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 Punjab

1

, M. Nagaraj

v. Union of India

2

, Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta

3

and B.K.

Pavitra v. Union of India

4

, 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 (2

nd

cited

supra) and Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta (3

rd

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 Roy

5

, Pravakar Mallick & Ors. v. State of Orissa

6

, 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

8

petitioners, 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 (2

nd

cited

supra) and later affirmed in Jarnail Singh (3

rd

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 (2

nd

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 India

7

, 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)

8

and Ajit Singh (II) v. State of Punjab

9

, 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 (4

th

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

10

consequential 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 (1

st

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 (2

nd

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 (3

rd

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 (2

nd

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 (2

nd

cited supra) and Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta (3

rd

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) (8

th

cited supra)

and Ajit Singh 1996 (9

th

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 (7

th

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 (8

th

cited supra) and Ajit Singh

Januja (9

th

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 (2

nd

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 (3

rd

cited supra).

(iv). In INDRA SWAHNEY (7

th

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

18

rules 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 (7

th

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 s till 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) (8

th

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

20

principles 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) (9

th

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 (2

nd

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 (2

nd

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

(1

st

cited supra). The record indicates that while undertaking the exercise

mandated under M. Nagaraj (2

nd

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 (1

st

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 (8

th

cited supra) and

Ajit Singh (9

th

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 (8

th

cited supra)

and Ajit Singh (9

th

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 (2

nd

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 (2

nd

cited supra)

and Jarnail Singh (3

rd

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

26

fixed in the feeder cadre after compliance with the constitutional requirements

laid down in M. Nagaraj (2

nd

cited supra) and Jarnail Singh (3

rd

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

27

Indian 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 (2

nd

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 (2

nd

cited supra) and

Jarnail Singh (3

rd

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 (2

nd

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 (8

th

cited supra)

and Ajit Singh Januja v. State of Punjab (9

th

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 (5

th

cited

supra), Pravakar Mallick v. State of Orissa

10

, 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 (1

st

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 (8

th

cited supra) and Ajit Singh Januja v. State of

Punjab (9

th

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 (2

nd

cited supra) and Jarnail Singh v.

Lachhmi Narain Gupta (3

rd

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 (2

nd

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 (3

rd

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 (8

th

cited supra) and Ajit Singh

(9

th

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

(2

nd

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 (2

nd

cited supra) and Jarnail Singh (3

rd

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 (1

st

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 (4

th

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

37

16(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 (2

nd

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

38

undertake 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

39

independent 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 (2

nd

cited supra).

(c). In Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta (3

rd

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 (2

nd

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 (2

nd

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 (9

th

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 (2

nd

cited supra) and subsequently reaffirmed in Jarnail Singh (3

rd

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 (7

th

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 (1

st

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 77

th

Constitutional amendment by

introducing Article 16(4A).

(ii) Subsequently, the Parliament enacted the 85

th

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 (2

nd

cited supra)

wherein, it was held that reservation in promotion with consequential seniority

is Constitutionally permissible subject to collection of quantifiable data

44

regarding 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 (2

nd

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 85

th

amendment of the Constitution of India

coming into force, the earlier judicially evolved principle of ‘catch up’ rule

flowing from Virpal Singh (8

th

cited supra) and Ajit Singh (9

th

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 pas sed 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