Reservation in promotion without quantifiable data on backwardness and inadequate representation is invalid.

The applicant, Surendra Singh Chauhan, challenged a promotion panel dated 22/11/2022 (Annexure A/4) issued by the Western Railway.

The panel granted promotion to private respondents belonging to the reserved category against vacancies specifically notified for the general category, while one SC category post was carried forward as vacant.

Six vacancies were notified on 06/07/2022: four for General category, one for SC, and one for ST.

The result, declared on 07/10/2022, showed two SC and six general category candidates passed, while ST candidates did not clear.

Subsequently, two general category vacancies were allotted to two SC category candidates.

The applicant contended that had the SC candidates not been adjusted against general vacancies, he would have been promoted.

An interim order dated 30.11.2022 was clarified on M.A. No. 200/27/2023 to pertain only to respondents 4 & 5, allowing promotion proceedings for others subject to the final outcome of this O.A.

Consequently, candidates at Sl. No. 2 & 3 of the panel were promoted on 16.02.2023.

The applicant's name appeared at Sl.No. 5 in the panel.

Whether the impugned promotion panel dated 22/11/2022, promoting reserved category candidates against general category vacancies without quantifiable data on backwardness and inadequacy of representation, is permissible in law.

Whether the applicant is entitled to promotion to the post of Junior Engineer (Tele) Grade pay level-6 with effect from 22/11/2022 with consequential benefits.

The Tribunal applied the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in *M. Nagraj Vs. Union of India, 2006 (8) SCC 212* and *Jarnail Singh Vs. Lachhmi Narain Gupta, 2018 (10) SCC 396*.

These judgments establish that reservation in promotion is not permissible without the State collecting quantifiable data showing backwardness of the class and inadequacy of representation of that class in public employment, in addition to compliance with Article 335 of the Constitution.

It was highlighted that the ceiling-limit of 50%, the concept of creamy layer, and compelling reasons (backwardness, inadequacy of representation, and overall administrative efficiency) are constitutional requirements.

Furthermore, the collection of data must be cadre-wise, not group-wise.

The O.M. No 36012/11/2016 -Estt (Res -I) (Pt -II dated 15.06.2018 issued by DOP&T regarding promotions was also noted.

The Tribunal found that the respondents had not conducted the mandatory exercise of collecting quantifiable data to establish inadequacy of representation of SC & ST categories, as required by *M. Nagraj* (supra) and affirmed by *Jarnail Singh* (supra).

The court reiterated that any deviation from the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, especially regarding the requirement for quantifiable data, violates established constitutional mandates.

The impugned panel adjusted two SC category candidates against general category vacancies without demonstrating the necessary compelling reasons for reservation in promotion, thereby impinging on the legal and fundamental rights of the applicant under Article 14 of the Constitution.

The respondents' reliance on Railway Board circular RBE No. 53/2022 dated 13/04/2022 was deemed unsustainable in the face of Apex Court pronouncements.

Since no exercise for collecting quantifiable data was conducted, the action of following the rule of reservation in promotions was unsustainable.

It was held that the respondents' action in following the rule of reservation in promotions without collecting quantifiable data was unsustainable.

The Tribunal directed the respondents/competent authority to consider the applicant's case for promotion under the panel dated 22/11/2022 (Annexure A-4) with consequential benefits of pay fixation, seniority, etc., within a period of 90 days from the receipt of the order.