amit kumar sharma vs NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY
- Court
- Central Administrative Tribunal
1 OA Nos.308/2020, 370/2022 & 207/2023
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
ORIGINAL APPLICATION Nos.308/2020,
370/2022 & 207/2023
th
Dated this Monday, the 19 day of October, 2026
CORAM: HON’BLE MS. RANJANA SHAHI, MEMBER (J)
HON’BLE MR. LOK RANJAN, MEMBER (A)
(i) OA 308/2020 –
1. Puncham Singh S/o Late Shri Saudan Singh,
Age 53 years, R/o 186, Janakpuri, Mala Road,
Kota, presently working as Loco Pilot, Mail Express,
Kota Junction, Kota (Group – C Post), (M) 9001015334.
2. Jagpal Singh S/o Shri Sitaram, Age 55 years,
R/o 425, Gali No.5, Anand Vihar (Murgi Farm),
Dadhwada, Kota Junction,
presently working as Loco Pilot, Mail Express,
Kota Junction, Kota (Group C Post), (M) 9001015285.
3. Indra Pal Singh, S/o Shri Balbir Singh, Age 55 years,
R/o 601, Guru Nanak Plaza, Near Kherli Phatak,
Station Road, Kota, presently working as Loco Pilot,
Mail Express, Kota Junction, Kota (Group C post),
Mobile 9001015755. – Applicants
Versus
1. Union of India through General Manager,
West Central Railway, GM’s Office West Central Railway,
Jabalpur (M.P.) 482 001.
2. Divisional Railway Manager (Establishment),
DRM’s Office West Central Railway, Kota Division,
Kota 324 002.
3. Prahlad Kumar Meena, S/o Shri Sukhram Meena,
Aged 54 years, R/o House No.304, Namrata Aawas,
Bajrang Nagar, Police Line, Kota 324 001.
4. Babu Lal Ahirwal, S/o Shri Ram Kishan, Aged 54 years,
R/o Adarsh Nagar, Rangpur Road, Kota Junction,
Kota 324 002.
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=central administrative
tribunal, PostalCode=302001, L=Jaipur, S=Rajasthan, STREET="Sahakar
Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan", OID.2.5.4.65=f9c6978f22a7c6d, Phone=
c9127d0032386c6ff6f2dc108496f05e732619225ac1f8243ae98c53d99f7e
KHUSHBOO c4, SERIALNUMBER=
870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c63
9, [email protected], CN=KHUSHBOO MITTAL GUPTA Reason: I am the author of this document
Date: 2026.10.23 17:34:13+05'30'
MITTAL GUPTA Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0
Page 1 of 24
2 OA Nos.308/2020, 370/2022 & 207/2023
5. Mukesh Kumar P. S/o Shri Paltoo Ram, Aged 50 years,
R/o B-68, Moti Nagar Extension, Thekda Road,
Borkheda, Kota 324 001 . - Respondents
(ii) OA 370/2022
Amit Kumar Sharma S/o Sh. Ashok Kumar Sharma,
Age about 32 years, Quarter No.H-8, Road No.2,
Ganpati Nagar, Railway Colony, Jaipur 302 006,
Presently working as Helper (Signal),
under C/o Senior Section Engineer (Signal),
Jaipur (Group D), Email – [email protected] ,
Mobile No.7737287231. – Applicant
Versus
1. Union of India through General Manager,
North Western Railways, Head Quarter Office,
Near Jawahar Circle, Jagatpura, Jaipur 302 017.
2. Divisional Railway Manager,
North Western Railway, Power House Road,
Near Railway Station, Jaipur 302 006.
3. Senior Divisional Personnel Officer,
North Western Railway, Mandal Office, DRM Office,
Railway Station, Jaipur 302 006.
4. Rajesh Kumar Gosaiwal S/o Shri Shrawan
Office of Senior Section Engineer (Signal), Phulera,
District Jaipur 303 338.
5. Dulichand Meena, S/o Shri Chotu Singh
Office of Senior Section Engineer (Signal),
Bandikui, District Dausa 303 313. - Respondents
(iii) OA 207/2023
Deepak Kumar Gurjar S/o Shri Ramkaran Gurjar,
Age about 28 years, R/o VPO Badoli,
Tehsil & District Dausa 303 325,
Presently working as Junior Engineer, Construction,
Jaipur Division, North Western Railway, Jagatpura, Jaipur,
Group - C, (M) 9887591467,
Email ID : [email protected] . - Applicant
Versus
1. Union of India through General Manager,
North Western Railways, Head Quarter Office,
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=central administrative
tribunal, PostalCode=302001, L=Jaipur, S=Rajasthan, STREET="Sahakar
Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan", OID.2.5.4.65=f9c6978f22a7c6d, Phone=
c9127d0032386c6ff6f2dc108496f05e732619225ac1f8243ae98c53d99f7e
KHUSHBOO c4, SERIALNUMBER=
870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c63
9, [email protected], CN=KHUSHBOO MITTAL GUPTA Reason: I am the author of this document
Date: 2026.10.23 17:34:13+05'30'
MITTAL GUPTA Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0
Page 2 of 24
3 OA Nos.308/2020, 370/2022 & 207/2023
Near Jawahar Circle, Jagatpura, Jaipur 302 017.
2. Divisional Railway Manager,
North Western Railway, Power House Road,
Near Railway Station, Jaipur 302 006.
3. Rahul Kumar Jareda, S/o Shri Raja Ram Meena,
R/o Village Post Mahaswa, Via Shree Mahaveer Ji,
Karauli 322 220, Presently working as Junior Engineer,
Electrical (TRD), Jaipur Division, North Western Railway,
NWR, Jaipur 302 017. - Respondents
Appearances –
Shri Shobhit Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants in all the
OAs.
Shri M.K.Sharma for the respondent Nos.1 and 2, Shri K.C.Meena,
learned counsel holding for Shri Anupam Agarwal for the
respondent No.3 and Shri R.D.Meena, learned counsel for the
respondents in OA No.4 & 5 in OA No.308/2020;
Shri N.C.Goyal and Shri V.D.Sharma for the respondent Nos.1 to 3
in OA No.370/2022;
Shri Arun Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents in OA
No.207/2023.
Reserved on 22.09.2026
Pronounced on 19.10.2026
ORDER
Per: Ms. Ranjana Shahi, Member (J)
All the three Original Applications, filed by the
applicants, having common issues, with the consent and
concurrence of the learned counsels appearing for the respective
parties, it is deemed appropriate in the interest of justice to
dispose of the matters by passing a common order.
1(a). All the learned counsels for the parties have argued
their respective cases in the present batch of Original
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=central administrative
tribunal, PostalCode=302001, L=Jaipur, S=Rajasthan, STREET="Sahakar
Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan", OID.2.5.4.65=f9c6978f22a7c6d, Phone=
c9127d0032386c6ff6f2dc108496f05e732619225ac1f8243ae98c53d99f7e
KHUSHBOO c4, SERIALNUMBER=
870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c63
9, [email protected], CN=KHUSHBOO MITTAL GUPTA Reason: I am the author of this document
Date: 2026.10.23 17:34:13+05'30'
MITTAL GUPTA Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0
Page 3 of 24
4 OA Nos.308/2020, 370/2022 & 207/2023
Applications. For the sake of brevity and convenience, the facts
stated in OA No.207/2023, which is being treated as the lead
case, are taken into consideration for disposal of the entire batch.
The decision rendered therein shall govern and apply mutatis
mutandis to OA Nos.308/2020 and 370/2022, as the issues
involved in all these matters are identical.
2 . The present Original Application has been filed by the
applicants under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act,
1985 seeking the following reliefs:-
“10(i). To pass an appropriate order or direction whereby
Notification dated 16.2.2023 be quashed and set-aside to the
extent of providing one seat to ST candidate instead of UR
candidate for the purpose for promotion on the post of Senior
Section Engineer – Electrical TRD, with all consequential
benefits and reliefs.
10(ii). To pass an appropriate order or direction, whereby
Respondents be directed to prepare a fresh Eligibility
List/Suitability List for the purpose promotion on the post of
SSE – Electrical TRD after adjusting excess ST promote on
their respective roster points, with all consequential benefits
and reliefs.
10(iii). To pass an appropriate order or direction, whereby
during pendency of the present Original Application, if any
promotion / posting order or any other adverse order in terms
of Notification dated 16.2.2023 is issued then same be taken
on record and accordingly be quashed and set aside.
10(iv). To pass an appropriate order or direction, whereby
Respondents be directed to conduct the Promotion exercise
strictly in terms of Railway Board’s RBE No.114/1997 dated
21.8.1997 and Letter dated 22.6.2022 & other timely
instructions issued by the Railway Board excluding the
stipulations provided in Letter dated 29.8.2022, with all
consequential benefits and reliefs.
10(v). To pass an appropriate order or direction, whereby
instructions dated 29.8.2022 be quashed and set-aside to the
extent they provide for maintaining status quo in past case,
providing veil to excess promoted SC/ST employees against
UR roster points and not adjusting them against their SC/ST
roster points.
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=central administrative
tribunal, PostalCode=302001, L=Jaipur, S=Rajasthan, STREET="Sahakar
Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan", OID.2.5.4.65=f9c6978f22a7c6d, Phone=
c9127d0032386c6ff6f2dc108496f05e732619225ac1f8243ae98c53d99f7e
KHUSHBOO c4, SERIALNUMBER=
870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c63
9, [email protected], CN=KHUSHBOO MITTAL GUPTA Reason: I am the author of this document
Date: 2026.10.23 17:34:13+05'30'
MITTAL GUPTA Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0
Page 4 of 24
5 OA Nos.308/2020, 370/2022 & 207/2023
10(vi). To pass an appropriate order or direction, whereby
Respondents be directed to delete the incorrect endorsement
in Roster Register for not adjusting the excess promoted ST
employees against their respective roster points.
10(vii). Any other appropriate order or direction which the
Hon’ble Tribunal may consider just and proper in the facts
and circumstances of the case may also kindly be passed.”
3 . Once again, we have been called upon to adjudicate
the issue of promotion of reserved category employees against
unreserved promotional posts. The issue which is at the core of
the controversies in the present OAs is whether an employee
who has entered the service / appointed against a vacancy
earmarked for a reserved category or has availed of promotion
against a reserved category vacancy can later be promoted
against the unreserved vacancies. In other words, “can a
reserved category appointee / promotee be promoted against the
unreserved vacancies”.
4 . The authorities relied upon by the applicant’s side
are :
(i) R.K.Sabharwal Vs. State of Punjab , (1995) 2 SCC 745;
(ii) M. Nagaraj Vs. Union of India , (2006) 8 SCC 212;
(iii) Jitendra Singh & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Others passed
by this Bench of the Tribunal in OA No.421/2014 vide order dated
16.02.2024;
(iv) Abdul Rashid Vs. Union of India and Others decided on
04.04.2024 in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5558/2023 passed by
Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan;
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=central administrative
tribunal, PostalCode=302001, L=Jaipur, S=Rajasthan, STREET="Sahakar
Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan", OID.2.5.4.65=f9c6978f22a7c6d, Phone=
c9127d0032386c6ff6f2dc108496f05e732619225ac1f8243ae98c53d99f7e
KHUSHBOO c4, SERIALNUMBER=
870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c63
9, [email protected], CN=KHUSHBOO MITTAL GUPTA Reason: I am the author of this document
Date: 2026.10.23 17:34:13+05'30'
MITTAL GUPTA Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0
Page 5 of 24
6 OA Nos.308/2020, 370/2022 & 207/2023
(v) Sam Divanni & Others Vs. Union of India and others ,
decided on 17.12.2019 in OA No.368/2019 passed by Ernakulam
Bench of this Tribunal;
(vi) Union of India & Others Vs. Sam Divanni & Others
decided on 18.01.2021 by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala at
Ernakulam.
5. The authorities relied upon by the respondents’
side are :
(i) The judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra
Pradesh in WP Nos.28441/2025 and 1865/2026 decided on
17.07.2026;
(ii) R.K.Sabharwal Vs. State of Punjab , (1995) 2 SCC 745;
(iii) The judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Airport Authority of India and others Vs. Sham
Krishna and others, decided on 16.01.2026 reported in 2026
LiveLaw (SC) 63.
(iv) The judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Railway Protection Force & Ors. Vs. Prem Chand
Kumar & Ors. vide order dated 09.09.2025.
6. First we shall take up the judgments relied upon by the
applicant. The judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter
of R.K.Sabharwal Vs. State of Punjab and the judgment of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of M. Nagaraj Vs. Union of
India had already been considered by us in addition to the
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=central administrative
tribunal, PostalCode=302001, L=Jaipur, S=Rajasthan, STREET="Sahakar
Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan", OID.2.5.4.65=f9c6978f22a7c6d, Phone=
c9127d0032386c6ff6f2dc108496f05e732619225ac1f8243ae98c53d99f7e
KHUSHBOO c4, SERIALNUMBER=
870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c63
9, [email protected], CN=KHUSHBOO MITTAL GUPTA Reason: I am the author of this document
Date: 2026.10.23 17:34:13+05'30'
MITTAL GUPTA Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0
Page 6 of 24
7 OA Nos.308/2020, 370/2022 & 207/2023
judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in K.Manorama Vs. Union
of India & Others reported in (2010) 10 SCC 323, the judgment
passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated
15.07.2011 in the case of Lachhmi Narain Gupta and others Vs.
Jarnail Singh and others, reported in MANU/PH/3767/2011 and
the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan in CWP
No.2773/2012 ( Union of India and others Vs. Lokesh Kumar
Saini and others ) decided on 11.11.2013 in Jitendra Singh and
Another Vs. Union of India and others . As such, we are
reproducing the relevant extract from the judgment passed
by us in the case of Jitendra Singh and Another Vs. Union of
India and others vide order dated 16.02.2024 :-
“3. ……….. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
R.K. Sabbarwal had prescribed the post based roster
system. The relevant portion is reproduced hereunder: -
“(Para 5)…..The numerical quota of posts is not
shifting boundary but represents a figure with due
application of mind. Therefore, the only way to
assure equality of opportunity to the Backward
Classes and the general category is to permit the
roster to operate till the time the respective
appointees/ promotees occupy the posts meant
for them in the roster. The operation of the roster
and the running account" must come to an end
thereafter. The vacancies arising in the cadre,
after the initial posts are filled, will pose no
difficulty. As and when there is a vacancy whether
permanent or temporary in a particular post the
same has to be filled from amongst the category
to which the post belonged in the roster. For
example the Scheduled Caste persons holding the
posts at Roster - points 1, 7, 15 retire then these
slots are to be filled from amongst the persons
belonging to the Scheduled Castes. Similarly, if
the persons holding the post at points 8 to 14 or
23 to 29 retire then these slots are to be filled from
among the general category. By following this
procedure there shall neither be short-fall nor
excess in the percentage of reservation.”
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=central administrative
tribunal, PostalCode=302001, L=Jaipur, S=Rajasthan, STREET="Sahakar
Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan", OID.2.5.4.65=f9c6978f22a7c6d, Phone=
c9127d0032386c6ff6f2dc108496f05e732619225ac1f8243ae98c53d99f7e
KHUSHBOO c4, SERIALNUMBER=
870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c63
9, [email protected], CN=KHUSHBOO MITTAL GUPTA Reason: I am the author of this document
Date: 2026.10.23 17:34:13+05'30'
MITTAL GUPTA Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0
Page 7 of 24
8 OA Nos.308/2020, 370/2022 & 207/2023
The above mentioned observation of the
Supreme Court in R.K. Sabbarwal clearly laid down the
principle of compartmentalization . According to the
compartmentalization, SC/ST employees will be allowed to
compete in ‘Open Category’ only at the time of initial
recruitment and not thereafter, as they will than strictly be
guided according to their roster points. In other words
after the initial recruitment reserved category
employees will not be allowed to interpolate between
the categories .
The above observations of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court have further been endorsed upon in recent
judgment of K. Manorama . The relevant portion of the
judgment is reproduced hereunder: -
“14…..In view of this position, there is no
occasion to apply the instruction contained in
Railway Board's letter dated 29.7.1993 nor the
propositions in R.K. Sabharwal's judgment
(supra) to the present case. Even otherwise,
the principle that when a member
belonging to a Scheduled Caste gets
selected in the open competition field on
the basis of his own merit, he will not be
counted against the quota reserved for
Scheduled Castes, but will be treated as
open candidate, will apply only in regard to
recruitment by open competition and not to
the promotions effected on the basis of
senioritycum-suitability.”
In view of these observations of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court the judgment dated 14.09.2006 passed by
CAT, Madras and judgment dated 20.08.2009 passed by
the Hon’ble Madras High Court becomes per-incuriam,
when it is passed in ignorance of the relevant provision of
the Constitution of India and other governing rules and
regulations and it is not in consonance with the judgment
of Apex Court or so to say, it is against the law laid down
by the Apex Court, which is binding on all the Courts under
Article 141 of the Constitution. Therefore, OM dated
10.08.2010 deserves to be quashed and set aside.
4. The applicants have stated that the Punjab and
Haryana High Court on 15.07.2011 in the case of Lachmi
Narain Gupta and Ors. vs. Jarnail Singh had passed the
following order; -
“40. As a sequel to the above discussion, the
judgment of the Tribunal is set aside. The
instructions dated 31.1.2005 (R-2) stands
withdrawn on 10.8.2010 (P-10). Therefore, no
order is required to be passed in respect of those
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=central administrative
tribunal, PostalCode=302001, L=Jaipur, S=Rajasthan, STREET="Sahakar
Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan", OID.2.5.4.65=f9c6978f22a7c6d, Phone=
c9127d0032386c6ff6f2dc108496f05e732619225ac1f8243ae98c53d99f7e
KHUSHBOO c4, SERIALNUMBER=
870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c63
9, [email protected], CN=KHUSHBOO MITTAL GUPTA Reason: I am the author of this document
Date: 2026.10.23 17:34:13+05'30'
MITTAL GUPTA Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0
Page 8 of 24
9 OA Nos.308/2020, 370/2022 & 207/2023
instructions dealing with the subject of reservation
in promotion and the treatment of SC/ST
candidates promoted on their own merit. Likewise,
the instructions dated 10.8.2010 (P-16) are
hereby quashed because they are in direct
conflict with the view taken by the Constitution
Bench in M. Nagaraj's Nagaraj's case (supra)
and Suraj Bhan Meena's case (supra) . It is
further directed that the seniority and promotion of
the Income Tax Inspectors shall be made without
any element of reservation in promotion.
41. The writ petition stands disposed of in the
above terms.”
An OA No. 62/2011 was preferred before this
Tribunal challenging the OM dated 10.08.2010 and
consequential orders issued by the respondent railways
and this Tribunal vide its order dated 26.11.2011 had
quashed the OM dated 10.08.2010 and RBE No. 126/2010.
The order dated 26.11.2011 passed by this Tribunal has
been challenged before the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court
by the respondent- railways in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
2773/2012. The said Writ Petition came up for adjudication
before the Hon’ble High Court and the Hon’ble High Court
passed the following order:-
“After taking note of the submissions made, this
fact remains undisputed that para-3 of the
circular, which has been referred to by the ld.
Tribunal in para-3 of the order impugned
dt.26.11.2011 of DOPT's order dt.10.08.2010 is
the same which the petitioner has referred to in
their circular RBE No.126/2010 dt.14.09.2010
and once the order of DOPT dt.10.08.2010 has
been quashed & set aside by the High Court of
Punjab & Haryana and SLP is pending before
the Apex Court and interim protection has not
been granted to the parties, in our considered
view, it will be in the interest of justice that those
who have been promoted prior thereto, may not
be disturbed but at the same time further
appointment/promotions, if allowed, ignoring the
circular RBE No.126/2010 dt.14.09.2010, may
create legal complications. However, the
petitioner is at liberty to take further action after
the final outcome of the pending SLP before the
Apex Court or in terms of any interim direction, if
passed by the Apex Court pending SLP,
regarding appointment/promotion, etc.
Counsel for respondents has brought to our
notice that the circular RBE No.126/2010
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=central administrative
tribunal, PostalCode=302001, L=Jaipur, S=Rajasthan, STREET="Sahakar
Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan", OID.2.5.4.65=f9c6978f22a7c6d, Phone=
c9127d0032386c6ff6f2dc108496f05e732619225ac1f8243ae98c53d99f7e
KHUSHBOO c4, SERIALNUMBER=
870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c63
9, [email protected], CN=KHUSHBOO MITTAL GUPTA Reason: I am the author of this document
Date: 2026.10.23 17:34:13+05'30'
MITTAL GUPTA Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0
Page 9 of 24
10 OA Nos.308/2020, 370/2022 & 207/2023
dt.14.09.2010 has been issued from Railway
Board and it is based on the DOPT's circular
dt.10.08.2010 but as per his information still the
exercise is being undertaken in terms of the
circular dt.14.09.2010 in other Divisions of the
Railways.
There is no need to pass any further order
since the circular of RBE No.126/2010
dt.14.09.2010 has been taken note of by us
and it cannot be given effect to pending SLP
and is binding upon the Railways
Administration, in particular.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of,
as indicated above.
xxxx
8. Heard both sides at length and after perusing the
various judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in R.K. Sabbarwal and subsequently in K. Manorama and
Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana as well as by
the Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench and the
order dated 16.12.2013 passed by the Bombay Bench of
this Tribunal and the order dated 26.11.2011 passed by this
Bench of the Tribunal in OA No. 62/2011, it has emerged
that the crux on the issue as it stands today is that RBE
circular No. 126/2010 dated 14.09.2010 already stands
quashed. The instructions dated 10.08.2010 have also
been quashed as they have been held to be in direct
conflict with the view taken by the Constitution Bench in M.
Nagaraj’s case and Suraj Bhan Meena’s case, by the
Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana vide its order
dated 15.07.2011, which has been observed and followed
by the Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan in D.B. Civil Writ
Petition No. 2773/2012 (UOI & Ors. vs. Lokesh Kumar
Saini & Ors.) observing that “…..once the order of the
DOPT dated 10.08.2010 has been quashed & set aside by
the High Court of Punjab & Haryana and SLP is pending
before the Apex Court and interim protection has not been
granted to the parties ……., there is no need to pass any
further order since the circular of RBE No. 126/2010 dated
14.09.2010 has been taken note of by us and it cannot be
given effect to pending SLP and is being upon the Railway
Administration in particular. Accordingly, the Writ Petition
stands disposed of, as indicated above.”
9. Since RBE No. 126/2010 dated 14.09.2010
already stands quashed as on date and the principle of “on
their own merit” has been considered to be limited only at
the level of initial recruitment, ……….. In other words, the
SC / ST employees once recruited against the reserved
category cannot be allowed to change their category at the
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=central administrative
tribunal, PostalCode=302001, L=Jaipur, S=Rajasthan, STREET="Sahakar
Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan", OID.2.5.4.65=f9c6978f22a7c6d, Phone=
c9127d0032386c6ff6f2dc108496f05e732619225ac1f8243ae98c53d99f7e
KHUSHBOO c4, SERIALNUMBER=
870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c63
9, [email protected], CN=KHUSHBOO MITTAL GUPTA Reason: I am the author of this document
Date: 2026.10.23 17:34:13+05'30'
MITTAL GUPTA Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0
Page 10 of 24
11 OA Nos.308/2020, 370/2022 & 207/2023
level of promotion on the basis of “on their own merit”.
10. The respondents in order to justify their action
have carved out a superfluous ground that RBE No.
126/2010 is applicable to all categories except the running
cadre. The circular RBE No. 126/2010 and the judicial
pronouncements on the subject especially the judgment of
the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated
15.07.2011 in the case of Lachmi Narain Gupta and Ors.
vs. Jarnail Singh quashing it nowhere makes distinction
between running cadre and other cadres.
11. ….
12. Since the RBE No. 126/2010 dated 14.09.2010
already stands quashed as on date, its application and
making promotion by applying the principle laid down
therein of promoting reserved category employees
against unreserved posts is bad in law. This seniority
list which results in shrinking of the unreserved posts
is contrary to the legal position as it stands today
pending the SLP before the Hon’ble Apex Court. Hence,
the selection list / suitability list dated 11.07.2014
(Annexure A/1) and the Office Note dated 18.06.2014
(Annexure A/2) are hereby quashed and set aside.
13. Accordingly, the present Original Application is
allowed. No order as to costs.
14. In view of the order passed in the Original
Application, all the pending Misc. Applications, if any, stand
disposed off.”
7. The above-cited judgment passed by this Bench of
the Tribunal was considered and referred to by the Hon’ble
High Court of Rajasthan while adjudicating upon the
challenge to the earlier judgment dated 02.02.2023 passed by
this Bench of the Tribunal in another case titled as Abdul
Rashid Vs. Union of India. When the same was under challenge
before the Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan (Jaipur Bench) in DB
Civil Writ Petition No.5558/2023, wherein, the Hon’ble High Court
quashed the order dated 02.02.2023 passed earlier by this Bench
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=central administrative
tribunal, PostalCode=302001, L=Jaipur, S=Rajasthan, STREET="Sahakar
Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan", OID.2.5.4.65=f9c6978f22a7c6d, Phone=
c9127d0032386c6ff6f2dc108496f05e732619225ac1f8243ae98c53d99f7e
KHUSHBOO c4, SERIALNUMBER=
870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c63
9, [email protected], CN=KHUSHBOO MITTAL GUPTA Reason: I am the author of this document
Date: 2026.10.23 17:34:13+05'30'
MITTAL GUPTA Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0
Page 11 of 24
12 OA Nos.308/2020, 370/2022 & 207/2023
of the Tribunal and, instead, referred to the judgment dated
30.01.2024 passed by us in the above-cited case of Jitendra
Singh (supra) in OA No.421/2014.
8 . The relevant extract of the aforesaid judgment dated
04.04.2024 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan
(Jaipur Bench) in the aforementioned Civil Writ Petition
No.5558/2023, in the case of Abdul Rashid (supra) is reproduced
below :-
“12. ……..Learned Tribunal itself when it was seized
with the similar matter in Jitendra Singh Vs. Union of India
& Ors. : Original Application No.421/2014 decided on
30.01.2024 has quashed the selection list and office note,
which have applied RBE No.126/2010.
13. ….
14. …..
15. In Lokesh Kumar Saini's case also, the learned
Tribunal had directed the respondents not to give effect to
RBE No.126/2010 as OM dated 10.08.2010 having been
quashed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court, there was
no reason for the respondents to promote respondent No.5
on the basis of RBE No. 126/2010. Thus, we are of the
considered view that any order passed or list issued relying
on OM dated 10.08.2010 after it was quashed by the
Punjab & Haryana High Court cannot be sustained for the
very reason that if OM dated 10.08.2010 stands quashed,
then no orders can be passed in furtherance of a quashed
Office Memorandum.
16. Learned Tribunal has further erred in dismissing
the Original Application on the ground that the petitioner
had approached after an inordinate delay. We may point
out that immediately after a proposed seniority list was
issued wherein respondent No.5 was shown in an
unreserved category, the petitioner approached the
learned Tribunal. It is clear that if roster is applied, then as
and when any vacancy arises, vacancy is to be filled by
the same category of employee. Since the post, on which
respondent No.5 was considered, is an unreserved post,
promotion could not take place on the basis of RBE
No.126/2010 as OM dated 10.08.2010 already stands
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=central administrative
tribunal, PostalCode=302001, L=Jaipur, S=Rajasthan, STREET="Sahakar
Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan", OID.2.5.4.65=f9c6978f22a7c6d, Phone=
c9127d0032386c6ff6f2dc108496f05e732619225ac1f8243ae98c53d99f7e
KHUSHBOO c4, SERIALNUMBER=
870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c63
9, [email protected], CN=KHUSHBOO MITTAL GUPTA Reason: I am the author of this document
Date: 2026.10.23 17:34:13+05'30'
MITTAL GUPTA Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0
Page 12 of 24
13 OA Nos.308/2020, 370/2022 & 207/2023
quashed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court.
17. Learned Tribunal has clearly not appreciated
the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner
that a member belonging to SC/ST Category cannot be
promoted to unreserved roster-point. We thus, deem it
appropriate to allow the writ petition.
18. It is important to note that an undertaking has
been given on behalf of Union of India before the Apex
Court that promotions will be made only category-wise
i.e. from General to General, from SC to SC and from
ST to ST. Since roster-point was not available for SC
candidate, respondent No.5 could not have been
placed over and above the petitioner, who was
belonging to an unreserved category. The writ petition
is, accordingly, allowed. The order dated 02.02.2023
passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur
Bench and the order passed in Review Application
No.2/2023 are quashed and set aside. Original
Application filed by petitioner bearing No.393/2014 is
allowed. The office note dated 18.06.2014 issued
relying on the quashed OM is also set aside. The
respondent-Union of India is directed to pass
necessary orders.
19. All the pending applications also stand disposed
off.”
9. Similarly, the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala at
Ernakulam, vide judgment dated 18.01.2021 in the matter of
M.Dhinu Rakesh & Others Vs. Sam Divanni & Others , while
considering the undertaking given by the Solicitor General of India
before the Hon’ble Apex Court, adjudicated against the promotion
of reserved category candidates to unreserved post. The relevant
extract of the same is reproduced below :-
“14. As already stated, the principal question to be
considered is whether the undertaking given by the Solicitor
General before the Apex Court still holds good. The order
dated 5/6/2018 of the Apex Court only indicates that the
promotion shall be carried out in accordance with law. As
rightly pointed out by learned counsel for respondents, the
said order cannot be interpreted to mean that reserved
category members can be promoted to unreserved posts.”
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=central administrative
tribunal, PostalCode=302001, L=Jaipur, S=Rajasthan, STREET="Sahakar
Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan", OID.2.5.4.65=f9c6978f22a7c6d, Phone=
c9127d0032386c6ff6f2dc108496f05e732619225ac1f8243ae98c53d99f7e
KHUSHBOO c4, SERIALNUMBER=
870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c63
9, [email protected], CN=KHUSHBOO MITTAL GUPTA Reason: I am the author of this document
Date: 2026.10.23 17:34:13+05'30'
MITTAL GUPTA Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0
Page 13 of 24
14 OA Nos.308/2020, 370/2022 & 207/2023
10 . This judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Ernakulam
was challenged by the Union of India before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the matter of Union of India and others Vs. Sam
Divanni & Others, but the same was dismissed by the Hon’ble
Apex Court vide order dated 28.03.2022.
11 . In the case of M. Nagaraj Vs. Union of India,
th st
challenges were made to the constitutional validity of the 77 , 81 ,
nd th
82 and 85 Constitutional Amendments, which were enacted by
Parliament to restore and protect reservation in promotions for
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The Constitution Bench
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of
th st nd th
the 77 , 81 , 82 and 85 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.
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=central administrative
tribunal, PostalCode=302001, L=Jaipur, S=Rajasthan, STREET="Sahakar
Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan", OID.2.5.4.65=f9c6978f22a7c6d, Phone=
c9127d0032386c6ff6f2dc108496f05e732619225ac1f8243ae98c53d99f7e
KHUSHBOO c4, SERIALNUMBER=
870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c63
9, [email protected], CN=KHUSHBOO MITTAL GUPTA Reason: I am the author of this document
Date: 2026.10.23 17:34:13+05'30'
MITTAL GUPTA Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0
Page 14 of 24
15 OA Nos.308/2020, 370/2022 & 207/2023
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.”
12 . Now we deal with the authorities cited by the
respondents’ side.
In the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of
Andhra Pradesh in WP Nos.28441/2025 and 1865/2026,
decided on 17.07.2026 , the Hon’ble High Court has dealt with
the constitutional validity of “reservation in promotion with
consequential seniority” and has accordingly allowed the Writ
Petition while quashing the impugned order dated 21.10.2024
passed by the Hyderabad Bench of this Tribunal. However, we
have noticed that the Hon’ble High Court has not dealt with the
aspect that the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in
Lachhmi Narain Gupta Vs. Jarnail Singh (supra) had quashed
the notification dated 10.08.2010 providing for reserved category
candidates to be promoted against unreserved vacancies (mere
citing the contentions of either side could not be said to have
been dealt with by the Court). It has also not dealt with the fact
that, in Contempt Petition No.314/2016 in SLP No.4831/2012
( Samta Andolan Samiti Vs. Shri Sanjay Kothari and others),
the Learned Solicitor General of India had given an undertaking
before the Hon’ble Apex Court that “ no further promotion of
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=central administrative
tribunal, PostalCode=302001, L=Jaipur, S=Rajasthan, STREET="Sahakar
Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan", OID.2.5.4.65=f9c6978f22a7c6d, Phone=
c9127d0032386c6ff6f2dc108496f05e732619225ac1f8243ae98c53d99f7e
KHUSHBOO c4, SERIALNUMBER=
870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c63
9, [email protected], CN=KHUSHBOO MITTAL GUPTA Reason: I am the author of this document
Date: 2026.10.23 17:34:13+05'30'
MITTAL GUPTA Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0
Page 15 of 24
16 OA Nos.308/2020, 370/2022 & 207/2023
reserved category persons to unreserved posts will be made” .
13. Both the cases relied upon by the respondents i.e.
Airport Authority of India and others Vs. Sham Krishna and
others and Railway Protection Force & Ors. Vs. Prem Chand
Kumar & Ors. pertain to appointment / recruitment and not to
promotions whereas, the case at hand pertains to promotion.
Conclusion -
14. The DoPT issued OM dated 10.08.2010, pursuant to
which Railways issued RBE No.126/2010 dated 14.09.2010,
providing for the promotion of reserved category candidates
against unreserved vacancies on the principle of “ on their own
merit ”. It came to be challenged before the Hon’ble High Court of
Punjab and Haryana and in Lachhmi Narain Gupta Vs. Jarnail
Singh (supra) and the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court
quashed the same, holding it to be “ in direct conflict with the view
taken by the Constitution Bench in M.Nagaraj’s case (supra) and
Suraj Bhan Meena’s case” . This was challenged before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court. Where the issue of “on own merit basis”
promotion of reserved category candidates on unreserved
vacancies is still pending and so is the CP No.314/2016 in SLP
No.4831/2012 where in the Learned Solicitor General had given
a specific undertaking that “ no further promotion of reserved
category persons to unreserved posts will be made” .
15 . It is to be noted that there are three distinct issues :
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=central administrative
tribunal, PostalCode=302001, L=Jaipur, S=Rajasthan, STREET="Sahakar
Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan", OID.2.5.4.65=f9c6978f22a7c6d, Phone=
c9127d0032386c6ff6f2dc108496f05e732619225ac1f8243ae98c53d99f7e
KHUSHBOO c4, SERIALNUMBER=
870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c63
9, [email protected], CN=KHUSHBOO MITTAL GUPTA Reason: I am the author of this document
Date: 2026.10.23 17:34:13+05'30'
MITTAL GUPTA Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0
Page 16 of 24
17 OA Nos.308/2020, 370/2022 & 207/2023
(i) Recruitment of candidates belonging to reserved
communities against unreserved vacancies based
on their own merit;
(ii) Reservation in promotion;
(iii) Promotion of reserved category candidates on
unreserved vacancies on their own merit.
(i) . Recruitment of candidates belonging to reserved
communities against unreserved vacancies based on their
own merit – As regards the first issue, i.e. Appointment /
Recruitment of candidates belonging to reserved communities
securing recruitment against unreserved vacancies based on
securing / achieving merit, the same is well settled and
permissible and is not under challenge in the present case.
(ii). Reservation in promotion – As to the second issue of
reservation in promotion, the same has been considered and
adjudicated upon by no less than the Constitution Bench of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in M.Nagaraj’s case. While upholding the
Constitutional Amendments in Article 16(4) enabling reservation
in promotion, its implementation was made conditional upon the
State fulfilling the constitutional requirements. Even the grant of
reservation in promotion was not held to be automatic but was to
be implemented on fulfillment of the conditions, and the same
view has also been taken by the Hon’ble Apex Court in its
subsequent judgment dated 18.01.2022 titled as Jarnail Singh
and others Vs. Lachhmi Narain Gupta and others, Civil Appeal
No.629/2022 arising out of SLP (C) No.30621/2011, following
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=central administrative
tribunal, PostalCode=302001, L=Jaipur, S=Rajasthan, STREET="Sahakar
Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan", OID.2.5.4.65=f9c6978f22a7c6d, Phone=
c9127d0032386c6ff6f2dc108496f05e732619225ac1f8243ae98c53d99f7e
KHUSHBOO c4, SERIALNUMBER=
870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c63
9, [email protected], CN=KHUSHBOO MITTAL GUPTA Reason: I am the author of this document
Date: 2026.10.23 17:34:13+05'30'
MITTAL GUPTA Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0
Page 17 of 24
18 OA Nos.308/2020, 370/2022 & 207/2023
which the DoPT issued OM dated 12.04.2022 regarding
reservation in promotion. The relevant extract of the same is
reproduced below :-
“The undersigned is directed to bring to your notice
the judgement dated 28.01.2022 of the Supreme Court of
India in the case of Jarnail Singh and Ors. V. Lachhmi
Narain Gupta and Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 629 of 2022
arising out of SLP (C) No. 30621 of 2011) and other
connected matters. Pursuant to this judgement, the Ld.
Attorney General for India has rendered his considered
opinion in the matter.
2. In the judgement dated 28.1.2022, the Supreme Court
has set out the conditions that are to be satisfied by the
Government for the purpose of implementing the policy of
reservation in promotions. These conditions are :
(i) Collection of quantifiable data regarding
inadequacy of representation of Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes;
(ii) Application of this data to each cadre
separately; and
(iii) If a roster exists, the unit for operation of the
roster would be the cadre for which the quantifiable
data would have to be collected and applied in
regard to the filling up of the vacancies in the roster
This judgement currently holds the field.
3. …..
4. …..
5. Since the Jarnail Singh batch of cases is pending in
the Supreme Court of India, any promotion order issued
shall be subject to further orders that may be passed by
the Supreme Court in the said batch of cases.”
In other words, even reservation in promotion is not
unconditional or automatic.
The stipulation in paragraph No.5 of the above-cited
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=central administrative
tribunal, PostalCode=302001, L=Jaipur, S=Rajasthan, STREET="Sahakar
Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan", OID.2.5.4.65=f9c6978f22a7c6d, Phone=
c9127d0032386c6ff6f2dc108496f05e732619225ac1f8243ae98c53d99f7e
KHUSHBOO c4, SERIALNUMBER=
870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c63
9, [email protected], CN=KHUSHBOO MITTAL GUPTA Reason: I am the author of this document
Date: 2026.10.23 17:34:13+05'30'
MITTAL GUPTA Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0
Page 18 of 24
19 OA Nos.308/2020, 370/2022 & 207/2023
OM, which states that any promotions made shall be subject to
the outcome of the Jarnail Singh’s case (batch of cases)
pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, does not mean that
the Government / Departments can make promotions contrary to
or without fulfilling the conditions laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the abovementioned judgment dated
28.01.2022. We have noticed that there is an attempt in some
sections within the respondent-department to circumvent the
stipulation in Clause 5 of the above-cited OM dated 12.04.2022
and to interpret it otherwise. Clause 5 applies only to reservation
in promotion and, by no means, applies to ‘on own merit basis’
promotion of reserved-category candidates on unreserved seats.
In fact, in the matter of reservation in promotion, the Coordinate
Bench of Jabalpur Bench of this Tribunal passed a judgment in
the case of Skandh Shrivastava and others Vs. Union of India
and others decided on 29.07.2025 held as follows :
“11. In view of the above referred categorical
declaration of law by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
M.Nagaraj (supra) coupled with the judgment passed by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jarnail Singh (supra)
case we are of the considered view that no authority or
Government can follow the rule of reservation in
promotions in the current scenario. Hence, the action of
the respondents in following the rule of reservation in
promotions is unsustainable.
12. Therefore, we set aside the impugned letter
dated 10.02.2023 (Annexure A/5) and the seniority list
issued in pursuance to the same vide order dated
26.06.2023 (Annexure A/8) is set aside. The
respondents are directed to carry out due modification in
the seniority list by allotting the correct seniority to the
applicants vis-à-vis the private respondents.”
(iii). Promotion of reserved category candidates on
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=central administrative
tribunal, PostalCode=302001, L=Jaipur, S=Rajasthan, STREET="Sahakar
Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan", OID.2.5.4.65=f9c6978f22a7c6d, Phone=
c9127d0032386c6ff6f2dc108496f05e732619225ac1f8243ae98c53d99f7e
KHUSHBOO c4, SERIALNUMBER=
870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c63
9, [email protected], CN=KHUSHBOO MITTAL GUPTA Reason: I am the author of this document
Date: 2026.10.23 17:34:13+05'30'
MITTAL GUPTA Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0
Page 19 of 24
20 OA Nos.308/2020, 370/2022 & 207/2023
unreserved vacancies ‘on their own merit’ – Now, coming to
the third issue of promotion of reserved category candidates
against unreserved vacancies ‘on their own merit’, which is the
subject matter of the present case , the DoPT OM dated
10.08.2008 and the Railway Board RBE No.126/2010 dated
14.09.2010, which provided for the promotion of reserved
category persons to unreserved posts, were quashed and set
aside by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in
Jarnail Singh’s case. The SLP against the said judgment is still
pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In Contempt Petition
No.314/2016 in SLP (C) No.4831/2012 in the matter of Samta
Andolan Samiti Vs. Shri Sanjay Kothari and others (supra),
the Learned Solicitor General of India has given a specific
undertaking before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, following which
the Railway Board issued RBE No.117/2016 on 30.09.2016. The
relevant extract of the same is reproduced below :-
“The aforesaid Contempt Petition (C) No. 314/2016 in
SLP (C) No. 4831 of 2012 came up for hearing on 29.09.2016.
In follow up of hearing of the above mentioned contempt case,
Shri Ranjit Kumar, the Learned Solicitor General of India vide
his letter No. 'SG/2/2016-262(1) dated 29.09.2016, has
communicated and advised Mo Railways as under:-
".....After hearing the matter for sometime, the
Court felt that the main matter is required to be
decided and therefore, adjourned the Contempt
Petition to be decided along with the main matters
and fixed the date of hearing for 22.11.2016 as the
first case. The court stated that if the Solicitor
General wants to make a statement that no
further promotions of reserved category
persons to unreserved posts will be made
relying on the circulars dated 10.08.2010 /
14.09.2010, then they would not pass any
further interim order. I informed the court that
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=central administrative
tribunal, PostalCode=302001, L=Jaipur, S=Rajasthan, STREET="Sahakar
Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan", OID.2.5.4.65=f9c6978f22a7c6d, Phone=
c9127d0032386c6ff6f2dc108496f05e732619225ac1f8243ae98c53d99f7e
KHUSHBOO c4, SERIALNUMBER=
870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c63
9, [email protected], CN=KHUSHBOO MITTAL GUPTA Reason: I am the author of this document
Date: 2026.10.23 17:34:13+05'30'
MITTAL GUPTA Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0
Page 20 of 24
21 OA Nos.308/2020, 370/2022 & 207/2023
the Government would not pass any further order
of promotion relying upon either of these two
circulars or on the basis thereof. I also conveyed
to the Court that I will write a letter informing of
about my statement to the Court to you and to the
Secretary, DOP&T and the Chairman, Railway
Board. That is why I am addressing this letter to
you so that all the Departments are conveyed of
the assurance given in the Court that in the
matter of making any promotion of a reserved
category officer/employee the Department
concerned would not rely upon or make the
basis of such promotion to an unreserved post
based on the circulars dated 10.08.2010 and
14.09.2010 and that any violation thereof will
bring about a definite contempt.... .."
(Circular dated 14.9.2010 as quoted by the
Ld. SG be read as 01.09.2010 which is RBE
126/2010 dated 01.09.2010 issued based on
DOP&T's O.M. dated 10.8.2010)
In view of the above assurance, received
from the Ld. Solicitor General of India, it is advised
that Railway Board's RBE No. 126/2010 dated
01.09.2010, is held in abeyance with immediate
effect till further advice, and all further promotions
of reserved category persons to unreserved posts
will now be made by ignoring Railway Board's
RBE No. 126/2010 dated 01.09.2010 which in turn
was based upon the DOP&T's OM dated
10.08.2010 & under reference No. (i) & (ii) above.”
16 . From the above, it is evident that the Learned Solicitor
General of India, in writing, communicated to the Government
and it is loud and clear that only because the Learned Solicitor
General of India made a statement that “no further promotion of
reserved category persons to unreserved posts will be made
relying on the Circular dated 10.08.2010 / 14.09.2010”, “….they
would not pass any further interim orders”. Yet, we have noticed
in various cases coming before us that certain individuals within
the respondent-department are bent upon going ahead with the
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=central administrative
tribunal, PostalCode=302001, L=Jaipur, S=Rajasthan, STREET="Sahakar
Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan", OID.2.5.4.65=f9c6978f22a7c6d, Phone=
c9127d0032386c6ff6f2dc108496f05e732619225ac1f8243ae98c53d99f7e
KHUSHBOO c4, SERIALNUMBER=
870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c63
9, [email protected], CN=KHUSHBOO MITTAL GUPTA Reason: I am the author of this document
Date: 2026.10.23 17:34:13+05'30'
MITTAL GUPTA Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0
Page 21 of 24
22 OA Nos.308/2020, 370/2022 & 207/2023
promotion of reserved category persons to unreserved posts.
17 . The DoPT OM as well as the Railway Board RBE
No.117/2016, when stating that the promotion shall be subject to
the outcome of the main SLPs pending before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, do not mean that, in the meanwhile, the
respondent-department can promote reserved category
persons to unreserved posts and get away by merely writing
in the promotion order that the promotions are subject to the
outcome of the SLP.
18. The very undertaking of the learned Solicitor
General before the Hon’ble Supreme Court is to not promote
reserved category persons against unreserved vacancies
during the interim period till the pendency of the SLPs.
19. The Hon’ble High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam Bench,
in the case of M.Dhinu Rakesh & Others Vs. Sam Divanni &
Others, has also categorically stated in its judgment dated
18.01.2021 (the relevant extract of which is reproduced above in
para No.9) that –
“14. As already stated, the principal question to be
considered is whether the undertaking given by the Solicitor
General before the Apex Court still holds good. The order
dated 5/6/2018 of the Apex Court only indicates that the
promotion shall be carried out in accordance with law. As
rightly pointed out by learned counsel for respondents, the
said order cannot be interpreted to mean that reserved
category members can be promoted to unreserved posts.”
20. The respondents’ side relied upon the Railway Board
RBE No.147/2023 in which Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in
R.K.Sabharwal (supra) has been cited as “ In this regard, it is
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=central administrative
tribunal, PostalCode=302001, L=Jaipur, S=Rajasthan, STREET="Sahakar
Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan", OID.2.5.4.65=f9c6978f22a7c6d, Phone=
c9127d0032386c6ff6f2dc108496f05e732619225ac1f8243ae98c53d99f7e
KHUSHBOO c4, SERIALNUMBER=
870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c63
9, [email protected], CN=KHUSHBOO MITTAL GUPTA Reason: I am the author of this document
Date: 2026.10.23 17:34:13+05'30'
MITTAL GUPTA Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0
Page 22 of 24
23 OA Nos.308/2020, 370/2022 & 207/2023
stated that in R K Sabharwal judgment, Hon’ble Supreme Court
has stated that reserved category candidates can compete for
non-reserved post and in the event of appointment to the said
post their number cannot be added or taken into consideration for
working out the percentage of reservation. The aforesaid
instructions were reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Jarnail Singh judgment.”
“However, as stated by the Hon’ble Court, so long as the
instructions / Rules providing certain percentage of reservations
for the backward classes are operative, the same have to be
followed and despite any number of appointment / promotes
belonging to the backward classes against the general category
posts, the given percentage has to be provided in addition.”
“Ministry of Railways is therefore advised to follow the Hon’ble
Supreme Court judgments in cases of R K Sabharwal and Jarnail
Singh i.e. reserved category candidates can compete for non-
reserved post and in the event of their appointment to the said
post, their number cannot be added or taken into consideration
for working out the percentage of reservation.”
The above is not in respect of promotion but is
regarding recruitment.
21. We would like to emphasize that the judgment dated
28.001.2022 as well as the OM dated 12.04.2022 relates to
reservation in promotion and not to the promotion of reserved
category candidates against unreserved posts by taking the plea
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=central administrative
tribunal, PostalCode=302001, L=Jaipur, S=Rajasthan, STREET="Sahakar
Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan", OID.2.5.4.65=f9c6978f22a7c6d, Phone=
c9127d0032386c6ff6f2dc108496f05e732619225ac1f8243ae98c53d99f7e
KHUSHBOO c4, SERIALNUMBER=
870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c63
9, [email protected], CN=KHUSHBOO MITTAL GUPTA Reason: I am the author of this document
Date: 2026.10.23 17:34:13+05'30'
MITTAL GUPTA Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0
Page 23 of 24
24 OA Nos.308/2020, 370/2022 & 207/2023
of “on own merit”. However, certain sections within the
respondent-department are trying to deliberately find ways to
interpret / define and twist the above-cited judgments as well as
the specific undertaking by their own Solicitor General.
22. The principle of “on own merit” is applicable only at the
time of recruitment. However, those belonging to reserved
categories, who entered the service availing reservation and / or
have availed reservation in promotion, cannot claim “own merit
basis” for promotion against unreserved post at any subsequent
stage of their service, as per the law that stands as on date.
23. Accordingly, the impugned Notification dated
16.02.2023 is quashed, and the respondents are directed to
prepare a fresh eligibility list / suitability list and promote only
reserved category candidates against reserved posts and
unreserved category candidates against unreserved post.
24. Accordingly, all the Original Applications are allowed .
No order as to costs.
25. Pending MAs, if any, stand closed.
(Lok Ranjan) (Ranjana Shahi)
Member (A) Member (J)
kmg*
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=central administrative
tribunal, PostalCode=302001, L=Jaipur, S=Rajasthan, STREET="Sahakar
Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan", OID.2.5.4.65=f9c6978f22a7c6d, Phone=
c9127d0032386c6ff6f2dc108496f05e732619225ac1f8243ae98c53d99f7e
KHUSHBOO c4, SERIALNUMBER=
870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c63
9, [email protected], CN=KHUSHBOO MITTAL GUPTA Reason: I am the author of this document
Date: 2026.10.23 17:34:13+05'30'
MITTAL GUPTA Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0
Page 24 of 24