1987 (8) TMI 441 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Upholds Quota Rule on Seniority

GONAL BIHIMAPPA / SONAL SIHIMAPPA Versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

The Supreme Court reaffirmed the binding nature of the quota rule on inter se seniority, emphasizing strict adherence and pushing down of officers to ... - Issues Involved:1. Effect of the quota rule on inter se seniority.2. Continuation or alteration of the quota rule during the relevant period.3. Impact of the Supreme Court's judgment in Badami's case.4. Effect of the observations in Iyer's case.5. Necessity of any other directions.Detailed Analysis:1. Effect of the Quota Rule on Inter Se Seniority:The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the quota rule is legally binding and must be strictly observed. The Court referenced its previous judgment in S.G. Jaisinghani v. Union of India, emphasizing that the quota rule is linked with the seniority rule and cannot be altered based on administrative exigencies. The Court reiterated that promotions or appointments exceeding the prescribed quota are irregular and necessitate pushing down of officers to maintain the quota balance. This principle was upheld in Badami's case, which established that the quota rule must be enforced strictly, and seniority must be determined based on the quota system.2. Continuation or Alteration of the Quota Rule:The Court examined the relevant rules from 1957, 1959, and 1966, concluding that the quota system continued throughout the relevant period. Despite arguments to the contrary, the Court found no evidence that the quota rule was abandoned. The 1977 amendment to the Karnataka Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules confirmed the continuation of the quota system, with adjustments in the ratio over time. The Court rejected the contention that the quota system had been given up and affirmed the High Court's finding that the quota system remained in force.3. Impact of the Supreme Court's Judgment in Badami's Case:The Court upheld the binding nature of Badami's case, which dealt with similar rules and situations. The High Court's doubt regarding the exclusion of temporary posts from the cadre was dismissed. The Supreme Court reiterated that temporary posts created due to service exigencies are outside the cadre and should not be considered for working out the quota. The conclusion in Badami's case that the quota covered permanent posts was reaffirmed as correct and binding.4. Effect of the Observations in Iyer's Case:The High Court's reliance on Iyer's case to limit the carry-forward period to three years was found to be misplaced. The Supreme Court clarified that the three-year carry-forward rule in Iyer's case was specific to the rules under consideration in that case and did not have general applicability. The Mysore State Civil Service (General Recruitment) Rules, 1957, and their 1977 amendment allowed for temporary promotions in excess of the quota, indicating that the transgression of the quota rule was intended to be temporary. The Court emphasized that the quota rule in Badami's case should be applied without the three-year limitation.5. Necessity of Any Other Directions:The Court highlighted the adverse impact of frequent service litigations on the efficiency and discipline of public service. It urged the State of Karnataka to comply with the quota rule to avoid future litigations. The Court expressed hope that the State would not demote officers who had been in promotional posts for several years but would adjust the Gradation List to reflect the principles indicated in the judgment. The appeals and writ petitions of the direct recruits were allowed, while those of the promotees were dismissed. No costs were awarded to any party.Conclusion:The Supreme Court's judgment emphasized the strict enforcement of the quota rule for determining inter se seniority, affirmed the continuation of the quota system, upheld the binding nature of Badami's case, clarified the limited applicability of Iyer's case, and called for adherence to the quota rule to prevent future litigations. The appeals and writ petitions of the direct recruits were allowed, and those of the promotees were dismissed without costs.