE [M . .IAGANNADHA RAO. J.] 571
Dy. Secy. A
(R3 in WP) (R7 in CA)
(3) Baldev Singh, 8.12.59 11.2.91
Deputy Secretary
(R4 in WP) (R8
in CA) B
(4) Gian Singh, 15.6.71 30.10.73 17.6.83 112.85 7,3.91
Under Secretary (R5
in WP) (Appt. I
in CA)
(5) Sammat Singh, -do- 9.8.71 c
(R6 in WP) (R9
in CA)
(6) Sadhu Singh, 9.8.71 2.5.77 21.3.90 3.4.91
Supdt. (R7 in WP)
(appt 2 in CA) D
(7) B.L.Grover, Supdt. 12.8.71 28.7.77 23.11.90 8.7.91
(R7 in WP) (Appt. 3
in CA)

(It appears from CP.133/97, that the general candidates were further E
promoted as Under-Secretary on 19.2.97 before the reserved candidates Sadhu
Singh and B.L. Grover were so promoted).

The paper book fu'rther discloses that when the reserved candidate Gian
Singh was promoted as Assistant under the roster, he moved over 33 clerks p
(general) and when he was promoted as Dy. Superintendent again as per
roster, he moved over 157 Assistants (general); similarly Sadhu Singh moved
over 13 clerks (general) and 158 Assistants (general); likewise B.L.Grover
moved over 7 clerks (general) and 163 Assistants (general) at these stages
and that is how they reached the level of Dy. Superintendent.
G
It will be noticed that when Gian Singh (reserved) became Superintendent
on 11.2.85, none of the general candidates (writ petitioners) reached the level
of Dy. Supdt. before that date. Thus writ petitioners (general candidates) can
have no claim against Gian Singh. Obviously, other reserved candidates who
were senior to Gian singh viz Sagar Mal, Chanan Ram and Baldev Singh who H
572 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999} SUPP. 2 S.C.R .

. A were Dy. Superintendents must have become Superintendents even before
Gian Singh i.e. before 11.2.85 and thus writ petitioners (general candidates)
can have no claim even against them.

However, so far as the reserved candidates Sadhu Singh and B.L.Grover
B are concerned, by the time they were promoted as Superintendents on 3.4.91
and 8.7.91, all the 4 writ petitioners became Dy. Superintende,nts. Sammat
Singh appears to be in like position. Writ petitioners I to 4 reached the level
of Dy. Superintendent on 6.5.85, 13.3.87, 30.4.90 and 7.1.91. The four writ
petitioners have, therefore, a rightful claim for seniority over Sadhu singh,
B.L.Grover and Sammat Singh at the level of Dy. Superintendent. In that
C event, even if the above reserved candidates have been earlier promoted as
Dy. Superintendents, they have to be treated as juniors to the 4 writ petitioners
at that level. True, promotions made before 1.3.96 when Ajit Singh No. I was
decided will stand and there will be no reversions. But the seniority of the
general candidates at the level of Dy. Superintendents is to be fixed as stated
above.
D
If the seniority of these four general candidates has not been taken into
account when the reserved candidates were promoted as S~perintendents
and above, the same has to be reviewed. The promotion to and the seniority
at the level of Superintendent and Under Secretary between the 4 writ petitioners
E (general candidates) and Sadhu Singh, B.L.Grover and Sammat Singh has,
therefore, to be reviewed because their case is not like the case of Gian Singh.
Ajit Singh No.II will have to be· implemented. Points 1 to 3 as decided there
will govern seniority and Point 4 there will govern the prospectivity of
Sabharwal and the prospectivity of Ajit 'Singh No. I. The respective cut off
dates have to be adhered to. This appeal is disposed of accordingly.
F
(C) Kamal Kanta 's case (Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.49451
97):

The facts of the case are that the two appellants, Ms. Kamal Kanta and
G Sri Girdhari Lal are reserved candidates while respondents 2 to 8 are general
candidates. The writ petition was filed by the general candidates Shyam
Sunder and others and was allowed by the High Court. The promotions from
the post of Clerk to Assistant and Assistant to Dy. Superintendent were by
way of a roster so far as the appellants were concerned. The two appellants •
were promoted as Dy. Superintendents on 23.6.95 and 23.11.95 respectively
H while respondents 2 to 5, (general candidates) who were senior to them as
SUBE SINGH BAHMANI v. ST ATE [M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.] 573

Assistants, were all promoted as Dy. Superintendents on 8.2.96. Now Ms. A
Kamal Kanta was promoted as Superintendent on 18.3.96 (p.58) subject to
Chander Pal, (later decided as [1997] 10 SCC 474) but by that date the
respondents 2 to 5 were also promoted as Dy. Superintendents. Respondents
2 to 5 have to be treated as seniors to her at the level of Dy. Superintendent.
No doubt, Ms. Kamal Kanta was promoted as Superintendent on 18.3.96 and
the respondents 2 to 5 were promoted later as Superintendents on 27.6.96, B
27.6.96 (see p.65), 8.10.96 (p.67) and 11.12.96 respectively. She will not be
reverted. But the seniority at the level of Deputy Superintendents has to be
refixed and if the case of the senior general candidates at the level of Deputy
Superintendent was not taken into account while promoting the reserved
candidate as Superintendent, the said promotion will have to be reviewed and C
seniority has to be refixed at the level of Superintendent also. Seniority is to
be fixed as per what is stated in Points 1 to 3 of Ajit Singh No.1 and
'prospectivity' of Sabharwal and Ajit Singh No. l as stated in Point 4 of Ajit
Singh No.II will be followed. The respective cut off dates of Sabharwal and
Ajit Singh No. l have to be adhered to.
D
In the result, we hold that the promotion and seniority of Kamal Kanta
as Superintendent be reviewed vis-a-vis respondents 2 to 5 as stated above.
(The paper book reveals that a provisional list was prepared on 28.3.97 and
a show cause notice dated 31.3.97 had been issued).

We, however, make it clear that on the above facts, respondents 6 to E
8 (general candidates) can have no claim against Kamal Kanta in as much as
they did not get promotion as Dy. Superintendents before Ms. Kamal Kanta
was promoted as Superintendent. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. We
direct accordingly. ·

All the three appeals are disposed of accordingly.
F

(D) CP.133197 and IA.3197 in SLP(C) No.23107196

The CP.133/97 is filed by reserved candidates for taking action for
contempt of the order of this Court dated 9.12.96 in Gian Singh's case (to G
which tfiey are parties) while the State of Haryana has filed IA.3/97 for
clarification as it feels that there are two conflicting orders of this Court, one
dated 9.12.96 and the other one is Chandra Pal, [1997 (10) SCC 474] dated
4.12.1996.

The petitioners in C.P.133/97 are the reserved candidates Sadhu Singh H
574 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A and B.L. Grover. They are, as already noted in Gian Singh 's case, petitioners
2 and 3 in the SLP (C) No. 23107/96. We have held in the appeal arising out
ofSLP (C) 23107/96 of Gian Singh that the general candidates (Writ petitioners
Balwant Kumar Gupta, S.B. Bhatia, R.D. Gupta and Hari Chand Chhabra) have
a valid claim of seniority against these two reserved candidates i.e. Sadhu·
B Singh and B.L. Grover, though not against the other reserved candidate, Gian
Singh. We have also directed that though Sadhu Singh and B.L. Grover might
have been promoted as Superintendents earlier on the basis of their actual
dates of promotion as Deputy Superintendent, that was not correct and a
review of seniority has to take place in respect of promotion and seniority to
the level of Superintendents. All that is protected is that there are to be no
C reversions. But seniority has been re-fixed at the level of Deputy
Superintendent on the basis of Ajit Singh No.II, as stated above. It is obvious
that the promotion to and seniorify in the category of Superintendent and
above will also have to be refixed as between the four writ petitioners and
Sadhu Singh and B.L.Grover. Their case is not like that of Gian Singh. This
aspect has been considered above while dealing with the case of Gian Singh
D (C.A. arising out of SLP (C). 23107 /96).

The petitioners Sadhu Singh and B.L. Grover have, however, submitted
in the CP.133 of 1997 that the status quo order dated 9.12.96 in Gian Singh 's
SLP (C) No.23107/96 has been violated by promoting the general candidates
E on 19.2.97 to the level of Under Secretary. On the other hand, the State of
Haryana in its IA.3/99 points o'ut that there is conflict between the status quo
order dated 4.12.96 passed in Gian Singh and the direction given in Chander
Pal'on 4.12.96.

Our judgment in Ajit Singh No.2 delivered today lays down the manner
F in which seniority has to be decided. Chander Pal dated 4.12.96 has also
been explained but the 'prospectivity' of Sabharwal and Ajit Singh No.I will
be as stated in detail by us under Point 4 in Ajit Singh No.II. There can be
no difficulty in implementing the same.

Coming to the status quo order dated 9.12.96, it does not present any
G difficulty because while it continues status quo, it also states that any promotion
given shall be subject to the result of the SLP 23107196. It reads as follows:

"Status quo to continue. However, any promotion given to any one
shall be subject to the result of this Special Leave petition."

H Now that the Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) 23107/96 in Gian
SUBE SINGH BAHMANI v. ST ATE [M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.] 575

Singh 's case ( to which Sadhu Singh and B.L. Grover are parties) is disposed A
of after re-fixing seniority at level of Deputy Superintendent and by directing
a review of the promotions made to the post of Superintendent and Under
Secretary, as per Ajit Singh No. 2, there can be no difficulty in the way of
the State. We do not also think that any contempt has been committed when
the promotion orders \fere passed on 19.2.97 for that was done bona fide in B
implementation of the order of this Court dated 4.12.96.

The C.P.133/97 and the IA.3/97 are disposed of accordingly.

All the matters are disposed of as stated above. There will be no order
as to costs. c
RP. Matters disposed of.