1997 (5) TMI 423 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Challenge to the promotion of reserved candidates.
2. Seniority determination based on continuous service.
3. Application of the rule of reservation and roster point.
4. Validity of promotions made prior to certain landmark judgments.
5. Delay and laches in challenging the promotions.

Summary:

1. Challenge to the promotion of reserved candidates:
The appellants-general candidates challenged the promotion of the reserved candidates to the post of Superintendents in Class-III Service of Haryana Government. They argued that despite the reserved candidates getting promoted earlier, the appellants were senior in the lower cadre and should be considered for promotion to Class I posts before the reserved candidates. The High Court dismissed the writ petition due to abnormal delay and upheld the promotions of the reserved candidates.

2. Seniority determination based on continuous service:
The Court emphasized that seniority should be determined based on the length of continuous service in the post, as per Rule 11 of the Haryana Education Department (State Service Group B) Rules, 1980. The reserved candidates, having been promoted earlier and completed their probation successfully, became members of the higher cadre from the date of their promotion. This seniority cannot be reopened after the promotion of the general candidates.

3. Application of the rule of reservation and roster point:
The Court held that the rule of reservation and roster points applied to the promotions of the reserved candidates were valid and did not violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The reserved candidates' promotions were in accordance with the rules and did not result in unconstitutionality or discrimination against the general candidates.

4. Validity of promotions made prior to certain landmark judgments:
The Court noted that promotions made prior to the decisions in R.K. Sabharwal's case and Virpal Singh Chauhan's case could not be declared invalid. The principles laid down in these cases would operate prospectively and not affect promotions made before these judgments. The Court reaffirmed that the reserved candidates' seniority in the promoted posts remained intact.

5. Delay and laches in challenging the promotions:
The Court reiterated that delay and laches disentitle the party to discretionary relief under Article 226 or 32 of the Constitution. The appellants, having slept over their rights for a long time, could not challenge the promotions at a belated stage. The High Court's dismissal of the writ petition on the ground of delay was upheld.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, dismissing the appeal and confirming the seniority and promotions of the reserved candidates. The appeal was dismissed without costs.