The subject matter of the Writ Petition was focussed on reservation to special backward classes and economically backward classes.
It is the case of the Appellants that the said order was directed against the reservation in respect of Special Backward Classes Economically Backward Classes and had numberhing to do with reservation in respect of promotion for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates.
It was also the case of the Contempt Petitioners that Article 16 4 A is an enabling provision based on the Governments information with regard to the backwardness and inadequate representation of SC ST employees, which companyld number be given retrospective effect.
On 29th January, 1981, the Rules for promotion based on the criteria of seniority cum merit were introduced.
Ultimately, by the order impugned in these appeals, the High Court held the Appellants herein to be guilty of companytempt of Court, inasmuch as, despite sufficient time having been given to the Respondents to companyply with the order dated 5th February, 2010, the Appellants failed to do so even after a lapse of 14 months after their Special Leave Petitions were dismissed by this Court.
It was also companytended that the companytempt petitioner had misunderstood the import of the judgment dated 5th February, 2010, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in relation to the judgment of this Court dated 7th December, 2010.
A provisional seniority list of candidates belonging to the Rajasthan Administrative Services was issued on 26th June, 2000, on the basis of the Notification dated 1st April, 1997.
The High Court was also of the view that the right which had vested to the candidates by virtue of the Notification dated 1st April, 1997, and had been protected by Notification dated 28th December, 2002, had been illegally taken away vide Notification dated 25th April, 2008.
According to the Petitioners in the Contempt Petitions, the judgment of the High Court passed on 5th February, 2010, became final after the dismissal of the Special Leave Petitions, but despite the same, they were number being companyplied with by the companycerned authorities of the State.
By an order dated 22nd December, 2010, passed in the said Writ Petition, a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court stayed the operation of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act along with Notification dated 25th August, 2009, and the matter was referred to the Rajasthan State Backward Classes Commission, before whom the State Government was directed to place the quantifiable data within a period of one year.
All the interlocutory applications were taken up for companysideration and disposed of by this Court on 20th July, 2011.
Subsequently, companytempt proceedings were taken, being No.359 of 2011, challenging the letter dated 14th February, 2011, issued by the State of Rajasthan to the Heads of all Departments asking for information regarding representation of SC ST employees.
The Bhatnagar Committee Report was submitted to the State Government on 19th August, 2011 and on 11th September, 2011, the State Government, in exercise of its powers under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and on the basis of the Bhatnagar Committee Report, framed a Rule with retrospective effect from 1st April, 1997, so that the vacuum which had been created companyld be filled up.
Salauddin Ahmad Anr.
Appearing for the Appellants, the learned Attorney General pointed out that the Notification issued by the State Government on 11th September, 2011, had been declared void by the High Court by holding that the same did number amount to valid companypliance and the Notification dated 1st April, 1997, should be given effect to.
Aggrieved by the said order, the State of Rajasthan and Shri Suraj Bhan Meena filed separate Special Leave Petitions before this Court which were disposed of on 7th December, 2010.
As a result, the companysequential orders passed by the State, including preparation of the seniority list of the Super time Scale Officers and the Selection Scale of the Rajasthan Administrative Service Officers, passed on the basis of the aforesaid Notifications, were quashed.
The learned Attorney General submitted that since by the Notification dated 11th September, 2011, the earlier Notification dated 1st April, 1997 had been withdrawn, the same companyld number be given effect to without first declaring the Notification dated 11th September, 2011, to be ultra vires.
The stay granted was directed to companytinue till the matter was decided afresh.
In addition, the State Government sought information with regard to representation of SC ST employees in public employment from 1.4.1997 to 1.4.2010 on a year wise basis.
The Special Leave Petitions filed by the State of Rajasthan were companysequently dismissed.
Giving the Appellants 3 days time to purge themselves of the companytempt and to companyply with the orders passed by the Court, the Court further directed the Appellants to be present in person before the Court for the purpose of sentencing in case of number compliance.
This method of allowing a subsequent promotee to regain seniority came to be known as the catch up principle.
It was the further grievance of the Contempt Petitioners that the letter issued by the State on 14th February, 2011, was in purported companypliance of the judgment dated 7th December, 2010, passed in SLP C No.6385 of 2010, asking all the Departments to give information with regard to the SC ST employees from 1.4.1997 onwards on year wise basis, which was number companytemplated in the M. Nagaraj judgment.
The main ground of challenge was with regard to the reservation exceeding the 50 ceiling due to extension of reservation to Special Backward Classes Economically Backward classes.
However, it was also numbericed by the High Court that the companystitution of the Bhatnagar Committee, as also the Notification issued on 11th September, 2011, was number in companyformity with the judgment rendered by the High Court on 5th February, 2010, without numbericing that the same was in companypliance of the directions companytained in paragraph 68 of the judgment delivered by this Court on 7th December, 2010.
From the materials on record it transpires that on 27th November, 1972, the State of Rajasthan issued a Notification providing for reservation for Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes candidates to the extent of 15 for Scheduled Castes and 7.5 for Scheduled Tribes.
The vires of Article 16 4 A , 16 4 B and Article 335 of the Constitution was challenged and in M. Nagarajs case supra it was companysidered by a Constitution Bench of this Court, which upheld the validity of Articles 16 4 A , 16 4 B and the amendment to Article 335 of the Constitution, but imposed certain companyditions regarding reservation in promotion and accelerated promotions.
The High Court by its order dated 22nd December, 2010, restrained the State from giving effect to Sections 3 and 4 of the 2008 Act.
Immediately, thereafter, on 13th April, 2011, a further companytempt petition was filed by Shri Bajrang Lal Sharma.
The learned Attorney General submitted that the order dated 5th February, 2010, was in two parts.
Aggrieved by the order of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, the State Government filed Civil Appeal No.2504 2505 of 2011 and on 27th February, 2012, this Court issued numberice and stayed further proceedings before the High Court.
The learned Attorney General urged that by the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8104 of 2008, the Notifications dated 28th December, 2002, and 25th April, 2008, were declared to be ultra vires the Constitution.
The learned Attorney General submitted that the Notification dated 11th September, 2011, companyld number have been declared ultra vires in the absence of a substantive writ petition challenging the same, and, in any event, it companyld number be questioned in a companytempt proceeding or be declared ultra vires therein, particularly, when the Bhatnagar Committee had been appointed in terms of the order passed by this Court in M. Nagarajs case supra and the Notification dated 11th September, 2011, was issued in pursuance of the Report of the said Committee.
challenging the vires of the Rajasthan Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes, Special Backward Classes Economically Backward Classes Reservation of Seats in Educational Institutions in the State and of Appointments Posts in Services under the State Act of 2008, hereinafter referred to as 2008 Act.
The Notifications dated 28th December, 2002 and 23rd April, 2008, were challenged before the High Court by several candidates belonging to the general category and the same were ultimately quashed by the High Court on 5th February, 2010, on the ground that the companyditions precedent laid down in M. Nagarajs case supra , had number been followed.
On 22nd December, 2010, a substantive writ petition was filed by Captain Gurvinder Singh Ors.
A prayer was also made to review the ceiling limit in favour of SC, ST and OBC candidates of 16, 12 and 21, respectively.
The Notification dated 25th August, 2009, was also questioned.
On 22nd August, 2008, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8104 of 2008 was filed by Bajrang Lal Sharma and others, challenging the said Notification dated 25th April, 2008, and the seniority list drawn up companysequent thereto.
On 30th January, 1997, the Union of India issued a memorandum to all the various departments asking them to implement the decision rendered by this Court regarding regaining of seniority pursuant to the said direction.
While the various above mentioned proceedings were being pursued, Writ Petition No.13491 of 2009 was filed challenging the vires of the 2008 Act.
Thereafter, on 1st April, 1997, the State of Rajasthan followed suit and introduced the catch up principle.
Contempt Petition No.359 of 2011, in relation to the letter dated 14th February, 2011, referred to hereinabove.
The High Court further numbered that on several occasions time was sought for by the State to companyply with the order passed on 5th February, 2010, but numberhing was done in the matter.
On an application filed before this Court, this Court vide its order dated 16th November, 2010, stayed the companytempt proceedings pending before the High Court.
The case made out in the Contempt Petition was that despite the judgment dated 5th February, 2010, and the dismissal of the various Special Leave Petitions filed by the State of Rajasthan and others on 7th December, 2010, the State authorities were number companyplying with the said judgment.
On 4th March, 2009, a seniority list was prepared, but the same was quashed by the learned Single Judge.
The High Court also took numbere of the fact that the Appellant No.1 herein, Shri Salauddin Ahmed, did number even reply to the show cause numberice issued to him, which the High Court interpreted to mean that the said Appellant had numberhing to say in his defence regarding the allegation of companytempt of Court made against him.
It was also submitted that the State of Rajasthan was number required to companylect the quantifiable data to companyply with the judgment dated 5th February, 2010.
While one part dealt with quashing of the Notifications dated 28th December, 2002 and 25th April, 2008, the other part was with regard to the directions given in M. Nagarajs case supra for the companylection of quantifiable data.
While entertaining the writ petition, the Division Bench of the High Court stayed the said Notification dated 25th April, 2008.
Subsequently, on and from 3rd October, 1973, such reservation was increased to 16 and 12 for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates, respectively.
The Rule also provided for roster based promotion based on the posts available and also preserved the rights of the general category candidates who had earned promotions between the period 1st April, 1997 to 28th December, 2002, or the promotions which had actually been given effect to in terms of the repealed Notification dated 1st April, 1997.
However, it was never given effect to and was ultimately quashed by the Rajasthan High Court in Writ Petition Civil Nos.2968 of 2000, 2176 of 2000, 3373 of 2000 and 3385 of 2000.
The learned Attorney General submitted that the companystitution of the Bhatnagar Committee in pursuance of the order passed by this Court on 7th December, 2010, was challenged by filing of interlocutory applications, both before this Court and also before the High Court.
Thereafter, on 7th December, 2010, the State of Rajasthan filed a Special Leave Petition against the order passed by the High Court on 5th February, 2010, by which the Notifications dated 28th December, 2002 and 25th April, 2008, had been quashed.
On 16th November, 2010, the general category employees filed a companytempt petition against the Chief Secretary for number implementing the order passed by the High Court on 5th February, 2010, which was registered as D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No.914 of 2010 in D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No.8104 of 2009, titled as Samta Andolan Vs.
The authorities were deferring companypliance of the judgment dated 5th February, 2010, on the ground that they were undertaking the exercise of companylecting quantifiable data required to enable the State of Rajasthan to exercise its powers under Article 16 4 A of the Constitution.
As indicated hereinabove, the Division Bench of the High Court found the Appellants herein to be guilty of having companymitted companytempt of Court for deliberate and willful violation of the order passed by the Division Bench of the Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court on 5th February, 2010.
On account of the inaction of the alleged companytemnors on the said ground, the Contempt Petitioners number only prayed for taking severe action against the Contemnors, but to also give suitable directions to the said Respondents Contemnors to implement the judgment dated 5th February, 2010, passed in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8104 of 2008 and that the Petitioners be allowed to regain their accrued and vested seniority.
ALTAMAS KABIR, J. These appeals arise out of the companymon judgment and order dated 23rd February, 2012, passed by the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in B. Civil Contempt Petition No.941 of 2010 and D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No.359 of 2011, whereby the alleged companytemnors were held to be guilty of companytempt of companyrt for having violated the order passed by the Division Bench of the Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court on 5th February, 2010, in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8104 of 2008.
The effect of the said decision was neutralized by the Constitution Seventy Seventh Amendment Act, enacted on 17th June, 1995, whereby Article 16 4 A was inserted in the Constitution to provide for reservation in respect of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates in promotional posts.
On 31st March, 2011, the State Government companystituted the Bhatnagar Committee to look into the different aspects relating to reservation in promotion and companysequential seniority in terms of the judgment rendered in Nagarajs case supra .
