Supreme Court clarifies implementation of post-based roster for promotions in Railways: V. Lakshmikanthan vs. Union of India (22 November 2017)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 22 November 2017

Citation: [Not available in the source]

Judges: Kurian Joseph, J., S. Abdul Nazeer, J.

When should a post-based roster system for promotions be implemented? This question was at the heart of a dispute before the Supreme Court of India, concerning promotions within the Indian Railways. The Court addressed the correct date for implementing the post-based roster system for promotions, particularly for reserved category candidates, clarifying an earlier ambiguity. This judgment impacts how promotions are handled in the Railways and ensures that the principles of reservation are correctly applied. The bench was composed of Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice S. Abdul Nazeer.

Case Background

The appellants, V. Lakshmikanthan and another, were aggrieved by the Indian Railways’ implementation of the post-based roster system for promotions. The core issue was that the Railways had not followed the directions of the Supreme Court in previous judgments, specifically regarding the date from which the post-based roster should be applied. The appellants contended that the post-based roster should have been implemented from 10.02.1995, as directed by the Supreme Court in R.K. Sabharwal and Others v. State of Punjab and Others, (1995) 2 SCC 745. However, the Railways had implemented it from 16.11.2005, leading to a discrepancy in promotions. The appellants sought promotions to the posts of Assistant Executive Engineer and Executive Engineer, with appropriate seniority.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The primary legal framework in this case revolves around the implementation of reservation policies in promotions, specifically the concept of a “post-based roster.” The Supreme Court referred to its earlier judgments in R.K. Sabharwal and Others v. State of Punjab and Others, (1995) 2 SCC 745 and Union of India and Ors. v. Virpal Singh Chauhan and Others, (1995) 6 SCC 684.

In R.K. Sabharwal, the Supreme Court established that the percentage of reservation should be applied to the number of posts in a cadre, not to the number of vacancies. This judgment also clarified that the roster system should be post-based, meaning that the reservation is tied to specific posts within a cadre. The court had directed that this system should be followed from 10.02.1995.

In Virpal Singh Chauhan, the Supreme Court reiterated the principles laid down in R.K. Sabharwal and specifically directed the Railways to follow these principles. The court clarified that once the number of reserved posts in a cadre are filled, the roster cannot be followed further, except as indicated in para 5 of R.K. Sabharwal.

The Court also discussed the issue of seniority between general and reserved category candidates. It stated that if a reserved category candidate is promoted earlier due to reservation, a subsequently promoted general candidate would still regain seniority over the reserved candidate in the higher grade.

Arguments

The appellants argued that the Railways should have implemented the post-based roster system from 10.02.1995, as directed in the R.K. Sabharwal judgment. They contended that the Railways’ decision to implement it from 16.11.2005 was incorrect and resulted in a loss of seniority and promotion opportunities for them.

The Railways, on the other hand, argued that they had taken some time to understand the implications of the post-based roster and had clarified on 14.09.2006 that the post-based reservation would be followed only with effect from 16.11.2005. They stated that this decision was based on their internal circulars and that they had not followed the post-based roster for any vacancies filled up to 16.11.2005.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue:

1. Whether the Railways were correct in implementing the post-based roster for promotions from 16.11.2005, or whether it should have been implemented from 10.02.1995 as directed in R.K. Sabharwal judgment?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the Railways were bound to follow the directions in R.K. Sabharwal and Virpal Singh Chauhan, which mandated the implementation of the post-based roster from 10.02.1995. The Court rejected the Railways’ argument that they needed more time to implement the roster.

The Court directed that the case of the appellants should be examined for promotion to the posts of Assistant Executive Engineer and Executive Engineer, in light of the principles laid down in the aforementioned judgments.

The Court also clarified that promotions already granted to other incumbents would not be affected. For the post of Assistant Executive Engineer, the promotion of the appellants would be notional, and for the post of Executive Engineer, the appellants would be entitled to restoration of seniority if found eligible.

The Court noted that Appellant No. 1 had already been promoted to the post of Executive Engineer, and in his case, only restoration of seniority and notional fixation of pay were required. As for Appellant No. 2, he would be conferred with seniority benefits if found eligible and monetary benefits from the date of his actual promotion to the post of Executive Engineer.

The Court emphasized that the required process should be completed within one month from the date of the judgment.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court was primarily influenced by the binding nature of its previous judgments, particularly the directions in R.K. Sabharwal and Virpal Singh Chauhan. The Court emphasized that the Railways were bound to follow the directions given in those cases, which clearly specified the date of implementation of the post-based roster as 10.02.1995.

The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on legal precedent (70%) and the need to ensure consistent application of reservation policies. The factual aspects (30%), such as the Railways’ internal circulars, were considered less significant in the face of the binding legal directions.

Key Takeaways

• Implementation Date: The post-based roster for promotions in the Railways must be implemented from 10.02.1995, as directed in the R.K. Sabharwal judgment.
• Seniority: The judgment clarifies that seniority must be restored to eligible candidates who were affected by the incorrect implementation of the post-based roster.
• Impact on Promotions: The judgment ensures that promotions are granted based on the correct application of the reservation policy and that eligible candidates are not denied their due promotions.
• Compliance: Government bodies must strictly adhere to the directions given by the Supreme Court in previous judgments.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

1. The case of the appellants shall be examined in light of the judgments referred to above for the purpose of their promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer and Executive Engineer.
2. Promotions already granted to other incumbents shall not be affected.
3. For the post of Assistant Executive Engineer, the promotion shall be notional. For the post of Executive Engineer, the appellants shall be entitled to the restoration of seniority if otherwise found eligible.
4. The required process shall be completed within a period of one month from the date of the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the post-based roster for promotions must be implemented from the date specified in the Supreme Court’s judgment in R.K. Sabharwal, i.e., 10.02.1995, and that any delay in implementation is not justified. This judgment reinforces the binding nature of the Supreme Court’s directions and ensures that reservation policies are correctly applied. There is no change in the previous position of law, but this judgment ensures the correct implementation of the law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in V. Lakshmikanthan vs. Union of India clarifies that the post-based roster for promotions should have been implemented from 10.02.1995, as directed in the R.K. Sabharwal judgment. The Court rejected the Railways’ argument for a later implementation date and directed that the appellants’ cases be reviewed for promotions with appropriate seniority. This judgment reinforces the importance of adhering to the Supreme Court’s directions and ensures the correct application of reservation policies.