Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal in Seniority Dispute Over Catch-Up Rule for Reserved Category Promotions. Consequential Seniority for Scheduled Caste Promotee Upheld as Regular Promotion Not Fortuitous.

Civil appeal against dismissal of review petitions by the Bombay High Court in a service matter concerning seniority and promotion.

The appellant sought to set aside the High Court's dismissal of review petitions and to obtain seniority over the first respondent in the cadre of Joint Director of Town Planning.

The appellant claimed that the first respondent's promotion was fortuitous and that the catch-up rule should give the appellant seniority, which was not considered by the High Court.

The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal allowed the appellant's Original Application and quashed the seniority list. The High Court set aside the Tribunal's decision. The appellant's review petitions were dismissed by the High Court.

Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the review petitions without considering the catch-up rule. Whether the first respondent's promotion as JDTP was regular or fortuitous. Whether the appellant is entitled to seniority over the first respondent based on the catch-up rule.

Appellant argued that the first respondent's promotion was fortuitous and that the catch-up rule should apply, giving the appellant seniority. Appellant argued that the State had not complied with the mandate of M Nagaraj v Union of India regarding quantification of inadequacy of representation. First respondent argued that his promotion was regular and that the catch-up rule did not apply. State argued that the promotion was regular and that the seniority list was correctly prepared.

The first respondent's promotion as JDTP was regular and not fortuitous; therefore, the catch-up rule did not apply to give the appellant seniority. The High Court correctly dismissed the review petitions as there was no error apparent on the face of the record.

Leave granted. The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, speaking through a Division Bench, dismissed three review petitions seeking a review of its judgment dated 16 November 2017. Finding that there was no reason to review the earlier judgment, consistent with the settled parameters governing the exercise of that jurisdiction, the High Court dismissed the review petitions on 21 March 2018. The original petitioner before the High Court is in appeal. Essentially, the case of the appellant is that in the seniority list of DDTPs, he ranked senior to the first respondent. The appellant claims that once he was promoted as JDTP, the ‘catch-up’ rule must govern and in consequence, he must gain seniority over the first respondent. Simply put, the case of the appellant before the Tribunal was that even assuming that the promotion of the first respondent as JDTP on 11 August 2011 (prior to the promotion of the appellant) against a reserved vacancy was regular in nature, he was not entitled to claim consequential seniority on the basis of his earlier promotion in the cadre of JDTP as against the appellant (a candidate from the general category) who was senior to him in the feeder cadre of DDTP. In the submission of the appellant, the grant of consequential seniority to persons belonging to the reserved categories promoted earlier than their seniors in the feeder cadre had not been expressly provided for by the State government in the Maharashtra Civil Services Seniority Rules or elsewhere. The appellant also submitted that the State of Maharashtra had not undertaken any exercise to quantify and demonstrate the inadequacy of representation to the Scheduled Castes in the matter of promotion to the senior cadre in the Town Planning and Valuation Department (Recruitment) Rules 1984. Absent such an exercise, it was urged that the mandate of a Constitution Bench decision of this Court in M Nagaraj v Union of India (“Nagaraj”) had not been fulfilled. By an interim order dated 1 April 2016, the Tribunal directed that the decision of the government would be subject to the outcome of the OA pending before it. The Tribunal by its judgment dated 2 May 2016 allowed the OA. By its judgment dated 16 November 2017, the High Court allowed the writ petitions and set aside the decision of the Tribunal. On 12 December 2017, when the Special Leave Petition was heard, this Court passed the following order: ... In terms of the liberty granted by this Court, the appellant moved the High Court in review. The review petitions, as stated earlier, were dismissed on 21 March 2018. Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court in review and the original judgment in the writ petitions, the appellant moved this Court afresh under Article 136 of the Constitution.

The appellant filed an Original Application (O.A. 269 of 2016) before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, which was allowed on 2 May 2016. The first respondent and the State government filed writ petitions before the Bombay High Court, which allowed them on 16 November 2017, setting aside the Tribunal's decision. The appellant filed Special Leave Petitions before the Supreme Court, which were withdrawn on 12 December 2017 with liberty to pursue review. The appellant filed review petitions before the High Court, which were dismissed on 21 March 2018. The appellant then filed fresh Special Leave Petitions before the Supreme Court, which were converted into Civil Appeals and heard along with Miscellaneous Applications.

• Maharashtra State Public Services Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Schedules Tribes, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Special Backward Category and Other Backward Classes Act 2001:
• Maharashtra Civil Services Seniority Rules:
• Town Planning and Valuation Department (Recruitment) Rules 1984: