Ashish Singal & Anr. vs Union Of India & Ors.

Per: SH. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR MEMBER (J):

All the above four Original Applications are taken up together for disposal, as a common question of law and facts are involved in all these cases. With the consent of learned counsels for the parties, the facts are being extracted from O.A.No.359/2026 (Ashish Singhal & Anr. Vs. Revenue) and the said case has been treated as a lead case.

The present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 against the following :-

The applicants sought the following relief(s):-

The factual matrix of the case at hand is that the applicants were recruited as direct-recruit Tax Assistants (TAs) through the Combined Graduate Level Examination, 2013 conducted by the Staff Selection Commission. The final result was declared on 25.03.2015, followed by allocation of zones by CBDT, and the applicants were appointed in the Income Tax Department on 23.12.2015. Both applicants belong to the UR category and have an unblemished service record. In the same batch, Sh. Sandeep (SC) and Sh. Nikhil Mendhekar (ST) were also appointed on 23.12.2015 but were lower in merit and, consequently, junior to the applicants. Their respective seniority positions in the TA seniority list dated 23.06.2022 establish that the applicants were substantially senior to the said reserved-category employees. The appointment documents and particulars are placed at Annexure A-1 Colly.

It is further submitted that the respondents circulated the eligibility list for promotion from TA to Senior Tax Assistant (Sr. TA) on 10.12.2018 for Recruitment Year (RY) 2019. The applicants appeared at Serial Nos. 16 and 84, whereas their juniors, Sandeep and Nikhil Mendhekar, appeared much lower at Serial Nos. 151 and 169, respectively, in accordance with their existing seniority. All four were thereafter promoted as Sr. Tax Assistants vide order dated 28.12.2018 (Annexure A-2) with effect from 01.01.2019. The applicants and their juniors were thus promoted together, notwithstanding the applicants' clear seniority. The applicable rules required three years' regular service in the feeder grade for promotion to Office Superintendent, subject to the provision that where a junior meeting the eligibility condition is considered, a senior may also be considered if short of the requisite service within the permissible limit.

The next promotional hierarchy comprises the posts of Office Superintendent and Income Tax Inspector. Promotion to Office Superintendent is governed by the CBDT Recruitment Rules notified on 13.02.2007, under which Sr. Tax Assistants with three years' regular service constitute the feeder grade. Promotion to Income Tax Inspector is governed by the Income Tax (Group 'B') Recruitment Rules, 2001, notified vide letter dated 04.06.2001, under which the feeder cadres included Office Superintendent, Senior Tax Assistant and other specified cadres, subject to the prescribed eligibility and departmental examination. The rules also provide for preparation of select lists based on seniority and other prescribed criteria. Copies of the aforesaid Recruitment Rules are collectively annexed as Annexure A-3 Colly.

For RY 2022, the respondents circulated the eligibility list for promotion to Office Superintendent on 22.12.2021, in which the applicants were placed at Serial Nos. 23 to 86, whereas their juniors Sandeep and Nikhil Mendhekar were placed at Serial Nos. 160 and 181. All four were promoted as Office Superintendents vide order dated 31.12.2021 (Annexure A-4). In the promotion order, the applicants stood at Serial Nos. 21 and 81, while the juniors stood at Serial Nos. 149 and 169. Subsequently, draft seniority lists were issued for the cadres of Sr. TA and Office Superintendent on 22.06.2022 and 13/14.06.2022, respectively, pursuant to CBDT circular dated 26.10.2021. In both draft seniority lists, the applicants continued to rank above the two reserved-category employees. The Office Superintendent draft seniority list is annexed as Annexure A-5.

The applicants and the said juniors were subsequently promoted to the cadre of Income Tax Inspector. Vide order dated 12.07.2022 (Annexure A-6), the applicants were promoted against RY 2021, while Sandeep was promoted against RY 2022; Nikhil Mendhekar was subsequently promoted as Inspector against RY 2024 vide order dated 17.09.2024 (Annexure A-7). Importantly, there was no final seniority list in the cadres of Sr. TA, Office Superintendent or Income Tax Inspector. Thereafter, on 05.01.2026, the respondents issued draft select panels for Sr. TA, Office Superintendent and Income Tax Inspector for various Recruitment Years after purportedly allowing reservation in promotion to SC/ST officials. The initial panels placed the applicants substantially above their juniors but were subsequently withdrawn following objections. The respondents then issued fresh draft select panels on 17.03.2026. The fresh Sr. TA panel (Annexure A-9) continued to show the applicants at Serial Nos. 24 and 92 and their juniors at Serial Nos. 171 and 193. The fresh Office Superintendent panel (Annexure A-10) placed the applicants at Serial Nos. 33 and 94 for RY 2022, while Sandeep was at Serial No. 166 and the name of Nikhil Mendhekar was absent. The fresh Income Tax Inspector panel (Annexure A-11) showed the applicants against RY 2022 at Serial Nos. 21 and 22, whereas Sandeep and Nikhil Mendhekar were shown against earlier Recruitment Years. The applicants submitted detailed objections on 22.03.2026 (Annexure A-12), specifically challenging the proposed grant of reservation in promotion on the ground that the mandatory constitutional and legal requirements laid down in M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212, and Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta, (2018) 10 SCC 396, had not been complied with.

The applicants also rely upon the RTI process initiated by a colleague on 23.01.2026 seeking information regarding roster registers. In reply dated 17.02.2026 (Annexure A-8), the respondents stated that, in view of the Punjab & Haryana High Court judgment dated 15.07.2011 in Lachhmi Narain Gupta & Ors. v. Jarnail Singh & Ors., no such roster record was required to be maintained. The applicants contend that the absence of requisite roster records, coupled with the subsequent attempt to operate rosters retrospectively for more than a decade, renders the proposed exercise arbitrary and legally unsustainable. The respondents thereafter issued Annexure A-13 dated 17.03.2026, calling for vigilance clearance and information for Review DPCs for Inspector, while simultaneously proposing altered Recruitment Year placements of juniors and the applicants. According to the applicants, this indicates a predetermined attempt to alter their established promotional position even before objections were finally considered.

The applicants principally challenge the proposed Review DPC exercise and retrospective operation of reservation in promotion on the ground that the mandatory safeguards governing reservation under Article 16(4A) have not been fulfilled. Their objections specifically rely upon the principles laid down in M. Nagaraj and Jarnail Singh, including the requirement of appropriate quantifiable data regarding inadequacy of representation, consideration of administrative efficiency under Article 335, and the applicable constitutional safeguards. The applicants contend that the respondents have relied upon DoPT O.M. dated 12.04.2022 (Annexure A-14) without first undertaking the legally required exercise or establishing a valid decision/policy authorising reservation in promotion. They further allege that the advance preparation of promotional panels, altered Recruitment Year placements and proposed relegation of the applicants despite their established seniority demonstrate that the objection process is merely an empty formality. On these grounds, the applicants challenge the proposed Review DPCs and consequential alteration of their seniority/promotional position as arbitrary, contrary to the Recruitment Rules and settled law, and seek appropriate relief from the Hon'ble Tribunal.

At the time of issuing notices, the learned counsel for the respondents specifically submitted that no steps for convening the DPC will be taken till the next date.

The respondents have filed a comprehensive written statement wherein it has been submitted that the present Original Application is misconceived, premature and legally untenable, as the applicants have challenged the draft select panels circulated on 17.03.2026 and have sought restraint on the convening of Review DPCs in the cadres of Office Superintendent (OS) and Income Tax Inspector (ITI). The respondents submit that the entire exercise of preparation of reservation rosters and conduct of Review DPCs is being undertaken in compliance with the judgment of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Jarnail Singh & Others v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta & Others dated 28.01.2022 and the consequential DoPT OM dated 12.04.2022, enclosed as Annexure R-1. It is contended that the respondents are legally bound to implement the directions of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court and that any restraint upon the exercise would effectively compel them to act contrary to the binding directions of the Apex Court.

The respondents have traced the background of reservation in promotion to the DoPT OM dated 02.07.1997 (Annexure R-2), pursuant to which reservation in promotion for SC/ST candidates was extended in NWR. The concept of ―own merit‖ was subsequently introduced by DoPT OM dated 11.07.2002 (Annexure R-3) and clarified by OM dated 31.01.2005 (Annexure R-4). This Tribunal, vide order dated 11.12.2008, directed calculation and filling of backlog vacancies, while the Review Application was dismissed on 07.05.2009. Thereafter, the Hon‘ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, vide judgment dated 15.07.2011, struck down reservation in promotion and quashed the DoPT OM dated 10.08.2010 (Annexure R-5). Consequently, reservation rosters were discontinued in NWR and DPCs were thereafter held without reservation, subject to the outcome of proceedings before the Hon‘ble Supreme Court.

The respondents rely upon the subsequent judgment of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court dated 28.01.2022 in Jarnail Singh, which clarified the requirements governing reservation in promotion, including collection of quantifiable data regarding inadequacy of representation on a cadre-wise basis. Pursuant thereto, DoPT OM dated 12.04.2022 (Annexure R-1) prescribed collection of quantifiable data regarding inadequacy of SC/ST representation, application of such data to each cadre separately, maintenance of cadre-wise reservation rosters and assessment of suitability by the DPC so as to maintain administrative efficiency. Before undertaking the exercise, the Pr. CCIT, NWR sought clarifications vide letter No. 69 dated 30.05.2025 (Annexure R-6). It was clarified vide letter No. 1583 dated 09.06.2025 (Annexure R-7) that the Cadre Controlling Authority is competent to collect the requisite quantifiable data. Further, vide CBDT/HRD letter dated 17.07.2025 (Annexure R-8), it was clarified that the cadre is the unit for collection of quantifiable data and operation of the roster. During the meeting with the Learned ASG on 10.07.2025, directions were also given to take necessary steps in compliance with the relevant DoPT instructions, including DoPT OM dated 15.06.2018 (Annexure R-9) and OM dated 12.04.2022.

In pursuance thereof, a Reservation Roster Committee was constituted on 19.06.2025 (Annexure R-10) for preparation of fresh reservation rosters, as maintenance of such rosters had remained discontinued in NWR after the High Court judgment dated 15.07.2011. The Committee submitted its report on 26.12.2025 (Annexure R-11) and draft panels were circulated on 05.01.2026. However, upon receipt of representations, particularly concerning the issue of ―own merit‖ pending before the Hon‘ble Supreme Court, the respondents did not proceed mechanically. A team was deputed to examine the practice followed by Pr. CCIT, Delhi on 13.01.2026, its report was submitted on 16.01.2026, and the Committee was directed vide communication dated 16.01.2026 (Annexure R-12) to re-examine and re-submit the rosters. The earlier draft panels were accordingly withdrawn. The respondents rely upon these facts to demonstrate that the exercise was being conducted fairly, transparently and after due consideration of representations.

Following re-examination, the Committee submitted part rosters and draft proposed panels on 16.02.2026, followed by its complete report with updated rosters and revised draft proposed panels on 25.02.2026 (Annexure R-13). Thereafter, fresh draft panels for STA for R.Y. 2014-15 to 2024, OS for R.Y. 2016-17 to 2025 and ITI for R.Y. 2016-17 to 2025 were circulated vide communication dated 17.03.2026 (Annexure R-14), inviting representations and objections up to 27.03.2026, along with vigilance clearance. The respondents emphasize that these were only draft and provisional panels and that no final decision or promotion order had been issued. Nevertheless, the applicants filed the present OA on 22.03.2026, i.e. on the very day on which they submitted their representations, without awaiting consideration thereof by the competent authority. On this basis, the respondents invoke Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, contending that the applicants had not exhausted the available administrative remedy and that the OA was therefore premature.

The respondents deny the applicants‘ objections regarding quantifiable data, inadequacy of representation, administrative efficiency and creamy layer. It is submitted that, in Jarnail Singh (2018), the Hon‘ble Supreme Court held that collection of quantifiable data regarding backwardness of SC/ST candidates was not required, whereas Jarnail Singh (2022) requires collection of quantifiable data regarding inadequacy of representation on a cadre-wise basis. According to the respondents, this requirement has been fulfilled through the Reservation Roster Committee and the preparation of cadre-wise rosters. As regards administrative efficiency, reliance is placed upon the safeguards contained in DoPT OM dated 12.04.2022, including assessment by the DPC, scrutiny of APARs/ACRs and vigilance clearance. The allegation that the exercise was predetermined is also denied, particularly in view of the withdrawal of the earlier panels dated 05.01.2026 and the invitation of fresh objections. The respondents further point out that the applicants have incorrectly stated the sanctioned strength under the OS Recruitment Rules, 2007 notified on 13.02.2007, which is stated to be 2530 posts and not 25308. The OS Rules were subsequently modified by the Recruitment Rules, 2024 notified on 20.09.2024; the ITI Rules were originally gazetted on 27.12.1969, amended on 04.06.2001, and subsequently modified and published on 25.09.2024.

The respondents further contend that the prayer for restraining the Review DPCs and Regular DPCs would cause serious administrative prejudice. The Review DPCs up to R.Y. 2025 are stated to be necessary for proceeding with the Regular DPCs for R.Y. 2026, which were already required to be convened by 31.12.2025. Any further delay would affect the promotional prospects of hundreds of officials across various cadres and would also adversely affect SC/ST officials who may be entitled to the benefit of reservation in promotion. At the same time, the applicants have not demonstrated any specific or irreparable injury, since the impugned panels are provisional, their representations were pending consideration and no final promotion orders had been issued. The respondents therefore contend that there is no prima facie case in favour of the applicants and that the balance of convenience overwhelmingly favours continuation of the administrative process.

In the circumstances, the respondents submit that the OA has been filed at a premature stage, without exhaustion of the available administrative remedy and against draft, provisional panels which were still open to modification after consideration of objections. The respondents maintain that the entire exercise has been undertaken pursuant to the binding judgment dated 28.01.2022 of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court and DoPT OM dated 12.04.2022, after obtaining necessary clarifications from the competent authorities and undertaking an extensive cadre-wise exercise for preparation of reservation rosters. The earlier withdrawal and reconsideration of the panels dated 05.01.2026 is relied upon as evidence of fairness and application of mind. It is accordingly prayed that the interim prayer for staying the DPCs be rejected and that the Original Application itself be dismissed, with costs, the respondents reserving their right to file an amended written statement if any new facts come to their knowledge during pendency of the OA.

The applicants filed an exhaustive rejoinder to the above written statement wherein the applicants have reiterated that the present Original Application is not premature, submitting that the respondents had already commenced the process of granting reservation in promotion and convening Review DPCs. According to the applicants, draft promotion panels for Senior Tax Assistant, Office Superintendent, Inspector and Income Tax Officer had been circulated for objections, while eligibility lists for promotion to the posts of Inspector and Income Tax Officer had also been issued. It is contended that the challenge is to the very initiation of the process, which, according to the applicants, has been undertaken without compliance with the mandatory requirements flowing from Articles 16(4A), 16(4B) and 335 of the Constitution. The applicants apprehend that if the process is permitted to continue, it would result in reversion or sliding down of senior general-category employees, reduction in status, pay and promotional prospects and creation of third-party rights, thereby causing irreversible prejudice and multiplicity of litigation.

The applicants' principal submission is that Articles 16(4A) and 16(4B) are enabling provisions and that there is no automatic or vested right or direction to grant reservation in promotion. Reliance has been placed upon the Constitution Bench judgment in M. Nagaraj & Others v. Union of India & Others, 2006 (8) SCC 212, the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 15.07.2011 in CWP No.13218 of 2009, Lachhmi Narain Gupta & Others v. Jarnail Singh & Others, the Constitution Bench judgment in Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta & Others dated 26.09.2018, and the subsequent three-Judge Bench judgment dated 28.01.2022 in Civil Appeal No.629 of 2022. The applicants contend that these decisions require the State/competent authority, before resorting to reservation in promotion, to undertake the requisite constitutional exercise, including collection of quantifiable data regarding inadequacy of representation relatable to the concerned cadre, while maintaining the requirement of administrative efficiency under Article 335.

It is specifically submitted by way of this rejoinder that there is no conscious decision of the concerned Ministry/Nodal Ministry to invoke Articles 16(4A) and 16(4B) and provide reservation in promotion. According to the applicants, the entire exercise of reviewing DPCs from 2011 onwards and preparation of draft panels is being justified on the basis that the Supreme Court, by order dated 28.01.2022, had directed implementation of reservation in promotion and that DoPT O.M. dated 12.04.2022 mandated such action. The applicants dispute this interpretation and submit that neither the judgment dated 26.09.2018 nor that dated 28.01.2022 contains any blanket direction to all Central Government departments to grant reservation in promotion. According to them, the DoPT O.M. dated 12.04.2022 only prescribes the manner in which the constitutional requirements are to be complied with if the competent Ministry decides to exercise the enabling power.

The applicants further aver in the rejoinder that, assuming the competent Ministry had decided to invoke the enabling provisions, the exercise would necessarily require, first, assessment of adequacy of SC/ST representation in the concerned cadre, taking into account reserved-category employees already occupying the promotional posts, including those promoted against UR vacancies; secondly, assessment of administrative efficiency under Article 335 by the competent cadre-controlling authority and not merely by the DPC; thirdly, exclusion of employees falling within the creamy layer; and fourthly, proper application of the ―own merit‖ principle. They submit that these exercises have not been carried out. In particular, they contend that the DPC cannot itself determine the constitutional question of whether reservation-based promotions are consistent with maintenance of administrative efficiency.

The applicants have also alleged defects in the preparation and operation of the rosters. They contend that there ought to be two independent rosters for promotees and direct recruits, that the cadre strength of each promotional post must first be ascertained, and that final seniority lists in each cadre of Senior Tax Assistant, Office Superintendent, Inspector and Income Tax Officer must precede further promotional action. They further contend that the roster should cease operating once the prescribed percentage is reached and that the catch-up principle must thereafter be applied while preparing the promotional panels. According to the applicants, none of these exercises has been completed. They further allege that reserved-category employees promoted against UR vacancies have been counted towards cadre strength and that eligibility-test marks are being treated as establishing ―own merit‖, resulting, according to them, in reverse discrimination against general-category employees.

In support of the catch-up principle, the applicants rely upon R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab, 1995 (2) SCC 745, Union of India v. Virpal Singh Chauhan, 1995 (6) SCC 684, and Ajit Singh Januja v. State of Punjab, 1996 (2) SCC 715/278 SCT, and also upon the judgment of this Tribunal in Maheshinder Singh Dhindsa v. Union of India & Others, OA No.060/00254/2017, decided on 08.02.2018, which, according to the rejoinder, was upheld by the jurisdictional High Court on 12.02.2020, followed by dismissal of the SLP on 18.12.2020 and the review petition on 15.02.2022. The applicants further rely upon the Tribunal's judgment dated 16.09.2025 in All India Equality Forum v. Ministry of Railways & Others, OA No.946/2024, in support of their contention that cadre-wise quantifiable data and compliance with the constitutional requirements are necessary before reservation in promotion can be implemented.

With regard to “own merit”, the applicants rely upon the Committee Report dated 16.01.2026 (Annexure R-12) and contend that there is an inconsistency in the respondents' stand. They submit that the O.M. dated 10.08.2010 (Annexure R-5) concerning ―own merit‖ was not being applied, while at the same time candidates were allegedly being treated as promoted on their own merit merely because they had obtained the requisite marks in an examination which, according to the applicants, was only qualifying in nature and was not an examination for selection on merit. The applicants therefore contend that merely passing a qualifying examination, even where different qualifying percentages apply to reserved and general candidates, cannot amount to promotion on ―own merit‖.

By way of this rejoinder, the applicants have also questioned the reliance upon DoPT O.M. dated 15.06.2018 (Annexure R-9). They contend that the said O.M. was an interim arrangement arising out of the Supreme Court orders dated 17.05.2018 and 05.06.2018, which were connected with the reference to the Constitution Bench, and that the interim arrangement ceased to operate after the Constitution Bench judgment dated 26.09.2018. In this regard, the applicants specifically refer to Annexure A-17, i.e. the Supreme Court order dated 05.06.2018, and Annexure A-18, i.e. the order dated 15.11.2017 referring the matter to the Constitution Bench. They further contend that the respondents' reliance upon the 15.06.2018 O.M. cannot override the subsequent constitutional law declared by the Supreme Court.

The applicants have further referred to communication dated 09.06.2025 (Annexure R-7), which, according to them, incorrectly proceeds on the basis that the Supreme Court directed promotions in accordance with the DoPT O.M. dated 12.04.2022. They have also referred to communication dated 17.07.2025 (Annexure R-8), wherein, according to them, it was stated that the Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment dated 15.07.2011 stood merged in the Supreme Court judgment dated 28.01.2022. Against this, the applicants rely upon communication dated 26.12.2025 (Annexure R-11), which states that the O.M. dated 10.08.2010 concerning ―own merit‖ was not being invoked as it had been quashed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, and communication dated 25.02.2026 (Annexure R-13), forwarding the Committee report and stating that clarity regarding the applicability of the Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment was required. The applicants rely upon these documents to contend that the respondents' position regarding the legal effect of the earlier judgments and instructions is itself inconsistent.

The applicants have also relied upon Suresh Chand Gautam v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others, decided on 11.03.2016, and Union of India v. Shaneel Rana & Others, CWP No.24671/2016, to contend that, since Articles 16(4A) and 16(4B) are enabling provisions, a Court cannot issue a mandamus compelling the State to exercise that enabling power or to undertake the preliminary exercise for the purpose of exercising such discretion. They submit that the existence of a reservation provision is the sine qua non for enforcement of a corresponding right, and that the Court cannot itself direct creation or implementation of a reservation policy.

Lastly, the applicants submit that the entire exercise lacks transparency and that the underlying data and methodology used for preparation of the rosters have not been furnished to them. They allege that the exercise is being undertaken retrospectively without giving general-category employees an opportunity of hearing, although their existing promotions, seniority and service rights are allegedly at risk. They further contend that no final seniority lists have been issued after application of the catch-up principle and that the creamy-layer exercise and Article 335 assessment have not been completed. On these grounds, the applicants maintain that the proposed reservation-based promotional exercise is contrary to the constitutional safeguards laid down in M. Nagaraj and Jarnail Singh (I & II) and seek allowance of the Original Application.

That by way of additional affidavit dated 29.06.2026, the respondents have filed rebuttal to the rejoinder filed by the applicants inter-alia reiterating the stand taken in the written statement and justifying the earlier draft panels circulated on 05.01.2026 and withdrawal thereof upon receipt of representations in a compelling demonstration of the fair and transparent approach of the respondents. They have tried to justify the issuance of fresh panels on the plea that after the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jarnail Singh-II dated 28.01.2022, the DoPT had issued office memorandum dated 12.04.2022 which is binding on all the Ministries and Departments. Pursuance thereto, the respondents constituted a Reservation Roster Committee on 19.06.2025, which conducted an extensive exercise of collecting cadre-wise data, preparing rosters and submitting its report. The Roster Preparation Committee submitted its revised and complete report on 25.02.2026 containing cadre-wise rosters with data on representation of SC/ST employees. This is precisely the exercise mandated by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The applicants' contention that no quantifiable data has been collected is wholly contrary to the material on record. The applicants' contention that a separate ministerial decision was required before implementation of reservation in promotion is legally unsustainable and contrary to the binding instructions of DOPT. The DoPT O.M. dated 12.04.2022, which is binding on all Ministries and Departments of the Government of India, itself constitutes the policy framework pursuant to which the respondents are acting. It is submitted that Article 16 (4A) is itself an enabling constitutional provision and the DoPT O.M. dated 12.04.2022 issued pursuant to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme court is the operative policy framework. The respondents, being a Cadre Controlling authority under the administrative framework, are duty-bound to comply with the directions of DoPT. The contention that the Ministry of Finance of CBDT was required to issue a separate independent order before the Pr. CCIT, NWR could proceed with the roster exercise is a manufactured argument having no basis in the DoPT instructions, the applicable service rules, or the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. It is further submitted that the CBDT/HRD vide letter dated 17.07.2025 (Annexure R-8) had already clarified the legal position, and the learned ASG had categorically stated that the P&H High Court order dated 15.07.2011 stands merged with the Apex Court's order dated 28.01.2022. Accordingly, the Pr. CCIT, NWR, acting as the Cadre Controlling Authority and in compliance with CBDT/HRD's directions, was fully competent and indeed obligated to undertake the present exercise.

The respondents have also relied upon the administrative instructions issued by DoPT on 15.06.2018 after the interim order dated 17.05.2018 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.36011 of 2011 and have also relied upon the virtual meeting of the officers of DOPT, CBDT, HRD with the learned ASG on 10.07.2025 in which it was specifically directed that the necessary steps be taken to comply with the instructions issued by the DoPT dated 15.06.2018 and 12.04.2022 and to ensure maintenance of rosters in accordance with DOPT O.M. dated 02.07.1997 on utmost priority. It was also pleaded that the judgment dated 15.07.2011 passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court stands merged with the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in judgment dated 28.01.2022 and therefore, there was no subsisting directions of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court which could bar the implementation of DoPT instructions dated 11.07.2022. It was under these circumstances that a communication dated 18.06.2026 (Annexure A-1) was issued by rendering the earlier communication dated 22.12.2024 as redundant so as to avoid any misinterpretation of the Department's present stand. The respondents have therefore acted in a transparent, legally sound and administrative proper manner throughout.

As regards the creamy layer, the stand of the respondents in the additional affidavit is that it is true that the Hon'ble Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta, (2018) 10 SCC 396, extended the creamy layer principle to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the context of promotion, the said judgment conspicuously stopped short of prescribing any income threshold, service criteria, identification methodology, classification framework, or operative implementation mechanism for exclusion of the creamy layer from the SC/ST category in the matter of promotion a legislative and executive function which the Court consciously left to the competent authority. Reservation in promotion in favour of SC/ST employees continues to be a constitutionally recognized right under Article 16 (4A) of the Constitution of India, whose validity was authoritatively upheld by the Constitution Bench in M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212, subject to the State satisfying the twin conditions of quantifiable data regarding Inadequacy of representation and compliance with Article 335 conditions which the respondents have duly satisfied. As on the date of the impugned promotion exercise, no binding Office Memorandum, DOPT circular, CBDT instruction, departmental order, cadre-specific policy, or statutory rule governing the relevant cadres had prescribed any defined criteria or mechanism for identification and exclusion of the creamy layer from SC/ST employees for the purpose of promotion; and it is well settled principle that a department cannot, of its own accord, evolve or apply criteria dehors the governing statutory rules and executive instructions in force. The applicants have conspicuously failed to place on record any such applicable statutory provision, Recruitment Rules, executive instruction or cadre-specific directive that was in force and mandated exclusion of any identified category of SC/ST employees from consideration during the relevant promotion exercise. In the absence of any such operative framework, the proposed impugned panels for promotions, having been conducted strictly in accordance with the extant Recruitment Rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and applicable Government instructions, cannot be declared illegal or invalid merely on the basis of abstract and generalized assertions regarding creamy layer, particularly when the applicants have not even challenged the validity of the Recruitment Rules themselves. Furthermore, the formulation of policy, prescription of eligibility criteria, and laying down of the mechanism for identification and exclusion of any sub-category within SC/ST for the purposes of promotion is a matter exclusively within the policy-making domain of the Central Government; this Hon'ble Tribunal, while exercising powers of judicial review, does not assume the role of a policy-maker and cannot itself evolve or impose a mechanism not contemplated by the applicable statutory or executive framework.

This exercise is being carried out in full compliance with the binding directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jarnail Singh (2022)10 SCC 303 and the DoPT O.M. dated 12.04.2022, and there is no procedural or legal infirmity in the conduct of the exercise. The Reservation Roster committee was constituted on 19.06.2025, conducted an exhaustive exercise involving retrieval and collation of data across multiple cadres, submitted its initial report on 26.12.2025, undertook re-examination upon receipt of representations, and submitted its revised complete report on 25.02.2026. The draft panels were circulated on 17.03.2026 inviting representations and objections. This entire process is in complete conformity with the DoPT O.M. dated 12.04.2022. the promotions are also subject to DPC scrutiny, assessment of APARS and vigilance clearance, ensuring full compliance with Article 335.

Regarding the catch up rule, the respondents have stated that it is true that prior to the constitutional amendments governing reservation in promotion, certain judicial pronouncements had recognized the concept of the catch-up rule, whereby a senior general category employee, upon being promoted subsequent to a junior reserved category employee who had been promoted earlier by virtue of reservation, could regain seniority over such reserved category employee, however, this position has been fundamentally and irrevocably altered by constitutional amendment of the highest legislative significance. The Constitution (Eighty-Fifth Amendment) Act, 2001 expressly amended Article 16 (4A) to recognize reservation in promotion with consequential seniority in favour of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, thereby constitutionally entrenching the right of SC/ST employees to retain the seniority benefit flowing from their earlier promotion under reservation, and in so doing, the Parliament consciously and specifically neutralized the operation of the catch up rule in case where consequential seniority is protected under applicable constitutional provisions, statutory rules and executive policy. The constitutional validity of Article 16 (4A) as to amended, including the provision relating to consequential seniority, was authoritatively upheld by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212, and the said position was reaffirmed by the Constitution Bench in Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta, (2018) 10 SCC 396 both of which are binding pronouncements of the highest constitutional authority. It is, therefore, a settled legal position that the catch up rule no longer operates as an automatic or overriding constitutional principle capable of displacing statutory Recruitment Rules, Service Rules, constitutional amendments, or validity framed promotion policies; rather, the entire field of seniority and promotion is exclusively regulated by the applicable statutory Recruitment Rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, executive instructions issued by DoPT as the nodal agency for all administrative Ministries and Departments under the Central Government, and the service jurisprudence applicable to the cadre concerned. In the present case, the applicants have conspicuously love and completely failed to produce before this Hon'ble Tribunal any statutory Recruitment Rule, Seniority Rule, Office Memorandum, executive instruction or departmental circular applicable to the cadre concerned which either mandates or even contemplates the application of the catch-up rule and in the settled legal position that seniority and promotion are matters strictly regulated by statutory rules, no employee can claim enforcement of a particular seniority principle as a matter of enforceable right in the absence of a specific provision conferring such entitlement. On the contrary, the impugned promotion exercise has been undertaken strictly in accordance with the applicable Recruitment rules framed under Article 309 and the governing Government instructions, none of which contain any provision requiring application of the catch-up rule in the manner urged by the applicants. It further love deserves emphasis that the applicants have not even challenged the validity of the Recruitment Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution, and therefore cannot, as a matter of settled law, seek relief that is contrary to or inconsistent with those very Rules. The relief sought by the applicant would effectively require this Hon'ble Tribunal to introduce a new seniority regime not contemplated by the applicable statutory framework, unsettle long-settle service positions of officers who have acted on the basis of existing seniority for years, and in substance rewrite the Recruitment and Service Rules an exercise that falls entirely outside the permissible scope of judicial review and would amount to an impermissible judicial encroachment into the legislative and executive policy domain.

The learned counsels for the applicants argued as follows:-

In essence, the applicants' case is that the respondents cannot retrospectively reopen settled promotions and seniority for the purpose of granting reservation in promotion unless the constitutional and legal prerequisites for invoking Articles 16(4A) and 16(4B) have first been duly satisfied; and that the present Review DPC exercise, being undertaken without such compliance and while simultaneously prejudging objections, is legally unsustainable.

The learned counsels for the respondents argued as follows:-

All the above four Original Applications have more or less same facts except in OA No. 423/2026 the facts are a little bit different. The applicant in this OA Krishan Kumar, is working as an Income Tax Officer in the Income Tax Department and was initially appointed as Tax Assistant in 2008. He was subsequently promoted as Senior Tax Assistant against VY 2011–12 and as Income Tax Inspector against VY 2014–15, and ultimately as Income Tax Officer against VY 2024 by extending the benefit of PwD reservation. His grievance is primarily against the subsequent Draft Select Panels issued for the posts of Senior Tax Assistant, Inspector and Income Tax Officer, whereby juniors belonging to reserved categories are proposed to be placed against earlier vacancy years, allegedly by extending reservation in promotion retrospectively, thereby affecting his seniority and promotional prospects. He also alleges that despite his 75% locomotor disability, the respondents failed to operate the promotional vacancies reserved for PwBDs, resulting in his not receiving the benefit of reservation in promotion to the post of Inspector.

The applicant in OA No. 423/2026 thus challenges the proposed Review DPC exercise principally on the ground that reservation in promotion to SC/ST categories is being extended without compliance with the constitutional and legal requirements laid down in M. Nagaraj v. Union of India and Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta, while simultaneously ignoring the applicant's claim for PwBD reservation in terms of Rajeev Kumar Gupta v. Union of India and Siddaraju v. State of Karnataka. He further relies upon the settled principle that long-settled promotions and seniority ought not to be reopened after considerable delay, particularly where such reopening may disturb the accrued rights of existing employees. The applicant accordingly seeks quashing of the impugned Draft Select Panels and vigilance-clearance process and a direction for appropriate Review DPCs so as to consider his claim for promotion by extending the benefit of PwBD reservation.

We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have carefully gone through the pleadings and considered the law cited by them.

Before proceeding on merit, we shall be dealing with the objection regarding prematurity of the OAs under Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 as raised by the respondents. Perusal of Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act shows that it cannot be accepted as an absolute bar to examine the grievance. Ordinarily, where only a provisional proposal is under consideration and a statutory or departmental remedy is available, an employee should await its outcome. However, Section 20 cannot be applied mechanically where the challenge is directed against the very jurisdictional foundation of an impending exercise and where continuation of that exercise may materially alter the position of the employees and create further complications. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that Section 20 of Administrative Tribunals Act (supra) is no bar in entertaining and deciding the present OAs.

Consequently, we proceed to decide the issues arising in the present cases on merit. Skipping the superfluities, the defence set up by the respondents is that the judgment dated 15.07.2011 passed by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Civil Writ Petition No.13218/2009 titled as Lachhmi Narayan Gupta Vs. Jarnail Singh stands merged with the judgment dated 28.01.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jarnail Singh-II. It is the further stand of the respondents that the instructions issued by the DoPT on 12.04.2022 are in compliance of judgment dated 28.01.2022 read with earlier DoPT instructions dated 15.06.2018 passed on the basis of interim order dated 17.05.2018 and the present exercise of preparation of review panels for promotion to the cadres in question fully justifies the action of the respondents making provision for reservation in promotion. It is also the stand of the respondents that though M. Nagaraj and Jarnail Singh-I have applied the test of creamy layer also, yet no guidelines have been issued by the Hon'ble Courts, so, it is premature to take into consideration the said ground alongwith the ground of catch up rule.

With a view to coming to a conclusion whether the judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court passed in Lachhmi Narain Gupta v. Jarnail Singh dated 15.07.2011 passed in CWP No. No.13218/2009 stands merged with judgment dated 28.01.2022 passed in Jarnail Singh-II, we have perused the said judgment and find that on 14.09.2021 it was made clear by the Hon'ble Suprme Court that the Hon'ble Court would not entertain any argument for the reconsideration of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Court in M. Nagaraj (supra) as a Constitutional Bench in Jarnail Singh-I (supra) had rejected such a request (Para 10 of the judgment dated 28.01.2022), while identifying six points formulated for determination i.e.

After answering these points, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 48 of the judgment held as under :-

(Emphasis supplied)

The perusal of aforementioned facts shows that the issue with regard to DOPT OM dated 10.08.2010 and other circulars referred therein relating to own merit promotions of the reserved category candidates were not decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in judgment dated 28.01.2022 and these have to be decided in individual cases meaning thereby the said issues are still pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thus, it cannot be said that the judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court dated 15.07.2011 passed in CWP No. No.13218/2009 stands merged with the judgment dated 28.01.2022.

That in view of above factual position, the DoPT administrative instructions dated 12.04.2022 could not be said to be compliance of M. Nagaraj read with Jarnail Singh-1 and Jarnail Singh-II. Needless to mention that these very administrative instructions were considered by a Division Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.1435/2018 alongwith two other cases decided on 26.02.2024 wherein the following conclusions have been arrived at in para Nos. 75 to 78 which read as under :-

In addition to above, the respondents have themselves admitted that the issue with regard to own merit is still pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 36021 of 2011 but they are trying to justify the present action after 3 judge bench judgment in Jarnail Singh-II.

Furthermore, the respondents have put a dent in their defence while taking a decision vide circular dated 14.02.2025 (Annexure A-20), that at that time they had proposed to move to Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court requesting to allow to implementation of instructions dated 12.04.2022 subject to the outcome of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Jarnail Singh batches of cases as is being dealt by other departments including other charges of Income Tax Department in the country and subsequently they changed the stance by having a meeting with the learned Additional Solicitor General and taking upon them to interpret in their own way the judicial orders/judgments of the courts and they started carrying out the exercise by issuing revised panels in January, 2026 and ultimately withdrew the same after the objections from the General category candidates. Later on,, again they are re-enforcing the same thing which was dropped in first attempt after initiating the same on 5th January, 2026 and again the reliance is placed on the meeting of the various functionaries of the DoPT, Revenue and learned ASG etc etc. This exercise is without any change of circumstance except the decision at the subsequent meeting of departmental representatives alongwith learned ASG only. Needless to mention that such decisions cannot overthrow the judicial pronouncement, nor can be allowed to the misinterpreted so as to nullify the binding effect of the Constitution Bench and other judgments/Judicial Orders on the issue in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anil Rattan Sarkar v. State of West Bengal reported as JT 2001 (5) SC page 99 inter-alia holding that the administrative ipse dixit cannot infiltrate upon an arena covered by judicial pronouncement. So any opinion of the learned Additional Solicitor General or DoPT instructions which are contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court are not binding and cannot neutralize the binding effect of judicial pronouncements.

That still further there is no force in the stand of the respondents that though the element of creamy layer has been made applicable by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Constitution Bench of M. Nagaraj, Jarnail Singh-I and Jarnail Singh-II, yet no criteria/guidelines have been issued for implementation of that element. This contention is bereft of merit and deserves outright rejection for the simple reasons the said exercise has to be carried by the executive by laying down appropriate criteria as being applied in cases of OBC categories. Needless to mention that even a 7 Judge Constitution Bench in case of State of Punjab v. Devinder Singh mandates element of creamy layer while providing reservation in promotion for SC/ST also reported as 2025 (1) SCC page 1, followed by Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CWP No. 24608 of 2023 titled as Kawaljeet Singh & others v. State of Haryana and others decided on 01.04.2025.

That similarly, there is no force in the stand of the respondents that except for NWR, the reservation in promotion has been provided in other charges of Income Tax Department as well as other departments in terms of DoPT guidelines dated 12.04.2022 after Jarnail Singh-II dated 28.01.2022 for the simple reason that there might not have been effective challenge to the action of the government/department and the present controversy arising out of quashing DoPT circular dated 10.08.2010 which included other instructions also, by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Punjab and Haryana, there is no escape except to follow the same by the respondents till the said judgment is reversed, upset or modified which is still pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court. Bad practice cannot be good law. We have also dealt with the administrative instructions dated 12.04.2022 alongwith the earlier DoPT instructions dated 15.06.2018 in Anupam Yadav (supra).

Thus, the respondents having not complied with the mandate of M. Nagaraj, Jarnail Singh-I and Jarnail Singh-II and Devinder Singh and Kawaljeet Singh (supra), cannot be allowed to proceed further and to prepare the rosters or the panels for promotion providing reservation in promotion as it would be allowing the respondents to put the cart before horse and raising a building without foundation which is bound to collapse.

Consequently, all the three Original Applications are allowed and the impugned order dated 17.03.2026, Annexure A-10, A-11 and A-13 are quashed and set aside, however, the respondents are always at liberty to proceed in the matter after full and strict compliance of mandate of M. Nagaraj read with Jarnail Singh I & II, Davinder Singh and Kawaljieet Singh (supra) in letter and spirit keeping in view the observations made in the present order.

ΟΑ No.423/2026 That since the present OA was also filed by the applicant apprehending the change of his position in view of the change of the panels whereunder he had already been granted the benefit of reservation of PwDs and the said proposal having been quashed in OA Nos. 060/359/2026, 060/366/2026 & 060/367/2067, so, the grievance of the applicant stands redressed, however, he is at liberty to approach the appropriate forum as and when necessity arises.

Parties to bear their own costs.

All pending MAs, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.

A copy of this order be kept in the other connected files as well.