SALAUDDIN AHMED Vs. SAMTA ANDOLAN
LAWS(SC)-2012-8-48
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: RAJASTHAN)
Decided on August 29,2012

SALAUDDIN AHMED Appellant
VERSUS
SAMTA ANDOLAN Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

MILAP CHAND DANDIA VS. D.B. GUPTA [LAWS(RAJ)-2022-3-259] [REFERRED TO]
BAJRANG LAL SHARMA VS. C.K. MATHEW [LAWS(SC)-2020-1-68] [REFERRED TO]
MUMBAI PORT TRUST NON SC/ST EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION VS. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF MUMBAI PORT TRUST [LAWS(BOM)-2016-12-184] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)These appeals arise out of the common judgment and order dated 23rd February, 2012, passed by the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No.941 of 2010 and D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No.359 of 2011, whereby the alleged contemnors were held to be guilty of contempt of court for having violated the order passed by the Division Bench of the Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court on 5th February, 2010, in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8104 of 2008.
(2.)From the materials on record it transpires that on 27th November, 1972, the State of Rajasthan issued a Notification providing for reservation for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes candidates to the extent of 15% for Scheduled Castes and 7.5% for Scheduled Tribes. Subsequently, on and from 3rd October, 1973, such reservation was increased to 16% and 12% for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates, respectively. On 29th January, 1981, the Rules for promotion based on the criteria of seniority- cum-merit were introduced. In 1992, in the case of Indira Sawhney Vs. Union of India & Ors., 1992 Supp3 SCC 217, this Court had held that reservation in promotional posts for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates was not permissible. The effect of the said decision was neutralized by the Constitution (Seventy Seventh Amendment) Act, enacted on 17th June, 1995, whereby Article 16(4-A) was inserted in the Constitution to provide for reservation in respect of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates in promotional posts.
(3.)The aforesaid amendment led to a spurt of litigation. In 1996, while considering the said issue in the case of Ajit Singh Januja & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., 1996 2 SCC 715 (Ajit Singh-I), this Court held that even if the person in reserved category is promoted earlier than a general category candidate due to operation of roster, and subsequently, the general category candidate was also promoted, the candidates in the general category would regain their seniority as existing in the cadre prior to promotion. This method of allowing a subsequent promotee to regain seniority came to be known as the "catch-up" principle. On 30th January, 1997, the Union of India issued a memorandum to all the various departments asking them to implement the decision rendered by this Court regarding regaining of seniority pursuant to the said direction. Thereafter, on 1st April, 1997, the State of Rajasthan followed suit and introduced the "catch- up" principle. A provisional seniority list of candidates belonging to the Rajasthan Administrative Services was issued on 26th June, 2000, on the basis of the Notification dated 1st April, 1997. However, it was never given effect to and was ultimately quashed by the Rajasthan High Court in Writ Petition (Civil) Nos.2968 of 2000, 2176 of 2000, 3373 of 2000 and 3385 of 2000.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.