AJIT SINGH AND ORS. v. THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

Tools
Court
Supreme Court of India
Decided
(year only)
Bench
DR. A.S. ANAND, C.J., K. VENKATASWAMI, G.B. PATTANAIK B .. S.P. KURDUKAR and M. JAGANNADHA RAO
Citation
[1999] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 521
Whole judgment (for printing)

Source PDF (original scan)
Contains information from the Indian High Court / Supreme Court Judgments dataset, licensed under CC-BY-4.0

Judgment · Supreme Court of India · decided (year only) · Bench: DR. A.S. ANAND, C.J., K. VENKATASWAMI, G.B. PATTANAIK B .. S.P. KURDUKAR and M. JAGANNADHA RAO

[1999] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 521

Machine-read from a scanned report. Check the printed page before citing. Report an error.

560. SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A will count only from the date on which they would have otherwise got normal promotion in any future vacancy arising in a post previously occupied by a reserved candidate. That disposes of the 'prospectivity' point in relation to Sabharwal.

Prospectivity of Ajit Singh: B Coming to the 'prospectivity' of Ajit Singh, decided on l.3.96 the question is in regard to the seniority of the reserved candidates at the promotional level where such promotions have taken place before 1.3.96.

C We have accepted, while dealing with Points 1 and 2 that the reserved candidates who get promoted at two levels by roster points (say) from Level 1 to Level 2 and level 2 to level 3 cannot count their seniority at Level 3 as against senior general candidates who reached Level 3 before the reserved candidates moved upto Level 4. The general candidate has to be treated as senior at Level 3.

Footnotes

3 (in view of Ajit Singh), the reserved candidate is further promoted to level 4 - without considering the fact that the senior general candidate was also available at level 3 - then, after 1.3.96, it becomes necessary to review the promotion of the reserved candidate to level 4 and reconsider the same (without causing reversion to the reserved p candidate who reached level 4 before 1.3.96). As and when the senior reserved candidate is later promoted to level 4, the seniority at level 4 has also to be refixed on the basis of when the reserved candidate at level 3 would have got his normal promotion, treating him as junior to the senior general candidate at level 3. Chander Paul v. State of Haryana, [1997]
10 SCC 474 has to be understood in the manner stated above. G We hold accordingly on Point 4.

We dispose of the clarification applications IAs 1 to 3/98 filed by the State of Punjab accordingly and hold that Ajit Singh and Virpal lay down the correct law and not Jagdish Lal, which must be considered as confined to

AJIT SINGH v. STATE [M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.] 561

correct law and not Jagdish Lal, which must be considered as confined to its own peculiar facts. We shall be passing separate orders in the Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan cases and Contempt Cases and other IAs on the basis of the principles laid down in this judgment which, for convenience will be called Ajit Singh II. ·

IAs Nos. I to 3/98 are disposed of accordingly. B

S.V.KI. IAs disposed of.

Whole judgment (for printing)

Report an error in this judgment →

Contains information from the Indian High Court / Supreme Court Judgments dataset, licensed under CC-BY-4.0