AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Permod Kohli, J.—Petitioners and Respondents No. 2 to 7 were recruited/ appointed as Deputy Superintendent of Police on the recommendations of the Punjab Public Service Commission in the pay scale of Rs. 940-1,850 vide Memo No. 7885-3H91/85/27424-39, dated 24th October, 1985 (Annexure P-J). It was stipulated in the appointment order that the service condition of the Petitioner shall be governed by the Punjab Police Service Rules, 1959 as amended from time to time and other Rules/Orders of the State Government. Condition No. 6 of the appointment order provides for fixation of seniority, according to the merit fixed by the Punjab Public Service Commission and other rules/ instructions on the subject. The Petitioner and the private Respondents joined the service on their appointment. In the order of merit, the Petitioner figured at Sr. No. 11 whereas Respondents No. 2 to 7 figured at Sr. Nos. 5, 4 and 6 to 9, respectively. Besides above mentioned statutory rules, there were government instructions concerning the appointment and seniority. Since the appointments were also against vacancies for various reserved categories, the instructions notified 100 points Roster. It was stipulated that the seniority should be assigned as per the Roster Point reserved for Scheduled Castes and Backwared Classes in the 100 point Roster irrespective of their position in the merit list or general seniority list in Class I, II, III and IV service. The Petitioner and private Respondents were recruited to Class II Service (Dy. SP). The Petitioner belongs to Reserved Category of Scheduled Castes whereas Respondents No. 2 to 7 are from General Category. It appears that the State notified the seniority in the order of merit achieved by the Petitioner and private Respondents. The Petitioner seems to have made representations for re-fixation of the seniority on the basis of Roster points. On the representation of the Petitioner, the Home Department modified the merit seniority to the Roster point seniority. The Petitioner who was at Sr. No. 11 in the meirt list was brought at Sr. No. 1 and private Respondents were placed below him on the basis of their inter-se merit. Some of the reserved category candidates were also inducted at roster slots on the basis of reservation earmarked for the reserved cagetories vide letter dated 28th August, 1999 (Annexure P-3). The Director General of Police vide Memo No. 480-552/Con. SA-6, dated 6th November, 1995 (Annexure P-5) notified the seniority of the Dy. S.P. directly recruited during the years 1985 to 1991. The Petitioner and private Respondents having been recruited in the year 1985, their seniority was fixed vide the aforesaid Circular.
The Petitioner was placed at Sr. No. 5 whereas Respondent No. 2 to 7 were placed in the seniority list at Sr. Nos. 8 to 17 respectively. The aforesaid Circular contained a specific condition that the seniority be brought to the notice of each Officer under proper acknowledgement and the Officer be also informed that if any of them wants to make any representation against the seniority, he can do so within one month from the date of receipt of the letter.
In the meanwhile, the Petitioner and private Respondents were considered for induction into I.P.S. and all of them were inducted into I.P.S. in the year 1995 vide order dated 25th July, 1995. They were allotted year of allotment as 1991 vide letter dated 21st April, 1996 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs Government of India (Annexure P-6). They were also placed in the Selection Grade of Rs. 14,300-- 18,300 with effect from 1st January, 2004 vide State Government''s order dated 31st October, 2005. The Petitioner and private Respondents were further promoted to the rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police in the pay scale of Rs. 16,400--2,000 with effect from 1st January, 2005 vide State Government''s order dated 24th April, 2006. Presently, the Petitioner and the private Respondents are working as Deputy Inspector General of Police.
The Petitioner was issued notice dated 12th March, 2008 for re-determination of the seniority on the basis of the instructions issued vide letter No. 3/34/99-3PPI/12565 dated 22nd October, 1999 by not treating roster point as seniority point. Government instructions issued under letter No. 8/2/2K-3PP-1/3052, dated 23rd October, 2000 and Proviso (ii) under Rule 10 of the Punjab Police Service Rules, 1959 is also referred to in the aforesaid notice. Objections were invited from the Petitioner within 30 days. Under the proposed seniority, private Respondents were projected to be placed above the Petitioner. The Petitioner filed a detailed reply dated 25th April, 2008.
On consideration of the reply submitted by the Petitioner to the proposed seniority, Respondents have passed the impugned order dated 22nd September, 2008 issued under endorsement dated 26th September, 2006 (Annexure P-13) whereby seniority of the Petitioner and the private Respondents have been re-determined. The Petitioner have been placed at Sr. No. 10 whereas the private Respondents has been placed above the Petitioner from Sr. Nos. 4 to 9, respectively. Aggrieved of the aforesaid order dated 22nd September, 2008 (Annexure P-13), the Petitioner has questioned its legality, validity and constitutionality in the present petition. On the basis of pleadings, following points arise for consideration:
(1) Whether the inter se seniority between the Petitioner and Respondents No. 2 to 7 stood finally settled in the year 1995 and cannot be altered ?
(2) Whether the Government instructions issued vide Annexures P-15 to P-18 invoked to re-determine the seniority have been validly applied ?
(3) Whether on induction into IPS from the State Police Service, the lien of inductees with the State service terminates and State Government ceases to have jurisdiction to re-determine the seniority in the cadre of State service.
(4) Whether the 85th Constitution Amendment per se mandates grant of consequential seniority on placement on roster point on appointment/ promotion irrespective of the merit in the selection in the case of appointment and seniority in the feeding channel in the case of promotion ?
(5) What is the impact of judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in the ease of M. Nagaraj and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, upholding the 85th Constitution Amendment on the ratio of earlier judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajit Singh-II and Ors. v. The State of Punjab and Ors. 1999 (4) R.S.J. 211
I have heard learned Counsel for the parties at length. The aforesaid points are being answered in seritium as follows:
POINT No. 1
Admittedly, the Petitioner and private Respondents were recruited as Dy.S. Ps in the State Police Service on the same day vide the appointment letter (Annexure P-l) dated 24th October, 1985. The service conditions of the appointees were governed by the statutory rules, namely, Punjab Police Service Rules, 1959. Rule 10 of the aforesaid Rules deals with the seniority in the cadre of service and reads as under:
Seniority of members of service. The seniority of members of the service shall be determined by the date of confirmation in the service.
Provided that if two or more members are confirmed on the same date.
(i) a member who is appointed to the Service by promotion shall be senior to a member appointed otherwise;
(ii) in the case of members who were appointed by direct appointment, the seniority shall be determined in accordance with their position in the competitive examination;
(iii) in the case of members who were appointed to the service by promotion, the seniority shall be determined in accordance with the date of their entry in promotion list "G".
Seniority of the members of service in terms of the aforesaid Rule is to be determined from the date of confirmation in the service. The Petitioner and private Respondents were appointed on the same date and confirmed by the same order. Clause (ii) to the proviso appended to the Rule 10 provides for determination of inter se seniority of the members of the service recruited directly in accordance with their merit position in the competitive examination. Petitioner and private Respondents were selected and appointed on the basis of the competitive examination held by the Punjab Public Service Commission and their merit position is reflected in Annexure P-l. The Petitioner is at Sr. No. 11 whereas the private Respondents are above him from Sr. Nos. 4 to 9 respectively. Admittedly, the Petitioner was lower in merit than the private Respondents. Even Clause 6 of appointment letter clearly provides for determination of seniority on the basis of merit fixed by the Punjab Public Service Commission, and in accordance with the rules. However, the seniority was initially determined on the basis of the government instructions dated 19th July, 1969 (Annexure P-2) which provided for fixation of seniority in the 100 point roster in accordance with the roster point. These instructions were further supplemented by government instructions issued by the Department of Welfare (Reservation Cell) bearing No. 2/573/78-SW1/11318, dated 8th April, 1980. On the basis of the aforesaid instructions, the seniority was notified vide Circular dated 6th January, 1995.
According to the Petitioner, the seniority was finally settled vide Circular dated 6th January, 1995 and thus cannot be altered after 8 years. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has referred to and relied upon the judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of S.B. Dogra Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, . In this case, it has been observed by Hon''ble Supreme Court that where the seniority is circulated inviting objections before it is finalized and no objections were filed within the stipulated time, seniority ought not to be disturbed after such a long lapse.
Based upon the aforesaid judgment, it is argued that settled seniority cannot be disturbed. His further contention is that the seniority remained in operation for eight years and thus cannot be altered after a long pause of 8 years.
There is no dispute with the proposition that settled seniority should not be disturbed. However, this is not an absolute rule and depends upon facts of each case. In the present case, it hinges upon the fact whether the seniority was ever settled.
The State-Respondent has taken a categorical stand that this circular was not circulated to the members of service. Paragraph 2 of the aforesaid Circular provided for Circulation of this circular to each officer which reads as under:
The above seniority list of Proby.DS Ps (appointed directly) may please be brought to the notice of each officer under proper acknowledgement. The Officer concerned may also be informed that if any of them want to make any representation against this seniority, he can do so within one month from the eceipt of this letter and afterwards no representation will be entertained.
The aforesaid stipulation further" required the officer concerned to make representation against the seniority within one month from the receipt of the letter. In paragraph 5 of the Disclaimer, State Government has categorically averred that the Circular was not circulated amongst the concerned officers and accordingly no objections were called at that time. Meaning thereby that despite stipulation to circulate the seniority to each officer against proper acknowledgment, the seniority position was not brought to the notice of the officers and thus they had no occasion to make representation against their seniority position. No record has been produced to establish that this Circular was duly circulated to the private Respondents against the proper acknowledgment or even brought to their notice at the relevant time. From the stipulation, in the Circular dated 6th January, 1995, it is also revealed that the seniority indicated in the circular had not attained finality till the objections are considered. After the Circular dated 6th January, 1995, no order whatsoever has been passed to declare the notified seniority as final. The issue of seniority thus remained open for want of proper Circulation to the concerned officials, including the Petitioner and the private Respondents.
The show-cause notice (Annexure P-8) refers to representations made by the affected officers who are Respondents No 6 and 7 in the present writ petition. The plea of the Petitioner that the seniority stands settled in the year 1995 cannot be accepted, in view of above circumstances.
POINT No. (2)
The Respondent-State has relied upon government instructions (Annexures P-15 to P-18) as the basis for altering the seniority position. In the case of Ajit Singh Januja and others Vs. State of Punjab and others, . Relying upon an earlier judgment in the case of Union of India and others etc. Vs. Virpal Singh Chauhan etc., , Hon''ble Supreme Court held as under:
We respectfully concur with the view in Union of India v. Virpal Singh Chauhan, (supra) that seniority between the reserved category candidates and general candidates in the promoted category shall continue to be governed by their panel position i.e. with reference to their inter se seniority in the lower grade. The rule of reservation gives accelerated promotion, but it does not give the accelerated consequential seniority''. If a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidate is promoted earlier because of the rule of reservation/ roster and his senior belonging to the general category candidate is promoted later to that higher grade the general category candidate shall regain his seniority over such earlier promoted scheduled caste/tribe candidate. As already pointed out above that when a scheduled caste/tribe candidate is promoted earlier by applying the rule of reservation/roster against a post reserved for such scheduled caste/tribe candidate, in this process he does not supersede his seniors belonging to the general category....
The view expressed in Ajit Singh Januja and Ors. v. State of Punjab, (supra) was later deviated by Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagdish Lal and others Vs. State of Haryana and others, .
Based upon the subsequent judgment, the State of Punjab moved interlocutory application seeking clarification of the judgment in Ajit Singh Januja and Ors. v. State of Punjab, (supra) in the light of the later judgment in Jagdish Lal (supra). While deciding the application for clarification (Ajit Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab and Ors. (supra), a Constitution Bench of Hon''ble Supreme Court, on consideration of both the judgments and provisions of Article 16(4) (4A), framed following four points for consideration:
On the above contentions, the following four main points arise for consideration:
Points:
(1) Can the roster point promotees (reserved category) count their seniority in the promoted category from the date of their continuous officiation vis-a-vis general candidates who were senior to them in the lower category and who were later promoted to the same level ?
(2) Have Virpal, Ajit Singh been correctly decided and has Jagdish Lal been correctly decided ?
(3) Whether the ''catch-up'' principles contended for by the general candidates are tenable ?
(4) What is the meaning of the ''prospective'' operation of Sabbarwal and to what extent can Ajit Singh be prospective ?
After consideration, the Hon''ble Supreme Court concluded the points (1) and (2) as under:
We, therefore, hold that the roster point promotees (reserved category) cannot 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 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. We shall explain this further under Point 3. We also hold that Virpal and Ajit Singh have been correctly decided and that Jagdish Lal is not correctly decided. Point 1 and 2 are decided accordingly.
Hon''ble Supreme Court also approved the catch up rule which entitled the General Category candidate to regain seniority on promotion to the higher level where the Reserved Category candidate junior in the lower grade had been promoted earlier on roster promotion.
The State of Punjab issued fresh instructions vide Memo No. 3/34/99/3PPI/12565, dated 22nd October, 1999 (Annexure P-17) in implementation of the Ajit Singh Januja''s judgment. Through this Circular, the earlier Government circular No. 7191 -OSD(W)-69/l 8194, dated 19th July, 1969 providing for Roster point seniority was withdrawn and provided for seniority on merit in the selection in case of direct recruits and on the basis of the principle laid down in Ajit Singh Januja''s case (supra), on promotional posts. This Circular (Annexure P-17) was followed by another Clarificatory Circular No. 8/3/2K-3PPI/13052 (Annexure P-18). Through the Circular (Annexure P-18), specific instructions were conveyed to the Punjab Public Service Commission and the Subordinate Service Selection Board to re-determine the seniority on the basis of merit prepared by the Selection body. It further directed to ensure that the results are prepared and communicated on the basis of combined merit of all the cadres.
In the meantime, the writ petition challenging the 85th Constitutional Amendment was pending before Hon''ble Supreme Court wherein interim directions were issued in LA No. 2 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 61/2002-M. Nagaraj and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. and Writ Petition (Civil) No. 234/2002-A11 India Equality Forum and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., allowing the States to grant cosnequential seniority to the Scheduled Caste employees on roster promotion prospectively. In view of the aforesaid interim order, State Government issued yet another Circular No. 3/34/99-3PPI/17646, dated 15th December, 2005 (Annexure P-16) allowing consequential seniority prosectively on promotional posts for Scheduled Caste employees till the matter is finally decided by Hon''ble Apex Court. The judgment in M. Nagaraj and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (supra) came to be delivered by Hon''ble Apex Court on 19th October, 2006. The State Government accordingly issued another Circular No. 18/15/ 08-3 PPI/10859 and reverted back to the judgment in Ajit Singh Januja-II (supra).
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner referred to Annexure P-16 and the order passed by the Hon''ble Apex Court in IA No. 2 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 61/2002-M. Nagaraj and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. and Writ Petition (Civil) No. 234/2002-A11 India Equality Forum and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. wherein the Hon''ble Supreme Court issued interim directions for grant of Roster point seniority to the scheduled caste employees. On the basis of the aforesaid circular which refers to the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, it is seriously contended on behalf of the Petitioner that under the directions of the Hon''ble Apex Court, the roster point seniority has to be granted to the Reserved Category candidates. This contention needs to be rejected for two reasons firstly by virtue of the impugned order, roster point seniority is to be given to Reserved Category candidates prospectively. Hon''ble Supreme Court passed the interim order on 17th November, 2005. This means that on any promotion made after the passing of the interim order, the promotee will be entitled to the benefit of roster point seniority and such benefit cannot operate retrospectively. The seniority position of the Petitioner qua the private Respondents has to be determined as on the date of their initial appointment in State service in the year 1985. It is not in dispute that they earned all promotions prior to passing of the aforesaid order. The final judgment in M. Nagaraj and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (supra) was delivered on 19th October, 2006 and the interim directions merged with the final judgment. The seniority is thus to be determined on the basis of the 85th Constitutional Amendment in the light of the observations of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in M. Nagaraj and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (supra). To understand the final legal position for determination of the roster point seniority in the 85th constitutional amendment, it is relevant to notice the observations of the Hon''ble Apex Court in M. Nagaraj and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (supra) which reads as under:
CONCLUSION:
The impugned constitutional amendments by which Articles 16(4A) and 16(4B) have been inserted flow from Article 16(4). They do not alter the structure of Article 16(4). They retain the controlling factors or the compelling reasons, namely, backwardness and inadequacy of representation which enables the States to provide for reservation keeping in mind the overall efficiency of the State administration under Article 335. These impugned amendments are confined only to SCs and STs. They do not obliterate any of the constitutional requirements, namely, ceiling-limit of 50% (quantitative limitation), the concept of creamy layer (qualitative exclusion), the sub-classification between OBC on one hand and SCs and STs on the other hand as held in Indra Sawhney, the concept of post- based Roster with in-built concept of replacement as held in R.K. Sabharwal.
We reiterate that the ceiling-limit of 50%, the concept of creamy layer and the compelling reasons, namely, backwardness, inadequacy of representation and overall administrative efficiency are all constitutional requirements without which the structure of equality of opportunity in Article 16 would collapse.
However, in this case, as stated, the main issue concerns the "extent of reservation". In this regard the concerned State will have to show in each case the existence of the compelling reasons, namely, backwardness, inadequacy of representation and overall administrative efficiency before making provision for reservation. As stated above, the impugned provision is an enabling provision. The State is not bound to make reservation for SC/ST in matter of promotions. However if they wish to exercise their discretion and make such provision, the State has to collect quantifiable data showing backwardness of the class and inadequacy of representation of that class in public employment in addition to compliance of Article 335. It is made clear that even if the State has compelling reasons, as stated above, the State will have to see that its reservation provision does not lead to excessiveness so as to breach the ceiling-limit of 50% or obliterate the creamy layer or extend the reservation indefinitely.
From the perusal of judgment passed in Ajit Singh Januja-II case (supra), the legal position that has emerged is that whenever a reserved category candidate is promoted against Roster Point earmerked for such reserved Category, he gets accelerated promotion and not the seniority. The Roster promotion cannot determine the seniority either at the initial appointment or even promotion. At the time of initial appointment, even though the placement of reserved category candidates is to be made on the basis of slots meant for reserved categories, none-the-less the seniority has to be determined on the basis of their inter se merit in the selection. Similarly, as and when the general category candidate is promoted from Level-I to Level-II, even on a later date than the reserved category promotee, his seniority at Level-II will be restored notwithstanding the promotion at a later point of time. This is by vitrue of the catch up rule applied by the Hon''ble Apex Court in various judgments. On the basis of the aforesaid judgment, the State had issued the Executive Instructions (Annexure P-15, P-18 and P-17) noticed here-in-above. These instructions were in force and in operation and rightly notified in view of the judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Ajit Singh Januja-II case (supra). The State rightly applied these instructions to determine the seniority, particularly, in view of the rule position as notified vide Rule 10 of the Punjab Police Service Rules, noticed here-in-above.
POINT No. (3)
It has been argued on behalf of the Petitioner that after induction into the IPS, the lien of the inductees with the State Service terminates and State Government has no jurisdiction to re-determine the seniority in the cadre of State service. According to the learned Counsel'' for the Petitioner, on induction into the IPS, the Petitioner has become the member of a different service and has acquired lien on the post in the IPS service and ceases to have any concern with the State service. To buttress these arguments, he had referred to communication dated 5th July, 1995 from the Petitioner to the DGP, Punjab regarding appointment to the Indian Police Service against the vacancy of promotion quota. This communication was accompanied with the Certificate of the same date issued by the Petitioner stating therein that he is willing for termination of his lien from the State Police Service for appointment to the IPS. He has also referred to Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs letter No. 4/4/60-AIS(III), dated 15th October, 1960. This letter certifies that the appointment of a State Service Officer to an All India Service against the promotion quota or otherwise is appointment in a substantive capacity outside his cadre. It further states that lien on the post in the State Service, shall, therefore, be suspended under Fundamental Rule 14(a) (2). On the basis of the aforesaid letter, it is contended on behalf of the Petitioner that the lien of the Petitioner in the State Service stands terminated on appointment/promotion of the Petitioner as also the private Respondents in the IPS.
Appointment to the India Police Service from the State Police Service is governed and regulated by the statutory Regulation known as The Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955. The mode and method of appointment for induction/ appointment to IPS is prescribed under Regulations 5 to 9. Regulation 5 deals with the preparation of list of suitable candidates. It is relevant to notice sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 5 which reads as under:
5.(2)The Committee shall consider for inclusion in the said list, the cases of members of the State Police Service in the order of seniority in that service of number which is equal to three time the number referred to in sub-regulation (1).
In view of the above Regulation, seniority in the State, service alongwith other eligibility criterion is an important consideration for inclusion in the select list for appointment to IPS. Regulation 9 further deals with the appointment to the IPS. This regulation provides for appointment of a member of State Police Service willing to be appointed to the IPS in the order in which the names of the members of the State Police Service appear in the select list. Thus from the aforesaid regulations, it is evident that notwithstanding, appointment/ induction to IPS, the seniority in the State service is not only relevant, but also the determinative factor.
Since appointment to IPS has direct and inseparable relation with the seniority in the State Police Service, the argument of learned Counsel for the Petitioner deserves to be rejected. Unless the seniority in the State Police Service is finalized, the induction and further seniority position after induction cannot be settled and determined. Even though on induction into IPS, the appointees have acquired lien on the posts in IPS Cadre, none-the-less their lien in the Police Service continues for limited purpose of determination of seniority in State Service, if not finally decided and consequently, at IPS level.
POINT Nos. (4) & (5)
It is lastly contended on behalf of the Petitioner that after 85th Constitution Amendment, the seniority has to be determined on the basis of the Roster Promotion/appointment. Article 16(4) and (4A) of the Constitution of India reads as under:
Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment.---(1) There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State.
XXX XXX XXX
(4) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for the reservation, of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State.
(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 State in favour of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes which in the opinion of the State are not adequately represented in the services under the State.
Clause (4A) of Article 16 was introducted by 85th Constitution Amendment in the year 2001. The aforesaid Clause empowers the State to make any provision for reservation in the matters of promotion with consequential seniority to any class or classes of posts in the Service under the State in favour of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes where the State is of the opinion that such Classes are not adequately represented in the service of the State. The validity of this Amendment was questioned in the case of M. Nagaraj and Ors. (supra). While upholding the constitutional validity of the amendment, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has categorically ruled that the provision is only enabling to Clause 16(4) and it is open to every State to make provisions for consequential seniority in promotion on the basis of the data available to the State that any particular class is not adequately represented in the State Service. Thus the consequential seniority on promotion against Roster Point is not automatic. Such consequential seniority can be granted only if the State makes a provision for such consequential seniority on the basis of material and data collected by it, that any particular Class is not adequately represented in the State Service. Even before the judgment in M. Nagaraj and Ors. (supra) came to be delivered, the Punjab State has enacted the Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006 notified on 5th October, 2006. This Act governs the appointment/ promotion etc. in public services in the State of Punjab.
From reading of the aforesaid Act, it appears that there is no provision for consequential seniority on roster promotion. No other law or even government instruction has been brought to the notice of this Court that the State Government has made any provision for consequential seniority on the basis of roster promotion after 85th Constitution Amendment. In the absence of any such provision or till the State Government makes any further provision on the basis of the observations of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of M. Nagaraj and Ors. (supra), the ratio of the judgments of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajit Singh Januja-H (supra) as also in the case of R. K. Sabharwal (supra) shall apply and will hold the field. As noticed above, in the Constitution Bench judgment passed in the case of Ajit Singh Januja-II (supra) it has been held that the Roster appointment/promotion does not determine seniority. Even if a Reserved Category candidate is appointed at Level-I in the initial recruitment and he is placed on Roster Point, it will not determine the seniority in the cadre of service and the seniority will remain on the basis of the inter se merit of the appointees in the selection. Even on promotion from Level I to Level II, the reserved category candidate may be promoted prior to General Category candidate senior to him, on account of accelerated roster promotion, on promotion of the General Category Candidate at any later date, he will catch up his seniority and will rank senior to the reserved category candidate, notwithstanding, length of service of reserved category promotee on the promotional post.
In view of the dictum of the aforesaid judgments, the position which prevails in the State of Punjab is that (1) roster point appointment/ promotion will not determine the seniority; and that (2) seniority will remain on the basis of merit in the case of direct recruitment and on the basis of length of service on substantive basis in the feeding channel, on the promotional post.
In view of the totality of the circumstances, and the legal position discussed here-in-above, the State has rightly determined the seniority amongst the Petitioner and Respondents No. 2 to 7 as Dy.S. Ps. Same seniority shall continue on induction to IPS and in all subsequent promotion(s).
In view of the above, I find no merit in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed.