SC-reserved vacancy promotions made before later reservation ruling upheld; tribunal wrongly reopened settled Departmental Promotion Committee decisions.

The dominant issue was whether the reservation principles declared by the SC in a later precedent could invalidate promotions made earlier against an SC-reserved vacancy. The SC held that prospective declaration of law is applied to prevent reopening settled matters and to validate actions taken before the date of such declaration in larger public interest; subordinate forums are bound to apply the dictum only to future cases. Since the Departmental Promotion Committee's selection and the appointing authority's promotion orders pre-dated the later SC declaration, the tribunal erred in applying that precedent to interfere with those actions. The appeals were allowed and the tribunal's directions were set aside.

---

---

Issues involved:
The interpretation of reservation in relation to the number of posts comprising in the cadre u/s R K Sabharwal's case, and the application of the prospectivity principle to promotions made prior to the judgment.

Interpretation of Reservation:
The appeals arose from a tribunal order questioning the selection and promotion of the appellant to the post of Superintendent of Customs in a vacancy reserved for Scheduled Castes. The contention was whether reservation should be based on the number of posts in the cadre, not vacancies. The Constitution Bench in R K Sabharwal's case clarified that reservation is in relation to the cadre strength. The tribunal applied this ruling, directing a recalculation of entitlements and maintenance of quotas based on cadre strength.

Application of Prospectivity Principle:
The appellant argued that the prospectivity of the Sabharwal's case should not apply to their promotion as it was made before the judgment. The tribunal held that since the promotion was after the petition, it was not covered by prospectivity. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, stating that prospectivity aims to avoid disturbing settled issues and prevent unnecessary litigation. Actions taken before a judgment contrary to the law are validated. As both the DPC decision and the promotion were before the Sabharwal's case, the tribunal erred in applying it. Therefore, the appeals were allowed, setting aside the tribunal's orders.

Separate Judgement:
In view of the judgment in CA Nos.10658-59/96, the appeal also succeeded and was allowed.

---