V SAIDA Vs. G KRISHNAVENI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is one of the respondents in O.A.No.412 of 2011 and one of the applicants in VMA No.1794 of 2011 in O.A.No.412 of 2011. He assailed the orders of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal, for short) in the common orders in VMA No.1794 of 2011, VMA No.2082 of 2011 and VMA No.2147 of 2011 in O.A.No.412 of 2011 and VMA No.1795 of 2011 and VMA No.2149 of 2011 in O.A.No.7157 of 2011. The Tribunal dismissed the Vacate Miscellaneous Applications and made the interim order dated 17.02.2011 absolute. Assailing the same, the present writ petition is filed by the fourth respondent in VMA No.1794 of 2011 and other VMAs. The Tribunal granted interim relief restraining the competent authority from effecting promotions on the published tentative seniority list. Claiming that the interim relief is tantamount to a blatant ban on promotion of employees belonging to the Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs), the petitioner preferred the present writ petition. The question revolves round the interpretation of Article 16 (4-A) of the Indian Constitution. Before considering the march of Law in this regard, we may narrate the facts, which led to the present writ petition. The respondents 1 and 2, who are the applicants in O.A.No.412 of 2011, filed the application before the Tribunal seeking a direction to the respondents 3 to 5 herein (who were respondents 1 to 3 in the O.A.) not to accord consequential seniority to SC and ST candidates who were promoted to higher cadre. Till about 1995, there was no uniform policy of reservations in promotions. In Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 2000 AIR(SC) 498, the Supreme Court made it clear that there cannot be any reservations in promotions. To overcome this position, amendment to Article 16 was brought through 77th amendment brining Article 16 (4-A) into the Indian Constitution providing for reservations in promotions. That 'catch up theory' has been developed thereafter is a different story altogether.

(2.) The Government of Andhra Pradesh implemented reservations in promotions. In the Andhra Pradesh Secretariat Services, Article 16 (4-A) of the Constitution of India was implemented up to the level of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 2000 AIR(SC) 498 the Assistant Secretary. From the cadre of the Deputy Secretary, the policy of the Government is not to provide reservations in promotions, so much so, one should be in the line of seniority as an Assistant Secretary for being promoted as a Deputy Secretary.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that the reservations in promotions for candidates belonging to the SC and ST community carry with the promotions the consequential seniority in the promoted category. In the process, the candidates who secured promotions by virtue of SC and ST reservations may become seniors to the unreserved candidates in the promoted category. The State Government issued G.O.Ms.No.5, dated 14.02.2003 providing reservations in promotions with consequential seniority. Indeed, the rule of reservation would operate subject to the condition the cadre strength of the respective category is more than five. The purpose of providing reservation is to accord adequate representation to the employees belonging to SC and ST communities in the promoted posts. The case of the petitioner is that the persons promoted on account of the implementation of the reservation policy are entitled to reckon their seniority in the promoted posts from the date on which they stood promoted.