M/s. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited vs B. Gurumurthy and others. Writ Appeal 448/2020 decided on 13 November 2020. Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice N.S. Sanjay Gowda.
Judgment Link: https://karnatakajudiciary.kar.nic.in/noticeBoard/wa448-2020.pdf
Judgments referred to: Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India [1992 Supp (3) SCC 217], R.K.Sabharwal vs. State of Punjab (1995) 2 SCC 745, Union of India vs. Virpal Singh Chauhan [(1995) 6 SCC 684, Ajit Singh Januja vs. State of Punjab [(1996) 2 SCC 715], Jagdish Lal vs. State of Haryana (1997) 6 SCC 538, Ajit Singh vs. State of Punjab (1999) 7 SCC 209, M.G.Badappanavar vs. State of Karnataka (2001) 2 SCC 666, M.Nagaraj vs. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 212, B.K.Pavitra vs. Union of India (2017) 4 SCC 620, B.K.Pavitra vs. Union of India ILR 2019 SC 2723.
50. If on preparation of the Seniority List, it is
found that SCs and STs have been promoted against
reservation and backlog vacancies in excess or contrary to
the extent of reservation provided in the Reservation
Orders, the same would have to be adjusted and fitted
with reference to the roster points in accordance with the
Reservation Orders issued from time to time by assigning
appropriate dates of eligibility. If, on such exercise being
carried out, it is found that persons promoted against reservation or backlog vacancies are in excess or contrary
to the extent of reservations provided and they cannot be
adjusted and fitted against the roster points, then they
shall be continued against supernumerary posts in their
existing cadre till they get the date of eligibility for
promotion in that cadre.
51. For enabling such an exercise, there must be a
roster of the promotions made in order to determine
whether there is excess promotion to the SCs and STs and
to create supernumerary posts if the necessity arises.
The aforesaid exercise must be carried out as early as
possible so that there are no further difficulties to be faced
with regard to promotions to be made in future in the
respective cadres.
52. In M.Nagaraj, the constitution Bench
considered at length the concepts of ‘Catch-up rule’ and
consequential seniority and as to, whether, the obliteration
of the ‘Catch-up rule’ or insertion of the concept of
seniority would violate the basic structure of Constitution
enshrined in Articles 14, 15 and 16. Noting that the ‘Catchup rule’ was propounded in Virpal Singh, and that both the
concept of ‘Catch-up rule’ and consequential seniority are judicially evolved concepts to control the extent of
reservation, it was further observed that the Constitution
(Eighty-first Amendment) Act, 2000 gives in substance
legislative assent to the judgment in R.K. Sabharwal. That,
once roster point promotion is provided, each point in the
roster indicates a post, which, on falling vacant, has to be
filled by the particular category of candidate to be
appointed against it and any subsequent vacancy has to be
filled by that category alone, then the question of clubbing
the unfilled vacancies with current vacancies does not
arise. Therefore, the replacement theory as enunciated in
R.K. Sabharwal was reiterated in M.Nagaraj, both of which
are Constitution Bench judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court.
55. Therefore, while finalising the Seniority List, if
it is found that persons promoted against reservation of
backlog vacancies are in excess or contrary to the
reservation provided and they cannot be adjusted and
fitted against the roster points, then they shall be
continued against supernumerary posts in their existing
cadre till they get the date of eligibility for promotion in
that cadre. Therefore, the Final Seniority List to be issued
must bear in mind the aforesaid aspects.
Compiled by S. Basavaraj, Advocate, Daksha Legal.
Daksha Legal 