Supreme Court Upholds “Catch-Up Rule” in Seniority for General Category Promotees: Pravakar Mallick vs. State of Orissa (2020)

Date of the Judgment: April 17, 2020
Citation: 2020 INSC 329
Judges: Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J. and R. Subhash Reddy, J.
Can a state government grant seniority to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (SC/ST) employees promoted through reservation, even if it means they become senior to general category employees who were promoted later? The Supreme Court addressed this issue, focusing on whether such seniority can be granted without proper data and legal backing. This case examines the “Catch-Up Rule” and the conditions under which it can be set aside. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Justice R. Subhash Reddy, with the opinion authored by Justice R. Subhash Reddy.

Case Background

The case revolves around a dispute over seniority in the Orissa Administrative Service (OAS). The respondent-writ petitioners were initially appointed to OAS-II posts in 1983, 1984, and 1987, and were placed higher in the merit list than SC/ST candidates. Subsequently, they were promoted to OAS-I (Junior Branch) in 2000. However, some SC/ST candidates, who were initially junior to the writ petitioners in OAS-II, were promoted to OAS-I(JB) earlier in 1995 and 2000 against reserved vacancies. A seniority list prepared on 16.05.2001 maintained the original inter-se seniority, placing the general category promotees above the SC/ST promotees, following the “Catch-Up Rule.” This rule meant that even if SC/ST candidates were promoted earlier, they would become junior to their general category counterparts once the general category candidates were promoted to the same level. The State of Orissa then issued a resolution on 20.03.2002, attempting to reverse this by granting seniority to SC/ST promotees, which led to the dispute.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The respondent-writ petitioners initially approached the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, which dismissed their application as premature. Subsequently, they filed a writ petition in the High Court of Orissa, challenging the Government Resolution dated 20.03.2002 and the consequential Gradation List dated 03.03.2008. The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the resolution and the gradation list, primarily relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in M. Nagaraj & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [(2006) 8 SCC 212]. The High Court held that the State Government could not grant seniority to SC/ST promotees without a law or executive order based on quantifiable data on backwardness and inadequate representation.

Legal Framework

The legal framework for this case is primarily based on Article 16(4A) of the Constitution of India, which was amended by the 85th Amendment Act of 2001. The amended Article 16(4A) states:

“16. Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment.—(1) …. …. …. (2) …. …. …. (3) …. …. …. (4) …. …. …. (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.”

This amendment enabled states to provide reservation in promotions with consequential seniority for SC/ST employees if they are not adequately represented. However, the Supreme Court has clarified that this power is not absolute and is subject to certain conditions. The Court has also considered the Orissa Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services (For Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Act, 1975, specifically Section 10, although no provision for seniority was found in the Act.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that the 85th Constitutional Amendment, as upheld in M. Nagaraj & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [(2006) 8 SCC 212], allows the state to extend reservation benefits with consequential seniority through either an executive order or legislation.
• They contended that the Government Resolution dated 20.03.2002 was a valid exercise of this power.
• They further argued that Section 10 of The Orissa Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services (For Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Act, 1975, supports the claim that promoted SC/ST candidates are entitled to seniority.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The respondents argued that the Government Resolution dated 20.03.2002 was not a valid exercise of power under Article 16(4A) of the Constitution of India.
• They submitted that the State had not collected quantifiable data on backwardness and inadequate representation as required by the Supreme Court.
• They contended that the “Catch Up Rule” as laid down in Union of India & Ors. v. Virpal Singh Chauhan & Ors. [AIR 1996 SC 448 = (1995) 6 SCC 684] and upheld in Ajit Singh & Ors. (II) v. State of Punjab & Ors. [(1999) 7 SCC 209] should apply in the absence of a valid law or executive order.
• They argued that the 1975 Act did not provide for consequential seniority.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the State of Orissa could grant seniority to SC/ST employees promoted through reservation, without collecting quantifiable data on backwardness and inadequate representation, and without a specific law or executive order as required under Article 16(4A) of the Constitution of India.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on M. Nagaraj & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [(2006) 8 SCC 212]* to emphasize that while Article 16(4A) allows the state to grant consequential seniority, it must be based on quantifiable data.
• The Court upheld the principle of the “Catch-Up Rule” as laid down in Union of India & Ors. v. Virpal Singh Chauhan & Ors. [AIR 1996 SC 448 = (1995) 6 SCC 684]* and Ajit Singh & Ors. (II) v. State of Punjab & Ors. [(1999) 7 SCC 209]*, stating that in the absence of a valid law or executive order, the general category promotees would be senior.
• The Court cited Suraj Bhan Meena & Anr. V. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [(2011) 1 SCC 467]* and B.K. Pavitra & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [(2017) 4 SCC 620]* to highlight the mandatory requirement to collect quantifiable data and determine inadequacy of representation.
• The Court relied on Jarnail Singh & Ors. v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta & Ors. [(2018) 10 SCC 396]* to clarify that while the requirement to collect data on backwardness is invalid, the need to examine adequate representation remains.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to ensure that any deviation from the established “Catch-Up Rule” is supported by a valid legal basis and empirical evidence. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to constitutional principles and the need for a data-driven approach when granting consequential seniority. The court also emphasized that the state government cannot rely on the instructions of the Central Government without doing its own assessment.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the argument that the State of Orissa could grant seniority based on the 85th Constitutional Amendment and the Government Resolution dated 20.03.2002. However, it rejected this argument because the State had not collected the necessary quantifiable data on backwardness and inadequate representation as mandated by the Supreme Court’s previous judgments. The Court also rejected the argument based on Section 10 of the Orissa Act 38 of 1975, finding no provision for seniority in the Act. The Court emphasized that any deviation from the established “Catch-Up Rule” must be based on a valid law or executive order supported by empirical evidence. The Court also noted that the State cannot rely on the instructions of the Central Government without doing its own assessment.

The Supreme Court stated, “In the aforesaid judgment, it is held by this Court that the need for collecting quantifiable data and ascertaining inadequacy of representation of members belonging to SC/STs is a condition precedent for issuing notifications providing benefit of reservation with consequential seniority.”

The Court further stated, “Government Resolution dated 20.03.2002 can neither be termed as law made in exercise of enabling power of the State under Article 16(4A), nor does it satisfy the parameters laid down in the various decisions of this Court.”

The Court also noted, “In view of the stand of the respondent-State in the counter affidavit filed in the writ petition and further in view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the State of Orissa that no benefit of seniority was extended by any State Act or by any executive order by examining adequate representation in terms of Article 16(4A) of the Constitution, we do not find any merit in this appeal so as to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of the High Court.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case.

Key Takeaways

• State governments cannot grant seniority to SC/ST employees promoted through reservation without collecting quantifiable data on backwardness and inadequate representation.
• Any deviation from the “Catch-Up Rule” must be supported by a valid law or executive order that complies with Article 16(4A) of the Constitution of India and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court.
• The State cannot rely on the instructions of the Central Government without doing its own assessment.
• The mere fact that there is no proportionate representation in promotional posts for reserved category candidates is not sufficient to extend the benefit of consequential seniority.
• The “Catch-Up Rule” will apply in the absence of a valid law or executive order based on quantifiable data.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions in this case. The judgment primarily upheld the High Court’s decision, which had quashed the Government Resolution and the consequential Gradation List.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the State cannot grant consequential seniority to SC/ST promotees without collecting quantifiable data on backwardness and inadequate representation, and without a specific law or executive order. This case reinforces the “Catch-Up Rule” as the default position in the absence of a valid legal basis for granting consequential seniority. It also clarifies that the State cannot rely on the instructions of the Central Government without doing its own assessment. This case does not change the previous positions of law, but rather reinforces them.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court’s decision. The Court reaffirmed that the State cannot grant seniority to SC/ST employees promoted through reservation without proper data and legal backing. The “Catch-Up Rule” remains in effect, ensuring that general category employees retain their seniority over SC/ST promotees in the absence of a valid law or executive order based on quantifiable data and an assessment of adequate representation.

Category:

• Constitutional Law
  • Article 16(4A)
• Service Law
  • Seniority
  • Reservation in Promotion
  • Catch-Up Rule
• Orissa Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services (For Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Act, 1975
  • Section 10, Orissa Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services (For Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Act, 1975

FAQ

Q: What is the “Catch-Up Rule” in the context of promotions?

A: The “Catch-Up Rule” means that even if an SC/ST employee is promoted earlier than a general category employee due to reservation, the general category employee will regain seniority once they are promoted to the same level.

Q: Can a state government grant seniority to SC/ST employees promoted through reservation?

A: Yes, but only if the state government collects quantifiable data showing backwardness and inadequate representation of SC/ST employees in the services. This must be done before issuing any law or executive order to grant consequential seniority.

Q: What is the significance of Article 16(4A) of the Constitution?

A: Article 16(4A) enables the state to make provisions for reservation in promotions with consequential seniority for SC/ST employees if they are not adequately represented in the services. However, this power is subject to certain conditions.

Q: What happens if a state government does not collect the required data?

A: If a state government does not collect the necessary data, the “Catch-Up Rule” will apply, and general category employees will retain their seniority over SC/ST promotees.

Q: Can a state government rely on the instructions of the Central Government to grant seniority?

A: No, the state government must conduct its own assessment and collect its own data to determine whether there is inadequate representation before granting seniority to SC/ST employees.