H.P. SCHEDULED TRIBES EMP.FEDN vs. HIMACHAL PRADESH S.V.K.K .

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.6 OF 2012 IN SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C.) No. 30143 OF 2009 H.P. Scheduled Tribes Employees Federation & Anr. … Appellants Versus Himachal Pradesh S.V.K.K. & Ors. …Respondents With CONTEMPT PETITION (C.) NO. 91 OF 2013 IN SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C.) No. 30143 OF 2009 JUDGMENT J U D G M E N T SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J. 1. This Interlocutory Application No.6 was filed on th 16 March, 2012, by the appellants herein in the S.L.P. (Civil) No. 30143 of 2009, seeking direction to the State of Himachal Pradesh to take a decision on the issue of reservation in promotions on basis of data already collected or th submitted to Cabinet Sub Committee on 25 April, 2011 within 1 Page 1 a period of one month. For the purpose of adjudicating the present I.A., it would be pertinent to make a reference to facts concerning S.L.P. (Civil) No. 30143 of 2009 that was disposed

2. SLP (Civil) No. 30143 of 2009 was filed against judgment th and order dated 18 September, 2009 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. By the said judgment/order, the High Court allowed the CWP-T No. 2628 of 2008 and thereby th quashed the instructions dated 7 September, 2007 issued by the State of Himachal Pradesh. The said instructions made provision for reservation in promotions with consequential seniority in favour of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes JUDGMENT in all classes of posts in services under the State. th 3. The aforesaid S.L.P. was disposed of on 26 April, 2010 by passing the following order:- “The State of Himachal Pradesh has issued a Circular on 07.09.2007 as regards the promotion of SCs/STs in the State service. The said circular was challenged by the respondent no.1 and the circular was quashed by the High Court by the impugned judgment. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the circular issued on 07.09.2007 has 2 Page 2

4. Although the present I.A.No.6 is filed in the disposed of SLP, it would be appropriate to notice the manner, in which the th order dated 16 April, 2010 came to be passed. th 5. On 27 November, 1972, Government of India issued instructions vide letter No. 27-2/71-Estt(SCT), whereby provision was made for providing reservation in promotion for the members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. On JUDGMENT th 24 April, 1973, State of Himachal Pradesh issued instructions vide Letter No. 2-11/72-DP (Appt.), whereby reservation was th th provided for promotion of employees. On 9 /13 August, 1973, State of Himachal Pradesh issued instructions vide Letter No 2-11/72-DP (Apptt.), and thereby, followed the Reservation policy of the Union Government relating to promotion for the members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. It may 3 Page 3 be mentioned here that the Reservation Policy of the Union nd Government was set out in Letter/Order dated 2 March, 1972, th th th th 24 March, 1972 and 11 August, 1972, 28 October 1972, 30

approved the grant of consequential seniority in promotions given to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The State of Himachal Pradesh, by instructions vide letter No. PER st (AP-II) F (1)-1/87 dated 31 January, 1989, introduced Reservation Roster in both direct recruitment and promotions. JUDGMENT 7. Later, a Constitution Bench of this Court in Indra 2 Sawhney & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. held that reservation in promotion is not permissible under Article 16(4) of Constitution and directed to discontinue such reservations after 5 years. Thereafter, in R.K. Sabharwal & Ors. Vs. State 3 of Punjab & Ors. , this court held that the operation of roster 1 (1989) Supp 1 SCC 342 2 1992 (Supp) 3 SCC 217 3 1995 (2) SCC 745 4 Page 4 must stop running when the prescribed quota of posts have been occupied by the reserved category. It was in this backdrop that the Parliament of India enacted Constitution

which permits the State to provide reservation in matters of promotion to Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes. In 2001, th Parliament approved Constitution (85 Amendment) Act, permitting promotions with consequential seniority to government service. th 8. On 7 September, 2007, with a view to give effect to the th 85 Amendment to the Constitution, the State of Himachal Pradesh issued instructions vide letter No. PER (AP)-C-F (1)- JUDGMENT 1/2005, and thereby provided for assignment of consequential seniority to the members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in service under the State. The policy was to take effect th from 17 June, 1995. The instructions further provided, as under:- “Thus as a result of this decision of State Government to implement the aforesaid amendment with effect from 17.6.1995, State Government employees belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes shall also be entitled to 5 Page 5

9. The instructions were challenged by respondent No.1 herein by filing Original Application No. 19 of 2008 before the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Shimla. Since the Administrative Tribunal was thereafter abolished, the O.A. was transferred to be heard and adjudicated by the High Court of JUDGMENT Himachal Pradesh at Shimla and was renumbered as Civil Writ Petition –T No. 2628 of 2008. By the impugned order th dated 18 September, 2009, the High Court allowed the writ th petition, and quashed the instructions dated 7 September, 2007. 6 Page 6 10. In its judgment, the High Court inter alia relied upon the 4 law laid down in M. Nagaraj & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. The High Court noticed that the State was bound to collect data

backward and they are inadequately represented in the service under the State. It was also held that the State has to provide for reservations in such a manner that the efficiency of administration is not adversely affected. The High Court then proceeded to determine that whether such an exercise was undertaken by the State while issuing instructions dated th 7 September, 2007. The High Court came to the conclusion that the State admittedly has not carried out any such exercise to collect such data. The reason provided by the State for not JUDGMENT carrying out such an exercise was that since there was already a policy for providing reservation in promotion in the State prior to the judgment in Indra Sawhney’s case (supra) , collection of data as mandated in M. Nagaraj’s case (supra) is not required. It was also urged on behalf of the State that the decision for providing reservations in promotions was taken after “due consideration”. These reasons were rejected by the 4 (2006) 8 SCC 212 7 Page 7 High Court, and it was held that:

Merely because the amended provision of the Constitution enable the State to make reservation is no ground not to collect data. Therefore, the instructions have to be struck down as being violate of the law laid down in M. Nagaraj’s case by the Apex Court.” 11. In compliance with the aforesaid directions, the State of JUDGMENT Himachal Pradesh, vide letter No. PER (AP)-C-F (1)01/2009 th dated 16 November, 2009, rescinded the instructions dated th th 7 September, 2007. In the letter (dated 16 November, 2009), the State of Himachal Pradesh also directed that all the th promotions made on or after 7 September, 2007 may be regulated in accordance with the procedure applicable prior to the said date. The letter also made it clear that promotion policy has to be interpreted in the manner “as if the instructions dated 8 Page 8 th 7 September, 2007 and subsequent instructions thereof had never been issued.”

2009 was challenged in the Civil Appeal @ SLP (Civil) No. 30143 of 2009, filed by Himachal Pradesh Schedules Tribes Employees Federation, and Himachal Pradesh SC/ST Government Employees Welfare Association. This Court, by th order dated 4 December, 2009 issued notice and granted interim stay on the operation of the impugned judgment. Meanwhile, the State Government withdrew the instructions th dated 16 November, 2009 and issued fresh instructions vide th letter dated 20 January, 2010, which were further amended by JUDGMENT th letter dated 16 March, 2010. By the aforesaid two letters, the Government Departments were refrained from making further promotions where consequential seniority is involved. th 13. By order dated 26 April, 2010, this Court disposed of the S.L.P. (Civil) No. 30143 of 2009 and the contempt petition No. 27 of 2010 on the undertaking given by the State. In the said order, this court inter alia observed as under: 9 Page 9

th 14. This Court, by order dated 7 July, 2010, dismissed I.A. No. 5 in the aforesaid SLP seeking modification/clarification of the aforesaid order. 15. It appears that the State of Himachal Pradesh collected st the necessary data as on 31 December, 2011. This is evident from the answers given to the Assembly Question JUDGMENT th Unstarred No.196, to which the reply was given on 4 April, 2012. The question was specific in the following terms: “(a) How much is the present SC/ST backlog in the State; and (b) What steps the Government is taking to fill- up the backlog of these categories?” The answer to the aforesaid question (a) and (b) was that 10 Page 10 "The necessary information is at Annexure - "A"." 16. A perusal of the Annexure-A shows that the details of backlog position of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes in

and Boards/Corporations/Public Sector Undertakings etc. as on 31st December, 2011, is clearly indicated. 17. It was in this backdrop that I.A. No. 6 came to be th preferred by the petitioner herein on 16 March, 2012, seeking a direction to the State to take a decision on the issue of reservation on the basis of data already collected or submitted th to Cabinet Sub Committee on 25 April, 2011 within a period of one month. The petitioner also prayed for stay on all the JUDGMENT promotions, pending the decision taken in this case. This Court, th by order dated 6 September, 2012, directed inter alia as under: “In our opinion, in the facts and circumstances of this case, it is necessary for the State of Himachal Pradesh to take the necessary policy decision on the question of providing reservation to the members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the matter of promotion in the services within the State of Himachal Pradesh, within a period eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 11 Page 11

th submission of the State in its reply to this I.A. dated 4 July, 2012, that the petitioners themselves had reservations with regard to the data placed before the Cabinet Sub-Committee on th 25 April, 2011. Accordingly, the Government decided to collect afresh data and material showing position as th on 30 June, 2011. According to the respondent State, the policy decision would have to relate to the data showing the th position as on 30 June, 2011, which would be available shortly. JUDGMENT nd 18. On 2 November, 2012, an I.A. was filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh in the Civil Appeal, seeking extension of st time for complying with the order of this Court until 31 January, th 2013. By order dated 7 January, 2013, this Court granted extension to the State of Himachal Pradesh as sought and further directed it not to make any promotions in the meantime. 12 Page 12 th On 11 January, 2013, the State of Himachal Pradesh issued instructions to all the departments to stop granting promotions. st On 31 January, 2013, the State of Himachal Pradesh in Letter

th (117 Amendment) Bill, 2012 is pending consideration in the Parliament, the matter regarding implementation of Constitution th (85 Amendment) Act, 2001 in the state may be deferred. th It was also decided that the instructions dated 11 January, th 2013 issued pursuant to interim order dated 7 January, 2013 in I.A. No. 6 of 2012 in SLP (Civil) No. 30143 of 2009 will th continue in operation in the meantime. On 4 February, 2013, the State of Himachal Pradesh sought modification of the th restriction placed by this Court by order dated 7 January, JUDGMENT 2013, whereby the State was directed not to make any promotions. The stand taken in the said affidavit was that since th the Constitution (117 Amendment) Bill, 2012 is pending consideration in the Parliament, the matter regarding th implementation of Constitution (85 Amendment) Act, 2001 in the state may be deferred. The State Government also prayed that the existing reservation system in promotions be continued till the finalization of matter relating to the Constitution 13 Page 13 th (117 Amendment) Bill, 2012. Submissions:

the appellants. Whereas, Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, learned senior counsel appeared for the respondent no.1, State of Himachal Pradesh. 20. Mr. Hansaria submitted that the State Government has already taken a decision to provide reservation in promotion. In st its order dated 31 January, 2013, the State Government mentions that the existing system for providing reservation, th prior to order dated 7 September, 2007 will continue. JUDGMENT Therefore, mandamus is to be issued not for providing reservations but to direct the State to implement its own policy decision. 21. Mr. Hansaria further submitted that the data collected by the State reveals that there is backlog in the government services. Further, it was submitted that data was available to st the State Government on 31 October, 2009, but this fact was 14 Page 14 suppressed from this Court. It was also argued that the defence put by the State that they deferred the matter concerning th implementation of 85 Amendment on the ground

down by this Court in the following cases: Indra Sawhney JUDGMENT (supra), R.K.Sabharwal (supra) , Union of India & Ors. Vs . 6 Virpal Singh Chauhan & Ors. , Ajit Singh Januja & Ors. Vs. 7 State of Punjab & Ors. , Chander Pal & Ors. Vs. State of 8 9 Haryana , Jagdish Lal & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. , 10 Ajit Singh & Ors. (II) Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. 5 (2012) 10 SCC 235 6 (1995) 6 SCC 684 7 (1996) 2 SCC 715 8 (1997) 10 SCC 474 9 (1997) 6 SCC 538 10 (1999) 7 SCC 209 15 Page 15 Dr. Dhawan relied upon M. Nagaraj’s case (supra), and submitted that this Court has laid down certain conditions which are required to be complied with by the State before providing

Further, Dr. Dhawan submitted that this Court, applying the aforesaid ratio in M. Nagaraj’s case(supra) , quashed the reservation policy of the respective states in Suraj Bhan 11 Meena & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. and Uttar 11 (2011) 1 SCC 467 16 Page 16 Pradesh Power Corporation Limited Vs. Rajesh Kumar & 12 Ors.

lie to order reservations or de-reservations because

and Ajit Singh (II)’s case (supra). 24. We have very carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. JUDGMENT 25. Undoubtedly, in the case of C.A. Rajendran (supra) , this Court has held as follows:- “Our conclusion therefore is that Article 16(4) does not confer any right on the petitioner and there is no constitutional duty imposed on the Government to make a reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, either at the initial stage of recruitment or at the stage of promotion. In other words, Article 16(4) is an enabling provision and confers a discretionary power on the State to make 12 (2012) 7 SCC 1 13 1968 (1) SCR 721 14 (2003) 9 SCC 294 17 Page 17

26. Similarly, in R.Rajeshwaran (supra) , this Court observed as follows:- “9. In Ajit Singh (II) v. State of Punjab this Court held that Article 16(4) of the Constitution confers a discretion and does not create any constitutional duty and obligation. Language of Article 15(4) is identical and the view in Comptroller and Auditor General of India, Gian Prakash v. K.S. Jagannathan and Superintending Engineer, Public Health v. Kuldeep Singh that a mandamus can be issued either to provide for reservation or for relaxation is not correct and runs counter to judgments of earlier Constitution Benches and, therefore, these two judgments cannot be held to be laying down the correct law. In these circumstances, neither the respondent in the present case could have sought for a direction nor the High Court could have granted the same.” JUDGMENT 27. The aforesaid dicta reiterated the earlier pronouncement of this Court in Ajit Singh (II)’s case (supra) , wherein this Court observed as follows:- 28. We next come to the question whether Article 16(4) and Article 16(4-A) guaranteed any fundamental right to reservation. It should be noted that both these articles open with a non obstante clause — “Nothing in this Article shall prevent the 18 Page 18

28. In our opinion, the reliance placed on the aforesaid observations by Dr. Dhwan is misplaced. Controversy herein is not about whether the court can issue mandamus to introduce the policy of reservation. The issue relates only to ensuring that the respondent-State implements its own decisions. The only excuse given by the State for not implementing its decision st dated 31 January, 2013 is the pendency of JUDGMENT th the 117 Amendment Bill. As noticed earlier, the State had admitted in answer to the unstarred Assembly question that necessary data had been collected. Furthermore, in the reply th dated 4 July, 2012 to this application the State has admitted the existence of the data which was placed before the Cabinet th Sub-Committee on 25 April, 2011, which has the base as on st 31 October, 2009. The State also affirmed that fresh data 19 Page 19 th showing the position as on 30 June, 2011, would be available shortly. Therefore, it is patently apparent that there is no impediment in the way of the respondent State to take the

Non-compliance of the direction in M. Nagaraj was the sole reason for which the High Court had quashed the instructions th dated 7 September, 2007. With the collection of the necessary data, there exists no justifiable reason not to take the required decision. 29. The State has very skilfully avoided a decision on merits in SLP (C) No.30143 of 2009. Thereafter, it is a series of false starts to avoid the implementation of their own decision and the JUDGMENT directions issued by this Court. In our opinion, that this cat and mouse game has gone far enough. Therefore, we will not content ourselves with the justification that the State has to th await the outcome of the 117 Amendment. We see no relevance of the amendment to the implementation by the State of its earlier decision making reservation in promotions. It has taken a policy decision for implementation of th the 85 Constitution Amendment Act. Instructions 20 Page 20 th dated 7 September, 2007 had been issued for implementation of the policy decision. In these instructions, H.P. Government had decided to grant seniority to SC/ST employees. But this

compliance of the High Court judgment by issuing Circular th No. PER(AP)-CF(1)-1/2009 dated 16 November, 2009. But the implementation of this Circular was stayed by this Court in th SLP (C) No.30143 of 2009 on 4 December, 2009. The State then issued another Circular No. PER(AP)-C-F(1)-1/2009 dated th th 20 January, 2010 withdrawing circular dated 16 November, 2009. Thus, the situation prevalent prior to the Circular dated th 7 September, 2007 was again operative for making promotions. Thereafter another Circular was issued JUDGMENT rd on 23 January, 2010 amending the circular th dated 16 November, 2009 by substituting words “wherever reservation is available” with the words “wherever consequential seniority by virtue of reservation will be applicable.” The issuance of so many circulars is indication of the intention of the State not to comply with the earlier decision to implement the policy of reservation in promotions and the grant of consequential seniority. Therefore, a clever statement 21 Page 21 th was made before this Court on 26 April, 2010 on the basis of which the SLP was disposed of. We are of the opinion that the statement was only to avoid a decision on merits with regard to

30. When a statement is made before this Court it is, as a matter of course, assumed that it is made sincerely and is not an effort to over-reach the court. Numerous matters even involving momentous questions of law are very often disposed of by this Court on the basis of the statement made by the learned counsel for the parties. The statement is accepted as it is assumed without doubt, to be honest, sincere, truthful, solemn and in the interest of justice. The statement by the JUDGMENT counsel is not expected to be flippant, mischievous, misleading and certainly not false . This confidence in statements made by the learned counsel is founded on the assumption that the counsel is aware that he is an officer of the Court. Here we would like to allude to the words of Lord Denning, in the case of 15 Rendel vs. Worsley about the conduct expected of an Advocate. “As an advocate, he is a minister of justice equally 15 [1967] 1 QB 443 22 Page 22 with the Judge…………………I say “all he honourably can” because his duty is not only to his client. He has a duty to the Court which is paramount . It is a mistake to suppose that he is

do what he directs. He is none of these things. He owes allegiance to a higher cause. It is the cause of truth and justice. He must not consciously mis-state the facts. He must not knowingly conceal the truth. He must not unjustly make a charge of fraud, that is, without evidence to support it. He must produce all the relevant authorities, even those that are against him. He must see that his client discloses, if ordered, the relevant documents, even those that are fatal to his case. He must disregard the most specific instructions of his client, if they JUDGMENT conflicts with his duty to the court. The code which requires a Barrister to do all this is not a code of law. It is the code of honour.” In our opinion, the aforesaid dicta of Lord Denning is an apt exposition of the very high standard of moral, ethical and professional conduct expected to be maintained by members of the legal profession. We expect no less of an Advocate/Counsel in this country. Here, in this case, th on 26 April, 2010 a statement was made on behalf of the State 23 Page 23 of H.P. that “the state intends to collect more details with regard to representation of the SCs/STs and to pass appropriate orders within a reasonable time, i.e., approximately within three

Having very deftly avoided a decision on merits in the SLP (C) No.30143 of 2009, the State has totally failed to live up to the solemn statement made to this Court. It has hedged and th hemmed and prevaricated from 26 April, 2010 till date. Inspite of the requisite data being available, the policy of reservation already adopted by the State has not been implemented. We, therefore, do not agree with Dr. Dhawan that the applicants are seeking a mandamus to adopt a policy in reservation. From the above narration, it is evident that the applicants want the State JUDGMENT to implement its own decisions. 31. The prayer is : “Direct the Respondent/State Government to decide the case in time bound manner on the basis of data already available/submitted to Cabinet Sub Committee on 25.4.2011 within a period of one month and ; Further direct stay on all promotions pending decision taken in this Case.” 24 Page 24 32. The final excuse offered by the State for not granting the aforesaid relief is that the State now awaits the finalisation of

reasons put forward for not honouring the statement solemnly th made to this Court on 26 April, 2010. This Court has been more than considerate to the requests made by the State for extension of time. This last excuse about awaiting the th finalisation of the proposed 117 Constitutional Amendment is the proverbial last straw on the camel’s back. As stated earlier, th the proposed 117 Constitutional Amendment would not adversely affect the merits of the clam of the petitioner for grant of promotion with consequential seniority. By the aforesaid JUDGMENT proposed amendment, the existing Article 16 clause (4A) is to be substituted by the following clause 4A:- “(4A) Notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in the Constitution, the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes notified under article 341 and article 342, respectively, shall be deemed to be backward and nothing in this article or in article 335 shall prevent the State from making any provision for reservation in matters of promotions, 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 to the extent of the percentage of reservation provided to 25 Page 25 the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes in the services of the State.” 33. A bare perusal of the aforesaid would show that the

grant of consequential seniority upon promotion on the basis of reservation. The aforesaid conclusion is stated explicitly in the Statement of Objects and Reasons for the proposed th 117 Constitutional amendment. For facility of reference, the Statement of Objects and Reasons is reproduced hereunder:- “Statement of Objects and Reasons The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes have been provided reservation in promotions since 1955. This was discontinued following the judgment in the case of Indra Sawhney Vs. Union of India, wherein it was held that it is beyond the mandate of Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India. Subsequently, the Constitution was amended by the Constitution (Seventy-seventh Amendment) Act, 1995 and a new clause (4A) was inserted in article 16 to enable the Government to provide reservation in promotion in favour of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. Subsequently, clause (4A) of article 16 was modified by the Constitution (Eighty- fifth Amendment) Act, 2001 to provide consequential seniority to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes candidates promoted by giving reservation. JUDGMENT The validity of the constitutional amendments was challenged before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court while deliberating on the issue of 26 Page 26

Relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in M. Nagaraj case, the High Court of Rajasthan and the High Court of Allahabad have struck down the provisions for reservation in promotion in the services of the State of Rajasthan and the State of Uttar Pradesh, respectively. Subsequently, the Supreme Court has upheld the decisions of these High Courts striking down provisions for reservation in respective States. It has been observed that there is difficulty in collection of quantifiable data showing backwardness of the class and inadequacy of representation of that class in public employment. Moreover, there is uncertainty on the methodology of this exercise. JUDGMENT Thus, in the wake of the judgment of the Supreme Court in M. Nagaraj case, the prospects of promotion of the employees belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes are being adversely affected. Demands for carrying out further amendment in the Constitution were raised by various quarters. A discussion on the issue of reservation in promotion was held in Parliament on 3-5-2012. Demand for amendment of the Constitution in order to provide reservation for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes in promotion has been voiced by the Members of Parliament. An All-Party Meeting to 27 Page 27

In view of the above, the Government has reviewed the position and has decided to move the constitutional amendment to substitute clause (4A) of article 16, with a view to provide impediment-free reservation in promotion to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes and to bring certainty and clarity in the matter. It is also necessary to give retrospective effect to the proposed clause (4A) of article 16 with effect from the date of coming into force of that clause as originally introduced, that is, from the 17th day of June, 1995.” 34. The aforesaid leaves no manner of doubt that the amendment is with the view to provide impediment free reservation in promotion to the Scheduled-Castes and JUDGMENT Scheduled-Tribes and to bring certainty and clarity in the matter. Furthermore, the aforesaid proposed amendment is to th be introduced with retrospective effect from 17 June, 1995. In view of the above, there can be no impediment in the way of the State Government to implement the policy of reservation which existed till the issuance of the various instructions prior to th the making of the Statement before this Court on 26 April, 28 Page 28 2010. It is time to put an end to this charade; this never ending process of extensions and hold the State to honour its statements. 35. We, therefore, allow this Interlocutory Application and direct the State of Himachal Pradesh to take a final decision on the issue either on the basis of the data already submitted to th the Cabinet Sub-Committee on 25 April, 2011 or on the basis th of the data reflecting the position as on 30 June, 2011, within a period of three months from today. Till a final decision is taken, the direction restraining the State of Himachal Pradesh from making any promotion shall continue. JUDGMENT ….….…………………..J. [Surinder Singh Nijjar] ….…………………,……J. [Pinaki Chandra Ghose] New Delhi; September 13, 2013. 29 Page 29 JUDGMENT 30 Page 30