Appeals allowed, Full Bench judgment reversed on Reservation Policy Implementation. State directed to reconsider cases.

Ajit Singh Januja and Ors. Versus State of Punjab and Ors.

Ajit Singh Januja and Ors. Versus State of Punjab and Ors. - TMI Issues Involved:
1. Reservation Policy Implementation
2. Roster System and Seniority
3. Accelerated Promotions and General Category Posts
4. Constitutionality and Efficiency of Administration

Summary:

1. Reservation Policy Implementation:
The primary grievance was that the State Government's implementation of the reservation policy for Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes resulted in members of these categories holding posts in excess of their reservation quota, affecting the petitioners' chances for promotion. The appeals were against a Full Bench judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissing writ petitions challenging this implementation.

2. Roster System and Seniority:
The State issued various orders over the years, including the introduction of a roster system in 1959 and subsequent modifications. A significant order dated 7.1.1980 clarified that Scheduled Castes/Backward Classes employees appointed/promoted on merit/seniority should not be counted for reservation purposes, and the reserved point should be carried over. The High Court in Joginder Singh Sethi v. Punjab Government held that promotions beyond the prescribed limit based on government instructions were void. The Full Bench in Jaswant Singh v. The Secretary to Govt. of Punjab overruled this, stating that non-consideration of Scheduled Castes candidates against general category posts would violate Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution.

3. Accelerated Promotions and General Category Posts:
The controversy was whether members of Scheduled Castes/Backward Classes who received accelerated promotions due to reservation could claim promotions against general category posts in higher grades based on their seniority from accelerated promotions. The High Court relied on circulars dated 19.7.1969 and 8.9.1969, which did not address reservation in promotional posts or the roster as a "running account." The relevant circular dated 4.5.1974, which prescribed a roster system for promotions, was deemed invalid by the Supreme Court in R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab, which stated that the "running account" should stop once the quota is reached.

4. Constitutionality and Efficiency of Administration:
The Supreme Court, in R.K. Sabharwal and Union of India v. Virpal Singh Chauhan, held that while reservation gives accelerated promotion, it does not confer accelerated seniority. The Court emphasized that once the reservation quota is filled, the roster should not operate further, and promotions to general category posts should be based on merit, not accelerated seniority. The judgment highlighted the need to balance democratization with efficiency in public services, ensuring that reservation policies do not lead to reverse discrimination or affect administrative efficiency.

Conclusion:
The appeals were allowed, and the judgment of the Full Bench in Jaswant Singh v. The Secretary to Govt. of Punjab was reversed. The State Government was directed to reconsider the cases of the appellants and others similarly situated in light of the Supreme Court's judgment, ensuring no orders as to costs.