Union of India V. Jarnail Singh and others

CWP/9581/2009

AI Insights

The case involves a series of petitions filed by the Union of India against various orders of the Chandigarh Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal. These orders directed the promotion of Income Tax Inspectors belonging to the Scheduled Caste category to the posts of Income Tax Officer based on their own merit, which led to the reduction of posts available for the General category due to the application of roster point promotion and relaxed qualification promotion. The Tribunal's decision was challenged on the grounds that it did not consider the administrative efficiency and the need for a survey to assess the representation of SC/ST members in promotions. The High Court, referencing the Supreme Court's decisions in M. Nagaraj and Suraj Bhan Meena, found the Tribunal's orders and the consequent promotions to be unconstitutional as they did not meet the required legal standards for reservations in promotions.

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 819491 (HC-MISC)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 23-09-2011
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Lachhmi Narain Gupta and others v. Jarnail Singh and others, M. Nagaraj case, Suraj Bhan Meena case, Sant Ram v. State of Rajasthan, Piare Lal v. Union of India, State of Punjab v. Gurdev Singh, Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, Uday Pratap Singh v. State of Bihar, R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab, Union of India v. Virpal Singh Chauhan, Ajit Singh Januja v. State of Punjab, V.P. Shrivastava v. State of M.P., Chattar Singh v. State of Rajasthan, Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana, Roshni Devi v. State of Haryana, Union of India v. N. Y. Apte, Ajit Singh (II) v. State of Punjab, Ram Prasad v. D.K. Vijay, Union of India v. Satya Prakash, Union of India v. Satya Parkash, M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, Union of India v. Bharat Bhushan, Jitender Singh v. State of U.P., Suraj Bhan Meena v. State of Rajasthan, Krishna Gopal v. State of Haryana, Raj Kumar and others v. Hem Raj Singh Chauhan, Union of India v. Ramesh Ram
• Laws Referred To: Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: RAJIV RAM; VIKAS KUTHIALA; M K TIWARI; DEEPAK SIBAL
• Assessee Lawyers: RENU BALA SHARMA; A S GREWAL
• Keywords: 85th amendment; General category; Income Tax Inspectors; Promotion; Relaxed qualification promotion; Roster point promotion; Scheduled Caste
• Section: 335; 16(4A); 16(4B)

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 6497 of 2009 and connected cases Date of Decision: September 23, 2011 Union of India and another …Petitioners Versus Jarnail Singh and others …Respondents CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HON'BLE HON'BLE HON'BLE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTIC THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTIC THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTIC THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE E E E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL A.N. JINDAL A.N. JINDAL A.N. JINDAL Present: Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Vikas Kuthiala, Advocate. Mr. M.K. Tiwari, Advocate. Mr. Deepak Sibal, Advocate. Ms. Renu Bala Sharma, Sr. Panel Counsel, UOI. Mr. A.S. Grewal, Sr. Panel Counsel, Income Tax Department. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. M.M. KUMAR, J. M.M. KUMAR, J. M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. This order shall dispose of a bunch of petitions*, which have been filed against various orders rendered by the Chandigarh Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal’), in various Original Applications. In these cases, the Tribunal by almost identical orders has issued directions for consideration of the cases of the Income Tax Inspectors belonging to Scheduled Caste category for promotion to the posts of Income Tax Officer on the basis of their ‘own merit’ resulting in consumption of General category posts as against the roster point promotion, relaxed qualification promotion and other CWP No. 6497 of 2009 and connected petitions 2 concessions. The necessary consequence is shrinking of General category seats for the inspectors belonging to General category and more posts becoming available to Schedule Caste category. The Tribunal has issued directions for consideration of their cases with effect from 11.6.1995 when 85th amendment of the Constitution came into operation. 2. It would be suffice to note that all the issues raised in these petitions and the judgment of the Tribunal dated 11.12.2008 passed in OA No. 519-PB-2007 as well as order dated 7.5.2009 passed in R.A. No. 24 of 2009, have already been gone into by this Court in the case of Lachhmi Narain Gupta and others Lachhmi Narain Gupta and others Lachhmi Narain Gupta and others Lachhmi Narain Gupta and others v. v. v. v. Jarnail Singh and others Jarnail Singh and others Jarnail Singh and others Jarnail Singh and others (CWP No. (CWP No. (CWP No. (CWP No. 13218 of 2009, decided on 15.7.2011) 13218 of 2009, decided on 15.7.2011) 13218 of 2009, decided on 15.7.2011) 13218 of 2009, decided on 15.7.2011). After noticing the factual position and the rival contention of the parties, this Court reached the following conclusion:- “40. When the principles laid down in the case of M. M. M. M. Nagaraj (supra) Nagaraj (supra) Nagaraj (supra) Nagaraj (supra) and Suraj Bhan Meena (supra) Suraj Bhan Meena (supra) Suraj Bhan Meena (supra) Suraj Bhan Meena (supra) are applied to the notifications impugned in the present proceedings, namely, 11.7.2002, 31.1.2005 (R-1 and R-2) and further notification dated 21.1.2009 and 10.8.2010, it becomes clear that no survey has been undertaken to find out inadequacy of representation in respect of members of the SC/ST in the services. The aforesaid fact has been candidly admitted in the written statement filed by respondent Nos. 5 and 6. In the absence of any survey with regard to inadequacy as also concerning the overall requirement of efficiency of the administration where reservation is to be made alongwith backwardness of the class for whom the reservation is required, it is not possible to sustain these CWP No. 6497 of 2009 and connected petitions 3 notifications. Accordingly, it has to be held that these notifications suffers from violation of the provisions of Articles 16(4A), 16(4B) read with Article 335 of the Constitution as interpreted by the Constitution Bench in M. M. M. M. Nagaraj’s case (supra) Nagaraj’s case (supra) Nagaraj’s case (supra) Nagaraj’s case (supra) as well as in Suraj Bhan Meena’s case Suraj Bhan Meena’s case Suraj Bhan Meena’s case Suraj Bhan Meena’s case (supra) (supra) (supra) (supra). 41. The net result is that no reservation in promotion could be made in pursuance to office memorandum dated 2.7.1997. We are not dealing with many other contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners for the reason that the core issue going to the roots of the matter has been determined in their favour and such a necessity is obviated. 42. As a sequel to the above discussion, the judgment of the Tribunal is set aside and the instructions issued by the Union of India are also quashed being contrary to the view taken by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the cases of M. Nagaraj (supra) M. Nagaraj (supra) M. Nagaraj (supra) M. Nagaraj (supra) and Suraj Bhan Meena (supra) Suraj Bhan Meena (supra) Suraj Bhan Meena (supra) Suraj Bhan Meena (supra). 3. In coming to the aforementioned conclusion this Court has noticed and referred to a catena of judgments rendered in the cases of Sant Ram Sant Ram Sant Ram Sant Ram v. v. v. v. State of Rajasthan State of Rajasthan State of Rajasthan State of Rajasthan, AIR 1967 SC 1910; , AIR 1967 SC 1910; , AIR 1967 SC 1910; , AIR 1967 SC 1910; Piare Piare Piare Piare Lal Lal Lal Lal v. v. v. v. Union of Union of Union of Union of India India India India, AIR 1975 SC 650; , AIR 1975 SC 650; , AIR 1975 SC 650; , AIR 1975 SC 650; State of Punjab State of Punjab State of Punjab State of Punjab v. v. v. v. Gurdev Singh Gurdev Singh Gurdev Singh Gurdev Singh, JT 1991 (3) SC , JT 1991 (3) SC , JT 1991 (3) SC , JT 1991 (3) SC 465; 465; 465; 465; Indra Sawhney Indra Sawhney Indra Sawhney Indra Sawhney v. v. v. v. Union of India Union of India Union of India Union of India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217; , 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217; , 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217; , 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217; Uday Uday Uday Uday Pratap Singh Pratap Singh Pratap Singh Pratap Singh v. v. v. v. State of Bihar State of Bihar State of Bihar State of Bihar, JT 1994 (6) SC 344; , JT 1994 (6) SC 344; , JT 1994 (6) SC 344; , JT 1994 (6) SC 344; R.K. Sabharwal R.K. Sabharwal R.K. Sabharwal R.K. Sabharwal v. v. v. v. State of Punjab State of Punjab State of Punjab State of Punjab, (1995) 2 SCC 74 , (1995) 2 SCC 74 , (1995) 2 SCC 74 , (1995) 2 SCC 745; 5; 5; 5; Union of India Union of India Union of India Union of India v. v. v. v. Virpal Singh Virpal Singh Virpal Singh Virpal Singh Chauhan Chauhan Chauhan Chauhan, (1995) 6) SCC 684; , (1995) 6) SCC 684; , (1995) 6) SCC 684; , (1995) 6) SCC 684; Ajit Singh Januja Ajit Singh Januja Ajit Singh Januja Ajit Singh Januja v. v. v. v. State of Punjab State of Punjab State of Punjab State of Punjab, (1996) , (1996) , (1996) , (1996) 2 SCC 715; 2 SCC 715; 2 SCC 715; 2 SCC 715; V.P. Shrivastava V.P. Shrivastava V.P. Shrivastava V.P. Shrivastava v. v. v. v. State of M.P. State of M.P. State of M.P. State of M.P., (1996) 7 SCC 759; , (1996) 7 SCC 759; , (1996) 7 SCC 759; , (1996) 7 SCC 759; Chattar Chattar Chattar Chattar Singh Singh Singh Singh v. v. v. v. State of Rajasthan State of Rajasthan State of Rajasthan State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SC 303; , AIR 1997 SC 303; , AIR 1997 SC 303; , AIR 1997 SC 303; Jagdish Lal Jagdish Lal Jagdish Lal Jagdish Lal v. v. v. v. State of State of State of State of CWP No. 6497 of 2009 and connected petitions 4 Haryana Haryana Haryana Haryana, (1997) 6 SCC 538; , (1997) 6 SCC 538; , (1997) 6 SCC 538; , (1997) 6 SCC 538; Roshni Devi Roshni Devi Roshni Devi Roshni Devi v. v. v. v. State of Haryana State of Haryana State of Haryana State of Haryana, AIR 1998 , AIR 1998 , AIR 1998 , AIR 1998 SC 3268; SC 3268; SC 3268; SC 3268; Union of India Union of India Union of India Union of India v. v. v. v. N. Y. Apte N. Y. Apte N. Y. Apte N. Y. Apte, AIR 1998 SC 2651; , AIR 1998 SC 2651; , AIR 1998 SC 2651; , AIR 1998 SC 2651; Roshni Devi Roshni Devi Roshni Devi Roshni Devi v. v. v. v. State of Haryana State of Haryana State of Haryana State of Haryana, (1998) 8 SCC 59; , (1998) 8 SCC 59; , (1998) 8 SCC 59; , (1998) 8 SCC 59; Ajit Singh (II) v. State of Punjab Ajit Singh (II) v. State of Punjab Ajit Singh (II) v. State of Punjab Ajit Singh (II) v. State of Punjab, , , , (1999) 7 SCC 209; (1999) 7 SCC 209; (1999) 7 SCC 209; (1999) 7 SCC 209; Ram Prasad Ram Prasad Ram Prasad Ram Prasad v. v. v. v. D.K. Vijay D.K. Vijay D.K. Vijay D.K. Vijay, (1999) , (1999) , (1999) , (1999) 7 SCC 251; 7 SCC 251; 7 SCC 251; 7 SCC 251; Union of Union of Union of Union of India India India India v. v. v. v. Satya Prakash Satya Prakash Satya Prakash Satya Prakash, 2006(3) SLR 56; , 2006(3) SLR 56; , 2006(3) SLR 56; , 2006(3) SLR 56; Union of India Union of India Union of India Union of India v. v. v. v. Satya Parkash Satya Parkash Satya Parkash Satya Parkash, , , , JT 2006 (3) SLR 56; JT 2006 (3) SLR 56; JT 2006 (3) SLR 56; JT 2006 (3) SLR 56; M. Nagaraj M. Nagaraj M. Nagaraj M. Nagaraj v. v. v. v. Union of India Union of India Union of India Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212; , (2006) 8 SCC 212; , (2006) 8 SCC 212; , (2006) 8 SCC 212; Union of India Union of India Union of India Union of India v. v. v. v. Bharat Bhushan Bharat Bhushan Bharat Bhushan Bharat Bhushan, 2008 (7) AC (Delhi) 420; , 2008 (7) AC (Delhi) 420; , 2008 (7) AC (Delhi) 420; , 2008 (7) AC (Delhi) 420; Jitender Jitender Jitender Jitender Singh Singh Singh Singh v. v. v. v. State of U.P. State of U.P. State of U.P. State of U.P., JT , JT , JT , JT 2010 (1) SC 177; 2010 (1) SC 177; 2010 (1) SC 177; 2010 (1) SC 177; Suraj Bhan Meena Suraj Bhan Meena Suraj Bhan Meena Suraj Bhan Meena v. v. v. v. State of State of State of State of Rajasthan Rajasthan Rajasthan Rajasthan, (2011) 1 SCC 467; , (2011) 1 SCC 467; , (2011) 1 SCC 467; , (2011) 1 SCC 467; Krishna Gopal Krishna Gopal Krishna Gopal Krishna Gopal v. v. v. v. State of Haryana State of Haryana State of Haryana State of Haryana, 2010 , 2010 , 2010 , 2010 (1) SCT 538; (1) SCT 538; (1) SCT 538; (1) SCT 538; Raj Kumar and others Raj Kumar and others Raj Kumar and others Raj Kumar and others v. v. v. v. Hem Raj Singh Chauhan Hem Raj Singh Chauhan Hem Raj Singh Chauhan Hem Raj Singh Chauhan, (2010) 4 , (2010) 4 , (2010) 4 , (2010) 4 SCC 554; and SCC 554; and SCC 554; and SCC 554; and Union of India Union of India Union of India Union of India v. v. v. v. Ramesh Ram Ramesh Ram Ramesh Ram Ramesh Ram, JT 2010 (5) SC 212 , JT 2010 (5) SC 212 , JT 2010 (5) SC 212 , JT 2010 (5) SC 212. 4. We find that the issues raised in these petitions are squarely covered by the Division Bench judgment rendered in the case of Lachhmi Narain Gupta (supra) Lachhmi Narain Gupta (supra) Lachhmi Narain Gupta (supra) Lachhmi Narain Gupta (supra). Accordingly, these petitions are also disposed of in the same terms. 5. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of connected case. (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) Acting Chief Justice Acting Chief Justice Acting Chief Justice Acting Chief Justice ( ( ( (A.N. JINDAL A.N. JINDAL A.N. JINDAL A.N. JINDAL) ) ) ) September 23 September 23 September 23 September 23, 201 , 201 , 201 , 2011 1 1 1 Judge Judge Judge Judge Pkapoor * Sr. No. CWP No. Title Arising out of Date of the order(s) passed by the Tribunal 1 6497 of 2009 Union of India and another v. Jarnail Singh and others OA No. 519-PB- 2007 and RA No. 24 of 2009 11.12.2008 and 7.5.2009 CWP No. 6497 of 2009 and connected petitions 5 2 7087 of 2009 Union of India and another v. Harjinder Singh and others OA No. 629-PB- 2007 11.12.2008 3 8381 of 2009 Union of India and another v. Dhanno Devi and another OA No. 155-HR- 2008 11.12.2008 4 8582 of 2009 Union of India and another v. Dev Raj Paul and another OA No. 161-PB- 2008 11.12.2008 5 9581 of 2009 Union of India v. A.K. Pasi and others OA No. 677-HR- 2007 11.12.2008 6 9597 of 2009 Union of India and others v. Balraj Singh and others OA No. 377-CH- 2006 11.12.2008 7 9921 of 2009 Union of India and another v. Jarnail Singh and another OA No. 794-PB of 2006 and M.A. No. 104/09 4.12.2008 and 25.2.2009 8 10004 of 2009 Union of India and others v. Harbir Singh and another OA No. 821-PB- 2006 11.12.2008 9 15126 of 2009 Harjinder Singh and others v. Union of India and others OA No. 629-PB- 2007 11.12.2008 10 16030 of 2009 Balraj Singh and others v. Union of India and others OA No. 377-CH- 2006 11.12.2008 11 16761 of 2009 Devraj Paul v. Union of India and others OA No. 161-PB- 2008 11.12.2008 12 16930 of 2009 Dhanno Devi v. Union of India and another OA No. 155-HR- 2008 11.12.2008 (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) Acting Chief Justice Acting Chief Justice Acting Chief Justice Acting Chief Justice (A.N. JINDAL) (A.N. JINDAL) (A.N. JINDAL) (A.N. JINDAL) September 23, September 23, September 23, September 23, 2011 2011 2011 2011 J J J Judge udge udge udge Pkapoor "