Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Whether The Grant Of Accelerated … vs Virpal on 17 July, 2026
1
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA
WRIT PETITION Nos. 28441 of 2025 & 1865 of 2026
COMMON ORDER:
(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Battu Devanand)
The Constitution of India, as envisioned by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar and the
framers of our constitutional framework, does not confine itself to the notion of
mere formal equality. The constitutional philosophy seeks to secure
substantive equality by addressing historical disadvantages and structural
inequalities faced by socially marginalized sections of society. Recognizing
that identical treatment among unequal may itself result in injustice, the
constitutional scheme permits affirmative measures to ensure meaningful
equality of opportunity, including provisions relating to reservation in public
employment.
2. The constitutional commitment towards social justice subsequently
evolved through judicial interpretation and constitutional amendments,
particularly in matters concerning representation of Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes in public services. Reservation in promotion emerged as
one of the instruments intended to remedy continuing under-representation
and institutional barriers faced by historically disadvantaged communities. The
constitutional amendments introducing Articles 16(4A) and 16(4B) signify the
recognition by Parliament that equality of opportunity under Article 16 may, in
appropriate circumstances, require protective measures extending beyond
2
initial appointment and into promotional avenues. The present case, therefore,
calls upon this Court to examine the delicate balance between the
constitutional guarantee of equality and the enabling provisions designed to
achieve substantive justice, particularly in the context of reservation in
promotions and consequential seniority.
3. These writ petitions raises important questions concerning the
constitutional and statutory framework governing reservation in matters of
promotion and consequential seniority within the service jurisprudence
applicable to Railway employees. The controversy, in essence, lies at the
intersection of the equality mandate embodied under Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution and the enabling provisions permitting the State to extend
reservation in matters of promotion in favour of members of Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes.
4. The Writ Petitions are filed against the orders, dated 21.10.2024 passed
in O.A.No.020/0360/2022 and O.A/020/0361/2022 on the file of the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench.
5. The writ petitioners in W.P.No.28441 of 2025 are the private
respondents and the respondent Nos.6 to 12 are the original applicants in the
O.A.020/0360/2022 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Hyderabad Bench.
6. The writ petitioners in W.P.No.1865 of 2026 are the private respondent
Nos.6 & 15 and the respondent Nos.6 to 12 are the original applicants in the
3
O.A.020/0361/2022 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Hyderabad Bench.
7. For the sake of convenience, the petitioners will be referred hereinafter
as “writ petitioners”, the respondent Nos.1 to 4 will be referred as “official
respondents” and respondent Nos. 6 to 12 will be referred as “private
respondents”.
8. Facts of the case in brief are as follows:
(i). The present Writ Petitions arises out of a dispute concerning promotion
and consequential seniority in the cadre of Loco Pilots under the South-
Central Railway, Vijayawada Division.
(ii). The writ petitioners are the Loco Pilots (Mail) who belong to the SC/ST
community. The respondent Nos.6 to 12 are the Loco Pilots (Pass) who
belong to unreserved category. The private respondents are the seniors to the
writ petitioners in the category of Assistant Loco Pilots in the seniority list,
dated 10.03.2007. The writ petitioners who belonged to the SC/ST category
were granted accelerated promotions to the cadre of Loco Pilot (Goods) and
Loco Pilot (Pass) after 2006 in preference to the private respondents by
providing reservation in promotion by virtue of accelerated seniority granted to
them. The writ petitioners were granted the consequential seniority in the
cadre of Loco Pilot (Goods) and Loco Pilot (Pass) in the provisional seniority
list of Loco Pilot (Goods), dated 03.06.2019 and Loco Pilot (Pass), dated
10.03.2021 and 31.01.2022 by virtue of their accelerated seniority post
assigned in the cadre of Loco Pilot (Pass). The writ petitioners are placed in
4
the select list in the Memorandum issued in B/P.535/III/RG/MDR/Vol.VIII,
dated 28.06.2021 and promotion list dated 30.06.2021 for promotion to the
post of Loco Pilot (Mail) against the unreserved vacancies. Consequent upon
their earlier promotions, the petitioners acquired seniority in the feeder cadre
and were thereafter promoted to the posts of Loco Pilot (Passenger) and
subsequently Loco Pilot (Mail), their names being reflected above the private
respondents in the seniority lists in terms of Para 306 of the Indian Railway
Establishment Manual and other applicable Service Regulations.
(iii). Aggrieved by the same, the private respondents approached the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench by filing Original
Application in O.A.No.020/360/2022 & O.A.No.020/361/2022. The Central
Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, by oral order, dated 21.10.2024
allowed the Original Application and the orders impugned therein, dated
03.06.2019, 10.03.2021 and 31.01.2022, 28.06.2021 and 30.06.2021 were
quashed and set-aside directing the official respondents therein to re-draw the
seniority of the private respondents in the cadre of Loco Pilot (Goods) and
Loco Pilot (Passenger) vis-á-vis the writ petitioners without granting the
consequential seniority in favour of the writ petitioners. It is directed to carry
out the necessary exercise by giving promotion to the private respondents to
the post of Loco Pilot (Maid) within a period of four (04) weeks from the date
of receipt of a copy of the order. Against the order, dated 21.10.2024 of the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Branch, the petitioners filed the
present writ petitions.
5
9. The case of the petitioners: As borne out from the pleadings and
records, that the promotional benefits and consequential seniority extended to
them are in conformity with the constitutional framework governing reservation
in promotions under Articles 14, 16(1), 16(4), 16(4A) and 16(4B) of the
Constitution of India. According to them, the constitutional objective is not
merely formal equality but substantive equality through adequate
representation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in public
employment. Reliance has been placed upon the principles laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab1, M. Nagaraj
v. Union of India2, Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta3 and B.K.
Pavitra v. Union of India4, to contend that consequential seniority granted
pursuant to valid reservation in promotion cannot be defeated by invoking the
catch-up principle, particularly after the constitutional amendments
incorporating Articles 16(4A) and 16(4B).
10. The case of the private respondents:
(i). The respondents however, questioned the validity of such promotions
and consequential seniority by contending that accelerated promotion granted
to the petitioners belonging to the SC/ST category cannot automatically confer
consequential seniority and that such benefits can be sustained only upon
strict compliance with the constitutional requirements laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court.
1
(1995) 2 SCC 745
2
(2006) 8 SCC 212
3
(2018) 10 SCC 212
4
(2019) 16 SCC 129
6
(ii). It was the contention of the private respondents that the grant of such
benefits disturbed the pre-existing seniority structure and adversely affected
employees who were otherwise senior in the feeder cadre. In support of their
contentions, reliance was placed upon M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2nd cited
supra) and Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta (3rd cited supra) to
contend that Article 16(4A) remains an enabling provision and that reservation
in promotion with consequential seniority must be preceded by collection of
quantifiable data, proof of inadequacy of representation, and maintenance of
administrative efficiency. The respondents further relied upon Union of India
v. Sajib Roy5, Pravakar Mallick & Ors. v. State of Orissa6, the judgment of
the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in WP(C) No.3490/2010, the Punjab & Haryana
High Court judgment in CWP No.13218 of 2009, and Union of India v. Lokesh
Kumar Saini, in support of their submission that the impugned promotions and
consequential seniority were contrary to settled principles governing
reservation in promotional matters.
11. Heard Mr.Perika Nehemiah counsel appearing for the writ petitioners
and Mr.Josyula Bhaskara Rao & Mr.G.Sai Narayana Rao, learned standing
counsels and Mr.Edukondalu Chandu, learned counsel for the respondents
and perused the record. Having heard the submissions of the respective
counsels and upon careful examination of the record, the following issues
emerged for consideration of this Court:
5
(2025 INSC 1084)
6
AIRONLINE 2020 SC 476
7
1. Whether the grant of accelerated promotion and consequential
seniority to the petitioners belonging to SC/ST category in the cadres of
Loco Pilot (Goods) and Loco Pilot (Passenger) is valid in law?
2. Whether the Railway Administration complied with the
constitutional requirements laid down under Article 16(4A) and the law
declared in M. Nagaraj and Jarnail Singh while granting reservation in
promotion to the cadre of Loco Pilot (Passenger)?
3. Whether the validity of promotions to the post of Loco Pilot
(Mail) is required to be assessed independently as a separate cadre, or
with reference to the promotional and seniority structure existing in the
feeder cadres of Loco Pilot (Goods) and Loco Pilot (Passenger)?
4. Whether promotion to the post of Loco Pilot (Mail), having been
made against unreserved vacancies, falls within the ambit of Article 16(4A)
of the Constitution or was governed solely by inter-se seniority and
suitability in the feeder cadre?
12. Issue Nos. 1 and 2 are clubbed together for consideration, as the
adjudication of one issue is contingent upon and inseparably linked with the
determination of the other, both involving interconnected questions of fact and
law. The present issues concern the legality of grant of accelerated promotion
and consequential seniority to the petitioners in the cadres of Loco Pilot
(Goods) and Loco Pilot (Passenger).
13. Submissions of the Writ Petitioners:
(i). It is the contention of the petitioners that the promotions under
challenge were affected after due compliance with constitutional requirements
and settled principles governing reservation in promotion. According to the
8petitioners, the official respondents had undertaken an exercise of collecting
quantifiable data and assessed inadequacy of representation in accordance
with the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M. Nagaraj (2nd cited
supra) and later affirmed in Jarnail Singh (3rd cited supra). It is submitted that
the exercise revealed inadequacy of representation in the relevant cadre and
promotions were granted only after applying the post-based roster system.
(ii). the petitioners further contend that Articles 16(4A) and 16(4B), though
introduced by constitutional amendments, are merely enabling provisions
flowing from Article 16(4) and do not alter the basic structure governing
reservation. They rely upon the observations in M. Nagaraj (2nd cited supra)
that the constitutional requirements of backwardness, inadequacy of
representation, maintenance of administrative efficiency under Article 335, the
50% ceiling limit and post-based roster principles continue to operate
notwithstanding the amendments.
(iii). At this juncture, reference may be made to the constitutional evolution
of reservation in promotion. In Indra Sawhney v. Union of India7, the
Supreme Court held that Article 16(4) did not extend reservation to
promotions. This resulted in Parliament introducing Article 16(4A) through the
Seventy-Seventh Constitutional Amendment enabling reservation in promotion
for SC/ST employees where they were inadequately represented.
7
AIR 1993 SC 477
9
(iv). Subsequently, in UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC VS. VIRPAL
SINGH CHAUHAN (1995) 8and Ajit Singh (II) v. State of Punjab9, the
Supreme Court evolved the Catch-Up Rule and held that accelerated
promotion would not automatically carry consequential seniority. Parliament
thereafter enacted the Constitution (Eighty-Fifth Amendment) Act,
introducing the expression “with consequential seniority” into Article
16(4A), thereby removing the basis of the Catch-Up Rule and ensuring that
SC/ST candidates promoted through reservation retained seniority benefits
arising from such promotion.
(v). The petitioners further place reliance on B.K. Pavithra (4th cited supra)
and the decision of the Gauhati High Court to contend that Article 16(4A)
remains an enabling provision and that the State possesses discretion to
provide reservation in promotion with consequential seniority, reservation
without consequential seniority, or not provide such reservation at all, subject
to compliance with the requirements laid down in M. Nagaraj and Jarnail
Singh.
14. Submissions of official respondents:
(i). It is contended by the official respondents that in the present case,
quantifiable data was collected and the inadequacy of representation of
reserved candidates was assessed before operating the roster. Therefore,
according to the official respondents, the promotions granted and
8
(1995) 6 SCC 684
9
(1999) 7 SCC 209
10consequential seniority assigned to the petitioners cannot be said to be
contrary to law.
(ii). The official respondents further placed reliance upon R.K. Sabharwal
v. State of Punjab (1st cited supra) to contend that reservation is to be
implemented through a post-based roster system wherein the cadre strength
constitutes the relevant unit for determining representation. It is submitted that
the Railway administration, while assessing representation in the cadre of
Loco Pilot (Passenger), considered the entire cadre strength, including SC/ST
candidates promoted on their own merit against Unreserved points, and
undertook an exercise to determine adequacy of representation. According to
the official respondents, such an exercise is in consonance with the principles
laid down in R.K. Sabharwal and demonstrates that reservation in promotion
was implemented through a constitutionally recognized mechanism rather
than through a vacancy-based approach.
15. Submissions of the private respondents:-
(i). Per contra, the respondents contend that the grant of accelerated
promotion and consequential seniority in favour of the petitioners is not
sustainable in law. It is submitted that while reservation in promotion may
permit accelerated advancement of SC/ST candidates, such benefit cannot be
extended in a manner that unjustly alters the existing seniority structure and
prejudicially affects the rights of employees who were otherwise senior in the
feeder cadre.
11
(ii). The respondents further contend that Article 16(4A), even after its
amendment by the Constitution (Eighty-Fifth Amendment) Act introducing
consequential seniority, remains only an enabling provision and does not
confer an automatic right. Reliance is placed upon the decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2nd cited supra) wherein it was
held that the State, before extending reservation in promotion with
consequential seniority, is required to satisfy constitutional requirements
including collection of quantifiable data regarding inadequacy of
representation and consideration of administrative efficiency under Article
335. It is further submitted that the said principles were subsequently affirmed
in Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta (3rd cited supra).
(iii). The respondents further rely upon the observations of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the proceedings arising out of SLP (C) No. 30621 of 2011
and connected matters, wherein it was clarified that promotions may continue
in accordance with law, subject to the outcome of the pending proceedings.
According to the respondents, such observations cannot be construed as
dispensing with the constitutional requirements laid down in M. Nagaraj.
(iv). Accordingly, it is contended that accelerated promotion and
consequential seniority cannot be granted as a matter of course merely on the
basis of reservation and that any such exercise must strictly conform to
constitutional limitations and judicially evolved safeguards. Therefore, the
grant of accelerated promotion and consequential seniority in favour of the
petitioners is liable to be interfered with.
12
(v). The respondents contend that such benefits cannot be extended as a
matter of course and that any exercise granting accelerated promotion
coupled with consequential seniority must necessarily satisfy the constitutional
requirements laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M. Nagaraj v. Union
of India (2nd cited supra), failing which the same would be vulnerable to
challenge as violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
(vi). The respondents further contend that the conferment of consequential
seniority upon the petitioners has disturbed the pre-existing seniority structure
and adversely affected employees who were otherwise senior in the feeder
cadre. It is their submission that Article 16(4A), despite the introduction of the
Eighty-Fifth Constitutional Amendment, continues to remain an enabling
provision and does not create an automatic or vested right in favour of SC/ST
employees. Reliance has been placed upon M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2nd
cited supra) and Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta (3rd cited supra) to
contend that reservation in promotion with consequential seniority can be
sustained only upon satisfaction of constitutional requirements including
collection of quantifiable data, inadequacy of representation and maintenance
of efficiency in administration.
16. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions advanced on
behalf of the petitioners and respondents and has examined the constitutional
framework, statutory provisions, and governing principles relating to
reservation in promotion and consequential seniority. The principal challenge
raised by the private respondents pertains to the legality of accelerated
13
promotions granted to the petitioners belonging to the SC/ST category along
with consequential seniority.
17. At this juncture, it is appropriate and essential to extract the relevant
Articles of the Constitution of India as herein under:
18. Article 14
The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the
equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.
19. Article 16
Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment.
(1) There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters
relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State.
(2) No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex,
descent, place of birth, residence or any of them, be ineligible for, or
discriminated against in respect of, any employment or office under the State.
(3) Nothing in this article shall prevent Parliament from making any law
prescribing, in regard to a class or classes of employment or appointment to
an office [under the Government of, or any local or other authority within, a
State or Union territory, any requirement as to residence within that State or
Union territory] prior to such employment or appointment.
(4) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any
provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any
backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately
represented in the services under the State.
(4A) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any
provision for reservation [in matters of promotion, with consequential seniority,
to any class] or classes of posts in the services under the State in favour of
the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes which, in the opinion of the
State, are not adequately represented in the services under the State.
14
(4B) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from considering any
unfilled vacancies of a year which are reserved for being filled up in that year
in accordance with any provision for reservation made under clause (4) or
clause (4A) as a separate class of vacancies to be filled up in any succeeding
year or years and such class of vacancies shall not be considered together
with the vacancies of the year in which they are being filled up for determining
the ceiling of fifty per cent reservation on total number of vacancies of that
year.
(5) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any law which
provides that the incumbent of an office in connection with the affairs of any
religious or denominational institution or any member of the governing body
thereof shall be a person professing a particular religion or belonging to a
particular denomination.
(6) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any
provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any
economically weaker sections of citizens other than the classes mentioned in
clause (4), in addition to the existing reservation and subject to a maximum of
ten per cent of the posts in each category.
20. THE CONSTITUTION (SEVENTY-SEVENTH AMENDMENT) ACT, 1995
[Assented on 17th June, 1995, and came into force on 17.6.1995]
(i). An Act further to amend the Constitution of India BE it enacted by
Parliament in the Forty- sixth Year of the Republic of India as follows:
“(4A) Nothing in this Article shall prevent the State from making any
provision for reservation in matters of promotion to any class or classes of
posts in the services under the State in favour of the Scheduled Castes and
the Scheduled Tribes which, in the opinion of the State, are not adequately
represented in the services under the State.”
15
21. THE CONSTITUTION (EIGHTY-FIFTH AMENDMENT) ACT, 2001
Amendment of Article 16 –
In article 16 of the Constitution, in clause (4A), for the words “in
matters of promotion to any class”, the words “in matters of promotion,
with consequential seniority, to any class” shall be substituted.
22. STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS FOR AMENDING
ARTICLE-16(4A) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA:-
(a) The Government servants belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes had been enjoying the benefit of consequential seniority on
their promotion on the basis of rule of reservation. The judgments of the
Supreme Court in the case of Virpal Singh Chauhan (1995) (8th cited supra)
and Ajit Singh 1996 (9th cited supra), which have adversely affected the
interest of the Government servants belonging to the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes category in the matter of seniority on promotion to the next
higher grade. This has led to considerable anxiety and representations have
also been received from various quarters including Members of Parliament to
protect the interest of the Government servants belonging to Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(b) This will require amendment to article 16(4A) of the Constitution to
provide for consequential seniority in the case of promotion by virtue of rule of
reservation. It is also necessary to give retrospective effect to the proposed
constitutional amendment to article 16(4A) with effect from the date of coming
into force of article 16(4A) itself, that is, from the 17th day of June, 1995.
16
23. Analysis, Reasoning & Findings:-
(i). At the outset, it is necessary to note that the law governing reservation
in promotion has undergone considerable constitutional evolution. In Indra
Sawhney v. Union of India (7th cited supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held
that Article 16(4) did not contemplate reservation in matters of promotion.
Consequent thereto, Parliament introduced Article 16(4A) through the
Constitution (Seventy-Seventh Amendment) Act enabling reservation in
promotion for SC/ST employees where they were found inadequately
represented in State services.
(ii). Subsequently, in Virpal Singh Chauhan (8th cited supra) and Ajit Singh
Januja (9th cited supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court evolved the Catch-Up
Rule and held that accelerated promotion granted through reservation would
not automatically carry consequential seniority. However, Parliament, in
exercise of its constituent power under Article 368, enacted the Constitution
(Eighty-Fifth Amendment) Act and amended Article 16(4A) by inserting the
expression “with consequential seniority.” The amendment thereby removed
the basis on which the Catch-Up Rule operated and constitutionally
recognized consequential seniority as an incident flowing from
reservation in promotion.
(iii). The constitutional validity of Articles 16(4A) and 16(4B) thereafter came
up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M. Nagaraj v. Union
of India (2nd cited supra), while upholding the amendments made under
Constitution (Eighty Fifth Amendment) Act, 2001, it was held that the said
17
provisions are enabling in nature and that reservation in promotion with
consequential seniority may be provided subject to satisfaction of
constitutional requirements, namely inadequacy of representation, collection
of quantifiable data and maintenance of administrative efficiency under Article
335. These principles were subsequently clarified and reaffirmed in Jarnail
Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta (3rd cited supra).
(iv). In INDRA SWAHNEY (7th cited supra), the court held that reservation in
promotion is constitutionally impermissible as, once the advantaged and
disadvantaged are made equal and are brought in one class or group then
any further benefit extended for promotion on the inequality existing prior to be
brought in the group would be treating equals unequally. It would not be
eradicating the effects of past discrimination but perpetuating it. The relevant
paragraph of the judgment is extracted herein under:
“The reservations in the promotions in the services are unconstitutional
as they are inconsistent with the maintenance of efficiency of administration.
However, the backward classes may be provided with relaxations,
exemptions, concessions and facilities etc. to enable them to compete for the
promotional posts with others wherever the promotions are based on selection
or merit-cum-seniority basis. Further, the committee or body entrusted with the
task of selection must be representative and manned by suitable persons
including those from the backward classes to make an impartial assessment
of the merits. To ensure adequate representation of the backward classes
which means representation at all levels and in all grades in the service, the
18rules of recruitment must ensure that there is direct recruitment at all levels
and in all grades in the services.”
(v). Following the decision of the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney v.
Union of India (7th cited supra), which held that reservation under Article
16(4) was confined only to initial appointments and could not extend to
promotions, the long-standing policy of reservation in promotions for
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes faced the risk of discontinuation.
Since SC/ST representation in public services was still considered
inadequate, and to safeguard their interests, the Government decided to
restore and continue the existing policy of reservations in promotions.
Consequently, the Constitution (Seventy-Seventh Amendment) Act, 1995
inserted Article 16(4A), thereby reinstating reservation in promotions for
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and effectively restoring the position
that existed prior to the judgment.
(vi). The said Clause (4A) was inserted after Clause (4) of Article 16 to say
that nothing in the said Article shall prevent the State from making any
provision for reservation in matters of promotion to any class(s) of posts in the
services under the State in favour of SCs and STs which, in the opinion of the
States, are not adequately represented in the services under the State.
(vii). Article 16(4A) is structured on the same lines as clauses (3) and (4) of
Article 16 and places emphasis on the State’s assessment regarding the
adequacy of representation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in
public services. It is an enabling provision that grants discretion to the State to
19
provide reservation in promotions, depending upon prevailing circumstances
and ground realities. Before exercising this power, the State must form an
opinion based on quantifiable data demonstrating inadequate representation.
(viii). Being an enabling provision, Article 16(4A) does not mandate
reservation in promotions; rather, it merely empowers the State to introduce
such measures where necessary. Since Article 16(4A) is carved out of Article
16(4), it remains subject to the foundational requirements underlying Article
16(4), namely backwardness and inadequacy of representation. Unless these
conditions are established, the provision cannot be invoked.
(ix). In UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC VS. VIRPAL SINGH CHAUHAN
(1995) (8th cited supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court introduced the operation of
the “catch-up rule” by observing that:
“Reservation through the roster system merely enables a candidate
belonging to a reserved category to secure an earlier appointment or
promotion than might otherwise have been possible. However, such
accelerated promotion does not automatically carry with it the benefit of
consequential seniority. If a general category candidate, who was originally
senior in the feeder cadre, is promoted subsequently, he would regain his
senior position upon promotion and rank above the reserved category
candidate. Thus, although a reserved category candidate may obtain
promotion earlier due to the operation of the roster, the earlier promotion itself
does not permanently alter the inter se seniority between candidates. The
Court held that reservation confers only a limited and qualified benefit,
restricted to facilitating appointment or promotion, and not to granting
automatic seniority. Accordingly, the catch-up rule ensured that seniority
20principles based on original position and merit were preserved, and such an
arrangement was held not to violate Article 16(4) of the Constitution.”
(x). In AJIT SINGH JHANUJA (1996) (9th cited supra), The Hon’ble Apex
Court affirmed the principle laid down in Union of India v. Virpal Singh
Chauhan and held that:
“Reservation through the roster system grants only accelerated
promotion and not accelerated consequential seniority. Seniority in the
promoted cadre would continue to be determined with reference to the original
inter se seniority in the lower cadre. Accordingly, where a Scheduled Caste or
Scheduled Tribe candidate secures earlier promotion through reservation, and
a senior general category candidate is promoted subsequently, the latter
would regain his original seniority over the reserved category candidate under
the catch-up rule. The Court observed that the reserved category candidate,
by virtue of roster-based promotion, does not supersede senior general
candidates on merit. Therefore, denying restoration of seniority would unfairly
allow accelerated promotions to permanently alter the service structure and
could eventually prejudice general category candidates in higher promotions,
a consequence inconsistent with the constitutional scheme under Articles
16(4) and 335.”
(xi). The Eighty-Fifth Constitutional Amendment Act, 2001, enacted under
Article 368, nullified the judicially evolved Catch-Up Rule established in Virpal
Singh and Ajit Singh by introducing “consequential seniority” under Article
16(4A), thereby ensuring that SC/ST employees promoted through reservation
retained seniority benefits arising from such accelerated promotion.
(xii). In NAGARAJ VS. UNION OF INDIA (2nd cited supra), challenges made
to the constitutional validity of the 77th, 81st, 82nd and 85th Constitutional
Amendments, which were enacted by Parliament to restore and protect
21
reservation in promotions for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The
Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the constitutional
validity of the 77th, 81st, 82nd and 85th Constitutional Amendments
concerning reservation in promotions in favour of Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes. However, the Court categorically held that the grant of
reservation in promotions is not automatic merely by virtue of the enabling
constitutional provisions. The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that :
“Articles 16(4A) and 16(4B) are enabling provisions and that the State,
before exercising such power, must satisfy certain constitutional requirements.
The State is required to collect quantifiable data demonstrating the
backwardness of the class concerned, inadequacy of representation in public
employment, and maintenance of efficiency in administration as contemplated
under Article 335 of the Constitution. Reservation cannot result in reverse
discrimination and ordinarily cannot breach the ceiling limit of 50% as
recognized in Indra Sawhney Judgment, the exercise of reservation by the
State remains subject to judicial review where the constitutional parameters
are not complied with.”
(xiii). Accordingly, it is clear that while the constitutional amendments
enabling reservation in promotions were upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court,
their implementation was made conditional upon the State fulfilling the
constitutional requirements through objective and quantifiable material.
(xiv). The private respondents have sought to place reliance upon the
aforesaid judgments to contend that the constitutional requirements
prescribed therein were not complied with. However, this Court finds such
contention to be unsustainable in the facts and circumstances of the present
22
case. The material available on record as provided by the official respondents
(Annexure 5, dated 10.12.2015) reveals that prior to effecting promotions to
the post of Loco Pilot (Passenger), the Railway administration had undertaken
an exercise for collection of quantifiable data wherein the communal
requirement is – SC-12, ST- 06, And UR-128 and assessed the inadequacy of
representation of SC/ST employees in the relevant cadre.
(xv). It is noticed by the court that when the entire population of LP (pass) is
considered by adding the SC/STs promoted on their own seniority as against
UR points, the percentage combined to 24.52% (SC-15.6% and ST- 8.9%)
(Annexure.) The record further demonstrates that the exercise contemplated
under M. Nagaraj was in fact undertaken and compliance with the
constitutional parameters was acknowledged by the official respondents
themselves.
(xvi). The private respondents have further contended that consequential
seniority granted to the petitioners adversely disturbs the existing seniority
structure. This Court is unable to accept the said submission. Once
accelerated promotions were validly granted in accordance with the communal
roster and the applicable rules prevailing at the relevant time, and once the
constitutional requirements under M. Nagaraj (2nd cited supra) stood satisfied,
the consequential seniority flowing there from cannot be independently
assailed. The Eighty-Fifth Constitutional Amendment expressly recognizes
consequential seniority and removes the basis of the earlier Catch-Up Rule
evolved through judicial interpretation.
23
(xvii). This Court also finds merit in the reliance placed upon R.K. Sabharwal
(1st cited supra). The record indicates that while undertaking the exercise
mandated under M. Nagaraj (2nd cited supra), the Railway Administration
assessed representation by considering the cadre strength of Loco Pilot
(Passenger), including SC/ST employees promoted on their own merit against
Unreserved points. Such an exercise reflects adherence to the post-based
roster principle recognized in R.K. Sabharwal (1st cited supra), wherein
reservation is attached to the cadre strength and not to recurring vacancies.
Therefore, the process adopted by the Railway Administration cannot be said
to be arbitrary or contrary to constitutional requirements.
(xviii). The material on record further reveals that the petitioners were
promoted as Loco Pilot (Goods) in the year 2008 in accordance with the rules
and communal roster then prevailing, whereas the respondents entered the
promotional cadre at a later stage. Consequent upon their earlier
empanelment and promotion, the petitioners acquired seniority under Para
306 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual. Their subsequent
promotions to the cadre of Loco Pilot (Passenger) and the consequential
seniority attached thereto therefore arose from validly conferred service
benefits and cannot now be termed as arbitrary or contrary to law.
(xix). The Parliament, in exercise of its constituent power under Article 368 of
the Constitution, through the Constitution (Eighty-Fifth Amendment) Act, did
not merely declare the decisions rendered in Virpal Singh (8th cited supra) and
Ajit Singh (9th cited supra) to be erroneous or ineffective. Rather, by expressly
24
incorporating the words “with consequential seniority” into Article 16(4A), it
fundamentally altered the constitutional framework upon which the judicially
evolved Catch-Up Rule was founded and thereby removed the very basis of
the said judgments. It is a settled principle of constitutional jurisprudence that
while the legislature cannot directly overrule or invalidate a judicial
pronouncement by legislative declaration, it is fully competent to enact
legislation or constitutional amendments that remove the legal substratum and
foundation upon which such judgments rest. Once the underlying basis of a
judicial determination is constitutionally altered, the principle emanating there
from ceases to govern the field.
(xx). Consequently, upon the Eighty-Fifth Amendment coming into force, the
Catch-Up Rule and the principles flowing from Virpal Singh (8th cited supra)
and Ajit Singh (9th cited supra) lost their operative force. Further, the
constitutional validity of such amendments was examined by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2nd cited supra), wherein
Articles 16(4A) and 16(4B) were upheld as constitutionally valid and not
destructive of the Basic Structure of the Constitution. The Court categorically
held that the amendments neither abrogated equality nor damaged the
constitutional identity, but merely provided an enabling mechanism for
reservation in promotion subject to constitutional limitations. Therefore, no
violation of the Basic Structure doctrine can be said to arise, and the amended
constitutional position must prevail.
25
24. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the private
respondents’ contention that accelerated promotion cannot result in
consequential seniority is contrary to the present constitutional position under
Article 16(4A), as amended by the Constitution (Eighty-Fifth Amendment) Act.
Once the constitutional safeguards laid down in M. Nagaraj (2nd cited supra)
and Jarnail Singh (3rd cited supra) stand satisfied, consequential seniority
becomes a legally sustainable and permissible incident of reservation in
promotion. The petitioners were extended such benefits in accordance with
the constitutional framework, judicial precedents and applicable service rules.
This Court finds no infirmity in granting of accelerated promotion and
consequential seniority in favour of the petitioners. Consequently, the
challenge raised by the respondents on this issue is liable to fail. Accordingly,
issue Nos.1 & 2 answered in favour of the petitioners.
25. Issue No. 3 :-
This particular issue deals with the legality/validity of ‘whether promotion
to the post of Loco Pilot (Mail) is to be treated as an independent exercise or
whether the same is required to be determined on the basis of the seniority
and promotional structure prevailing in the feeder cadres of Loco Pilot (Goods)
and Loco Pilot (Passenger)’.
26. Submissions of the Writ Petitioners:
(i) The petitioners contend that promotion to the cadre of Loco Pilot (Mail)
cannot be treated as a fresh or standalone promotional exercise detached
from the feeder cadre seniority. It is contended that once seniority had validly
26fixed in the feeder cadre after compliance with the constitutional requirements
laid down in M. Nagaraj (2nd cited supra) and Jarnail Singh (3rd cited supra),
the same could not be reopened at every successive promotional stage.
(ii). The petitioners further contend that the private respondents are
erroneously attempting to re-agitate the issue of consequential seniority at the
stage of promotion to Loco Pilot(Mail), despite the feeder cadre seniority
having already attained finality. Accordingly, the petitioners submits that the
promotions granted to the petitioners are strictly in accordance with the
applicable rules, seniority principles and the law laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court.
27. Submissions of the official respondents:-
(i). The official respondents i.e., the Railway Administration contend that
the post of Loco Pilot (Mail) is not an independent cadre but forms part of a
continuous promotional hierarchy commencing from Assistant Loco Pilot to
Loco Pilot (Goods), thereafter to Loco Pilot (Passenger), and finally to Loco
Pilot (Mail). According to the respondents, promotion to the cadre of Loco Pilot
(Mail) is necessarily governed by the seniority position existing in the feeder
cadre of Loco Pilot (Passenger).
(ii). The official respondents submit that the petitioners were promoted
earlier as Loco Pilot (Goods) in the year 2008 in accordance with the
communal roster and applicable rules, whereas the private respondents were
promoted subsequently in the year 2010. Consequently, the petitioners
became senior in the feeder cadre in terms of Para 306 and Para 309 of the
27Indian Railway Establishment Manual, Vol-I (Annexure-R-4), which provide
that employees empanelled in an earlier panel shall rank senior to those
selected subsequently.
(iii). It is further contended that while filling up 146 vacancies in the cadre of
Loco Pilot (Passenger), the Railway Administration duly complied with the
principles laid down in M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2nd cited supra) by
collecting quantifiable data relating to adequacy of representation,
backwardness and efficiency of administration, as reflected in Annexure-R-5.
Thereafter, the petitioners were empanelled and promoted as Loco Pilot
(Passenger) vide select list dated 07.01.2016 (Annexure-R-6), whereas the
private respondents were promoted subsequently vide Annexure-R-7.
(iv). According to the official respondents, once the petitioners acquired
seniority in the cadre of Loco Pilot (Passenger), such seniority stood
crystallized and necessarily governed further promotions to the cadre of Loco
Pilot (Mail). It is their specific contention that even though the vacancies in
LP(Mail) were assessed as 23 Un Reserved vacancies vide Annexure-R-8,
the promotions had to be effected from amongst the senior-most eligible
employees available in the feeder cadre of LP(Passenger). Since the
petitioners were senior and within the zone of consideration, they were
adjudged suitable vide memorandum dated 28.06.2021 (Annexure-R-9) and
promoted vide proceedings dated 30.06.2021 (Annexure-R-10).
(v). The official respondents therefore contend that promotion to the cadre
of Loco Pilot (Mail) cannot be treated as a fresh or standalone promotional
28
exercise detached from the feeder cadre seniority. According to them, once
seniority had validly crystallized in the feeder cadre after compliance with the
constitutional requirements laid down in M. Nagaraj (2nd cited supra) and
Jarnail Singh (3rd cited supra), the same could not be reopened at every
successive promotional stage.
28. Submissions of the Private Respondents:
(i). The private respondents belonging to the unreserved category
contended that the accelerated promotions granted to the petitioners
belonging to the SC/ST category, together with consequential seniority, have
unlawfully disturbed the existing seniority structure in the cadre of Loco Pilot
(Mail). According to the respondents, promotion to LP (Mail) constitutes an
independent cadre and therefore reservation in promotion cannot
automatically continue merely on the basis of seniority obtained in the feeder
cadres of LP (Goods) and LP (Passenger).
(ii). The private respondents further contended that Article 16(4A) is only an
enabling provision and reservation in promotion with consequential seniority
can be sustained only upon strict compliance with the constitutional
requirements laid down in M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2nd cited supra) and
reaffirmed in Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta. It was specifically argued
that the Railway Administration failed to undertake proper cadre-specific
assessment and did not collect adequate quantifiable data regarding
inadequacy of representation in the cadre of LP (Mail) prior to effecting
promotions.
29
(iii). Relying upon Union of India v. Virpal Singh Chauhan (8th cited supra)
and Ajit Singh Januja v. State of Punjab (9th cited supra), the respondents
contended that accelerated promotion granted through reservation cannot
automatically confer consequential seniority over general category employees
who were otherwise senior in the feeder cadre. It was argued that the Catch-
Up Rule evolved in the aforesaid judgments protected the seniority rights of
unreserved candidates and prevented excessive distortion of the promotional
hierarchy.
(iv). The respondents also relied upon Union of India v. Sajib Roy (5th cited
supra), Pravakar Mallick v. State of Orissa10, the judgment of the Delhi High
Court in W.P.(C) No.3490/2010, the Punjab & Haryana High Court judgment
in CWP No.13218 of 2009, and the Rajasthan High Court judgment in Union
of India v. Lokesh Kumar Saini, to contend that reservation in promotion and
consequential seniority cannot be mechanically extended in the absence of
strict constitutional compliance and cadre-wise determination of inadequacy.
(v). It was further contended that reservation under the constitutional
scheme is intended only to ensure adequate representation and cannot
operate in a manner which results in perpetual seniority advantage to
reserved candidates at every successive stage of promotion. According to the
respondents, once the prescribed representation in the cadre had already
been achieved, further extension of reservation benefits would offend the
principles laid down in R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab (1st cited supra).
10
1996 AIR 448
30
(vi). The respondents therefore asserted that the promotions granted to the
petitioners to the cadre of LP (Mail), along with consequential seniority, are
contrary to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and sought interference of
this Court.
29. Analysis, Reasoning & Finding:-
(i). At this juncture, it becomes necessary to understand the distinction
between a “cadre-specific/independent promotion” and a “continuation of
feeder cadre seniority” in service jurisprudence.
(ii). A promotion may be treated as an independent or cadre-specific
exercise when the promotional post is filled on the basis of a separately
assessed vacancy structure, separate roster application, or an independent
determination of eligibility and entitlement. In such cases, the promotional
cadre assumes a distinct identity and the administration is required to
independently examine the applicability of reservation, seniority and other
constitutional requirements at that stage itself.
(iii). On the other hand, where the promotional post merely forms part of a
continuous hierarchical channel of promotion and the promotions are
governed entirely by the seniority already crystallized in the feeder cadre,
such promotion is treated as a continuation of feeder cadre seniority. In such a
case, the higher promotional post does not constitute a fresh or standalone
exercise, but only an extension of the existing promotional structure, wherein
the senior-most eligible employees in the feeder cadre are considered for
further promotion.
31
(iv). In the present case, the controversy revolves around whether the cadre
of Loco Pilot (Mail), against which 23 vacancies were independently assessed
as ‘Un Reserved’ vide Annexure-R-8, should be treated as a distinct cadre-
specific promotional exercise requiring an independent application of
reservation principles, or whether the same merely constitutes a continuation
of the already existing seniority structure prevailing in the feeder cadre of Loco
Pilot (Passenger).
(v). This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions advanced by
the petitioners, the private respondents, and the official respondents with
respect to reservation in promotion and consequential seniority in the cadre of
Loco Pilot (Mail). The principal contention raised by the private respondents is
that promotions to the cadre of LP (Mail) constitute an independent
promotional exercise and therefore reservation and consequential seniority
granted in the feeder cadres cannot automatically continue into the higher
cadre. It was further contended that accelerated promotion granted to SC/ST
employees has disturbed the seniority rights of unreserved category
employees and violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
(vi). The respondents further relied upon the judgments in Union of India v.
Virpal Singh Chauhan (8th cited supra) and Ajit Singh Januja v. State of
Punjab (9th cited supra) to contend that accelerated promotion through
reservation cannot automatically confer consequential seniority over general
category employees who were otherwise senior in the feeder cadre. According
to the respondents, the Catch-Up Rule evolved in the aforesaid judgments
32
protected the seniority rights of unreserved candidates and prevented
excessive distortion of the promotional hierarchy. Reliance was also placed
upon M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2nd cited supra) and Jarnail Singh v.
Lachhmi Narain Gupta (3rd cited supra) to contend that reservation in
promotion can be sustained only upon strict compliance with the constitutional
requirements of cadre-specific quantifiable data and inadequacy of
representation.
(vii). Per contra, the petitioners contended that the service structure
governing Loco Pilots reflects a continuous and integrated promotional
hierarchy beginning from LP (Goods), progressing to LP (Passenger), and
thereafter to LP (Mail). It was argued that the petitioners had secured
promotions in the feeder cadres in accordance with the communal roster,
Article 16(4A), and the applicable Railway Rules and that the consequential
seniority arising there from formed the lawful basis for subsequent promotions.
The petitioners further relied upon the Constitution (Seventy-Seventh
Amendment) Act introducing Article 16(4A) and the Constitution (Eighty-Fifth
Amendment) Act inserting the words “with consequential seniority” to contend
that the constitutional foundation of the Catch-Up Rule stood expressly
removed.
(viii). At the outset, it is necessary to note that reservation in promotion for
SC/ST employees received constitutional recognition through the Seventy-
Seventh Constitutional Amendment introducing Article 16(4A). Subsequently,
Parliament enacted the Eighty-Fifth Constitutional Amendment inserting the
33
words “with consequential seniority” into Article 16(4A), thereby expressly
recognizing consequential seniority as an incident of reservation in promotion.
The constitutional validity of Articles 16(4A) and 16(4B) was upheld by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2nd cited supra),
wherein it was held that reservation in promotion with consequential seniority
is constitutionally permissible subject to collection of quantifiable data
regarding inadequacy of representation and maintenance of efficiency under
Article 335. The said principles were subsequently reaffirmed and clarified in
Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta (3rd cited supra).
(ix). This Court further notes that the constitutional amendments introducing
reservation in promotion and consequential seniority effectively removed the
basis of the earlier decisions in Virpal Singh (8th cited supra) and Ajit Singh
(9th cited supra). Parliament, by introducing Article 16(4A) and thereafter
incorporating the expression “with consequential seniority”, altered the
constitutional foundation upon which the Catch-Up Rule rested. The
constitutional validity of these amendments having been upheld in M. Nagaraj
(2nd cited supra), the earlier judicially evolved principle of “catch up” Rule
cannot continue to override the express constitutional mandate.
(x). The material placed before this Court reveals that the petitioners had
secured promotion to LP (Goods) and LP (Passenger) in accordance with the
communal roster and the prevailing rules governing reservation in promotion.
Their consequential seniority in the feeder cadres formed the basis for further
consideration to LP (Mail). The official respondents have specifically submitted
34
that cadre-specific assessment and collection of quantifiable data regarding
inadequacy of representation were undertaken prior to effecting promotions in
the relevant promotional cadres. Therefore, there is no substance in the
contention of the private respondents that the constitutional requirements
under M. Nagaraj (2nd cited supra) and Jarnail Singh (3rd cited supra) were not
complied. And as such, the said contention is rejected.
(xi). This Court is also unable to accept the contention that the cadre of LP
(Mail) must be treated in complete isolation detached from the feeder
promotional structure. The service structure in question reflects a continuous
promotional hierarchy wherein seniority and promotional entitlement in the
higher cadre substantially flow from the lawful promotions obtained in feeder
posts. Once promotions and consequential seniority were validly conferred in
the feeder cadres, the private respondents cannot now seek to reopen or
indirectly challenge those earlier promotions while assailing subsequent
promotions to LP (Mail).
(xii). The principles laid down in R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab (1st cited
supra) also support the case of the petitioners. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the aforesaid judgment held that reservation has to be examined with
reference to cadre strength and overall representation and not by isolating
individual vacancies. The private respondents’ attempt to isolate particular
vacancies in LP (Mail) without examining the integrated cadre structure and
the overall representation of SC/ST employees is therefore contrary to the
settled principles governing post-based reservation.
35
(xiii). Further, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.K. Pavitra v.
Union of India (4th cited supra) recognizes that consequential seniority granted
pursuant to valid reservation in promotion forms part of the constitutional
scheme intended to secure substantive equality for SC/ST employees in
public services. The constitutional objective underlying Articles 14, 16(4A),
and 46 cannot be defeated by narrowly interpreting promotional seniority in a
manner that nullifies the benefits expressly protected through constitutional
amendment.
(xiv). Mere concentration of SC/ST promotions in a particular promotional
exercise cannot by itself invalidate reservation in promotion. As observed in
N.M. Thomas, the correct approach is to examine representation in the cadre
as a whole and not isolated promotional instance. In the present case, when
the entire population of LP (Passenger) was considered, including SC/ST
candidates occupying UR points on their own seniority, representation stood
at 24.52% (SC-15.6% and ST-8.9%). Therefore, the promotional exercise
cannot be termed excessive or constitutionally impermissible.
(xv). Accordingly, this Court holds that the validity of promotions to the post
of Loco Pilot (Mail) cannot be examined in isolation by treating the cadre as
wholly detached from the promotional chain existing in the feeder cadres of LP
(Goods) and LP (Passenger). Promotions to LP (Mail) are liable to be
assessed with reference to the integrated promotional and seniority structure
governing the service. Consequently, the challenge raised by the respondents
36
against the accelerated promotion and consequential seniority granted to the
petitioners is devoid of merit and is liable to be rejected.
30. Thus, the issue No.3 is answered in favour of the petitioners.
31. Issue No. 4 :-
In the present case, the core controversy revolves around whether the
cadre of Loco Pilot (Mail), against which 23 vacancies were independently
assessed as ‘Un Reserved’ vide Annexure-R-8, should be treated as a distinct
cadre-specific promotional exercise requiring an independent application of
reservation principles, or whether the same merely constitutes a continuation
of the already existing seniority structure prevailing in the feeder cadre of Loco
Pilot (Passenger).
32. Submissions of the Writ Petitioners:
(a). The writ petitioners, belonging to the reserved category, contend that
their impugned promotions to the post of Loco Pilot (Mail) are entirely legal
and valid, as they were carried out strictly on the basis of inter-se seniority and
suitability in the feeder cadre of Loco Pilot (Passenger).
(b). The petitioners contends that because they reached the top of the
seniority pool inside the normal zone of consideration, they have a legitimate
right under Article 16(1) to be adjusted against the 23 Unreserved (UR)
vacancies on their own merit. It is their case that since they are not claiming
quota benefits for this selection, the operational conditions under Article
3716(4A) such as collecting new quantifiable data on inadequacy are completely
irrelevant to this selection.
(c). The petitioners rely heavily on Railway Board circular RBE No.
128/2002 to submit that a senior, suitable reserved category candidate cannot
be denied promotion against an open post merely due to their community
identity. Furthermore, they emphasize that all their preceding promotions in
the lower cadres of Loco Pilot (Goods) and Passenger were backed by
necessary quantifiable data as per M. Nagaraj (2nd cited supra) directives, and
since the unreserved applicants failed to timely challenge those foundational
feeder seniority lists within the statutory period, the Central Administrative
Tribunal erred in law by quashing their promotions behind their back without
even serving proper notices or affording them an opportunity to be heard,
which is in violation of principles of natural justice.
33. Submissions of the private respondents:
(a). Per contra, the private respondents, representing the unreserved
category candidates, vehemently oppose the writ petition and support the
findings of the learned Tribunal. They contend that the promotion to the post
of Loco Pilot (Mail) ought to have been treated as an independent promotional
exercise and not as a mere continuation of the seniority prevailing in the
feeder cadres of Loco Pilot (Goods) and Loco Pilot (Passenger).
(b). The private respondents contends that because the vacancies notified
during the year 2021 were specifically assessed as 23 Unreserved vacancies
vide Annexure-R-8, the Railway Administration was legally required to
38undertake an independent consideration for filling up the said vacancies. They
argue that the petitioners only attained their top positions in the feeder
seniority pool by accumulating “accelerated promotions” via quota bookings in
the lower ranks.
(c). Further asserted that carrying forward this accelerated seniority to
occupy open-merit slots, especially when the assessed vacancies for SC/STs
are explicitly declared as NIL, constitutes an invalid elongation of reservation
benefits and a colourable exercise of power. The respondents heavily rely on
RBE No. 117/2016 and the explicit undertaking given by the learned Solicitor
General of India before the Apex Court, which placed a strict embargo on
considering reserved category candidates against ‘Un Reserved’ points. The
private respondents contend that since the older enabling policy under RBE
126/2010 was quashed by various High Courts, and because the Railway
Administration never carried out a valid preliminary exercise to collect cadre-
specific quantifiable data regarding inadequacy and administrative efficiency
under Article 335 post-M. Nagaraj, the entire seniority list and the resulting
promotions are non est in law and must be set aside.
34. Analysis, Reasoning & Finding:-
(a). The principal contention advanced by the unofficial respondents is that
the post of Loco Pilot (Mail) constituted a distinct promotional cadre and, since
all twenty-three vacancies assessed in the year 2021 were admittedly
unreserved, the Railway Administration was obliged to undertake an
39independent exercise in relation to the said cadre without taking into account
the consequential seniority enjoyed by the petitioners in the lower cadres.
(b). At the outset, it is very apt to note that the petitioners belonging to the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes were promoted to the cadre of Loco
Pilot (Goods) in the year 2008 in accordance with the rules prevailing at the
relevant point of time. Thereafter, upon assessment of 146 vacancies in the
cadre of Loco Pilot (Passenger), reservation in promotion was extended after
collecting quantifiable data with respect to inadequacy of representation and
efficiency in administration, as contemplated in Article 16(4A) read with Article
335 of the Constitution, and in conformity with the principles enunciated by the
Constitution Bench in M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2nd cited supra).
(c). In Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta (3rd cited supra), the Supreme
Court reaffirmed the constitutional validity of Article 16(4A) and reiterated that
reservation in promotion with consequential seniority remains permissible,
subject to satisfaction of the conditions indicated in M. Nagaraj (2nd cited
supra). The requirement relating to backwardness was dispensed with, while
the necessity of examining adequacy of representation and administrative
efficiency was retained.
(d). The materials placed on record reveal that while effecting promotions to
the post of Loco Pilot (Passenger), the Railway Administration examined:
● inadequacy of representation of SC/ST employees;
● the ceiling limit prescribed by the Supreme Court;
● efficiency in administration under Article 335; and
40
● the absence of any relaxation in standards inasmuch as the post
constituted a safety category post.
(e). Therefore, the contention that no exercise under M. Nagaraj (2nd cited
supra) was undertaken is contrary to the record. Once the petitioners were
validly promoted to the cadre of Loco Pilot (Passenger), their inter se seniority
became governed by Para 306 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual,
which provides that employees selected in an earlier panel shall rank senior to
those selected in a subsequent panel, irrespective of the date of posting.
(f). The private respondents admittedly entered into the cadre of Loco Pilot
(Passenger) only in the year 2018, whereas the petitioners had already been
empanelled and promoted in the year 2016. Consequently, the petitioners
occupied a higher position in the seniority list.
(g). The contention that the cadre of Loco Pilot (Mail) ought to be viewed in
isolation and detached from the feeder cadre hierarchy is against to the
settled principle of law that promotion is a continuation of service and not a
fresh appointment.
(h). In Ajit Singh (II) v. State of Punjab (9th cited supra), the Supreme Court
explained the concepts of accelerated promotion and consequential seniority.
Parliament thereafter inserted Articles 16(4A) and 16(4B) and further enacted
the Eighty-fifth Constitutional Amendment, thereby expressly recognizing the
grant of consequential seniority to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
The validity of the said constitutional scheme was upheld in M. Nagaraj (2nd
cited supra) and subsequently reaffirmed in Jarnail Singh (3rd cited supra).
41
(i). Therefore, once consequential seniority had validly accrued to the
petitioners in the cadre of Loco Pilot (Passenger), the same formed part of the
existing service structure and could not be ignored while considering
promotions to the next higher cadre.
(j). The submission that each cadre requires an independent and fresh
application of Article 16(4A) is misconceived. Reservation under Article 16(4A)
was invoked only at the stage of promotion to Loco Pilot (Passenger).
Promotion to Loco Pilot (Mail) was not affected by applying reservation.
(k). The record clearly demonstrates that twenty-three vacancies in the
cadre of Loco Pilot (Mail) were assessed as unreserved vacancies. The
petitioners were considered not because they belonged to Scheduled Castes
or Scheduled Tribes, but because they occupied senior positions in the feeder
cadre and fell within the zone of consideration.
(l). The law is well settled that a candidate belonging to a reserved
category is not disentitled from competing for or occupying an unreserved post
merely because he belongs to a reserved class.
(m). In Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992 (7th cited supra), the
Constitution Bench held that candidates belonging to reserved categories who
are selected on their own merit cannot be counted against reserved quota.
(n). Similarly, in R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab (1st cited supra), the
Supreme Court explained that reservation operates through the principle of
42
replacement and that appointments made against unreserved posts are to be
treated as unreserved appointments.
(o). Therefore, merely because the petitioners belong to Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes, they cannot be denied consideration against
unreserved vacancies when they otherwise stand senior in the feeder cadre.
(p). The reliance placed by the respondents on RBE No.117/2016 is equally
misplaced. The said circular merely kept RBE No.126/2010 in abeyance and
was intended to ensure compliance with the ongoing proceedings before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court. The circular did not obliterate the existing seniority
already acquired by employees nor did it prohibit members of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes from being considered against unreserved
vacancies on the basis of merit and seniority.
(q). Likewise, RBE No.91/2018 expressly contemplated continuation of
promotions on a provisional basis pending adjudication of the disputes before
the Supreme Court. In view of the operational requirements of the Railways
and the safety-sensitive nature of the posts involved, the administration was
justified in continuing promotions subject to the outcome of litigation.
(r). To accept the contention of the private respondents would amount to
reopening promotions granted nearly a decade earlier and unsettling settled
seniority positions, which is impermissible in-service jurisprudence.
35. Accordingly, this Court holds that the cadre of Loco Pilot (Mail) cannot
be viewed in isolation from the feeder cadres of Loco Pilot (Goods) and Loco
43
Pilot (Passenger). Promotions to the post of Loco Pilot (Mail) constituted a
continuation of the existing promotional hierarchy and were governed by the
inter se seniority prevailing in the cadre of Loco Pilot (Passenger). Since the
twenty-three vacancies in the cadre of Loco Pilot (Mail) were filled purely on
the basis of seniority and suitability and not by invoking reservation under
Article 16(4A), the petitioners were validly considered and promoted against
the said vacancies. Their promotions do not suffer from any illegality
warranting interference of this Court.
36. Accordingly, this issue No.4 is answered in favour of the petitioners.
37. We may summarise the findings recorded hereinabove while answering
the issue Nos.1 to 4 as under:
i) The reservation in promotion for SC/ST employees received
constitutional recognition through the 77th Constitutional amendment by
introducing Article 16(4A).
(ii) Subsequently, the Parliament enacted the 85th Constitutional
amendment inserted the words “with consequential seniority” into the Article
16(4A), thereby, expressly recognizing the consequential seniority as an
incident of reservation in promotion.
(iii) The Constitutional validity of Articles 16(4A) and 16(4B) was upheld by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.Nagaraj v. Union of India (2nd cited supra)
wherein, it was held that reservation in promotion with consequential seniority
is Constitutionally permissible subject to collection of quantifiable data
44regarding the inadequacy of representation and maintenance of efficiency
under Article 335.
(iv) In the light of the ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.Nagaraj Vs.
Union of India (2nd cited supra) wherein, Article 16(4A) and 16(4B) were
upheld as constitutionally valid or not destructive of the Basic Structure of the
Constitution and once the constitutional safeguards laid down in the said
judgment stand satisfied, consequential seniority becomes a legally
sustainable and permissible incident of reservation in promotion.
38. Accordingly, this Court holds that:
(i) Consequent upon the 85th amendment of the Constitution of India
coming into force, the earlier judicially evolved principle of ‘catch up’ rule
flowing from Virpal Singh (8th cited supra) and Ajit Singh (9th cited supra) lost
their operative force and it cannot continue to override the express
constitutional mandate by introducing Article 16(4A) by the Parliament.
(ii) In the light of the settled law, we hold that the candidates belonging to
reserved category is not disentitled from competing from or occupying an
unreserved post merely because he belongs to a reserved class.
(iii) In the light of the settled law, this Court holds that candidates belong to
reserved category, who are selected on their own merit cannot be counted
against the reserved quota.
45
(iv) It is further held that merely because the petitioners belong to SC/ST
category, they cannot be denied consideration against the unreserved
vacancies when they otherwise stand senior in the feeder category.
39. For the aforesaid reasons and in view of the findings recorded
hereinabove, we pass the following order:
(a) The W.P.Nos.28441 of 2025 & 1865 of 2026 are hereby allowed.
(b) Consequently, the orders, dated 21.10.2024 passed in
O.A.No.020/0360/2022 and O.A/020/0361/2022 on the file of the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, are hereby
quashed.
(c) There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________
JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND
__________________________________
JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA
Dated: 17.07.2026
PKR
46
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND
AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA
02
WRIT PETITION Nos. 28441 of 2025 & 1865 of 2026
Dated: 17.07.2026
PKR
