1993 (5) TMI 198 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Inter se seniority of the appellant and respondent No. 3 in the Punjab Superior Judicial Service.
2. Application and interpretation of the Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules, 1963, and subsequent government orders regarding reservation for Scheduled Castes.
3. Clarification and implementation of reservation policies for Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs.
4. Determination of the correct placement of the respondent No. 3 in the seniority list.
5. Effect of clarificatory orders on the retrospective application of reservation policies.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Inter se Seniority of the Appellant and Respondent No. 3:
The primary issue revolves around the seniority between the appellant, a general category candidate, and respondent No. 3, a Mazhabi Sikh, both appointed to the Punjab Superior Judicial Service on May 26, 1986. The appellant was placed at Point No. 8, and respondent No. 3 was placed at Point No. 9 in the merit list.

2. Application and Interpretation of the Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules, 1963:
Recruitment to the Service is governed by the Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules, 1963. Rule 8-A, inserted by notification on June 14, 1977, mandated the application of state government instructions regarding reservations for Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes. The relevant orders include:
- Letter dated June 6, 1974, increasing the reservation percentage.
- Circular dated November 19, 1974, regarding the carry-forward of reservations.
- Letter dated May 5, 1975, specifying that 50% of the reserved vacancies for Scheduled Castes should be offered to Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs.
- Letter dated April 8, 1980, clarifying the implementation of the May 5, 1975, instructions.

3. Clarification and Implementation of Reservation Policies:
The court examined the instructions regarding the reservation for Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs, particularly the letters dated May 5, 1975, and April 8, 1980. The latter clarified that 50% of the reserved vacancies should be offered to Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs, with specific points in the roster allocated to them.

4. Determination of the Correct Placement in the Seniority List:
The High Court initially revised the seniority list, placing respondent No. 3 above the appellant based on the instructions from May 5, 1975, and April 8, 1980. However, the Supreme Court found that the vacancy at Point No. 7 was reserved for a Scheduled Caste candidate other than Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs, thus assigning it to Shri G.S. Samra. Respondent No. 3, being a Mazhabi Sikh, could only be placed at Point No. 9.

5. Effect of Clarificatory Orders on Retrospective Application:
The court held that the clarifications provided in the letter dated April 8, 1980, were retrospective and should be read as part of the instructions from May 5, 1975. This meant that all appointments post-May 5, 1975, should adhere to these instructions. Consequently, the appointment of Shri Balwant Rai in 1979 (a Scheduled Caste other than Balmikis or Mazhabi Sikhs) was considered under these rules, and the vacancy at Point No. 1, initially reserved for Balmikis or Mazhabi Sikhs, was not carried forward.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment. It declared that respondent No. 3 should be treated as appointed against the vacancy at Point No. 9 in the roster, placing him below the appellant in the seniority list. The seniority list was ordered to be revised accordingly, granting the appellant any consequential benefits. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.