Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.    209            OF 2015 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 4385 of 2010)

CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & ORS.

.....APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA SC/ST EMPLOYEES WELFARE ASSOCIATION & ORS. .....RESPONDENT(S)

W I T H

CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 320 OF 2010 IN

SPECIAL LEVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 5046 OF 2010

W I T H

CIVIL APPEAL NO.    210        OF 2015 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 4483 of 2010)

W I T H

CIVIL APPEAL NO.   211         OF 2015 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 5046 of 2010)

W I T H

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  212          OF 2015 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 6002 of 2010)

A N D

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  213          OF 2015 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 6125 of 2010)

Civil Appeal No.          of 2015 & Ors. Page 1 of 35 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 4385 of 2010 & Ors.)

Page 2

J U D G M E N T

A.K. SIKRI, J.

Leave granted.  Impleadment and intervention applications  

are allowed.

2) The issue which arises for  consideration in  these appeals  lies  

within a narrow campus and is crisp one, though at the same time  

it is of seminal importance for the parties before us. It relates to  

the  rule  of  reservation  of  the  Scheduled  Castes  (SC)  and  

Scheduled Tribes (ST) in the promotion in the officer grade/scale  

in  the appellant  Banks.  There is  no dispute  that  the appellant  

Banks, which are statutory/public sector banks, are following the  

applicable  guidelines  of  the  Central  Government  pertaining  to  

reservation of SC and ST employees insofar as their promotion  

from clerical grade to officer grade is concerned. The question to  

be  answered  is  as  to  whether  there  is  any  reservation  in  the  

promotions from one officer grade/scale to another grade/scale,  

when such promotions are made on selection basis. As per the  

appellant Banks, there is no rule of reservation for promotion in  

the Class A (Class-I) to the posts/scales having basic salary of  

more than 5,700/- and in the relevant instructions, issued in the₹   

form of Office Memoranda, only a concession is provided in the  

Civil Appeal No.          of 2015 & Ors. Page 2 of 35 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 4385 of 2010 & Ors.)

Page 3

manner  officers  belonging  to  SC/ST  category  are  to  be  

considered for promotion. To put it otherwise, the position taken  

by the Banks is that there is no rule of reservation for promotions  

and  the  candidature  of  these  officers  belonging  to  these  

categories  for  promotion  is  to  be  considered  on  the  basis  of  

relaxed standards. The respondents, who are SC/ST Employees'  

Unions of the appellant Banks or individuals belonging to such  

categories,  dispute  the  aforesaid  stand  taken  by  the  Banks.  

According to them, the circular issued by the Central Government  

expressly provides for such a reservation.  

3) It is interesting to note that for taking their respective positions  

both the parties rely upon O.M. dated 13-08-1997 issued by the  

Central Government (which, of course, is to be read along with  

other  connected  office  memoranda).  Thus,  outcome  of  these  

appeals  would  depend  upon  the  interpretation  that  is  to  be  

accorded to the said Office Memorandum dated 13-08-1997. As  

the Banks are in appeal against the judgment of High Court of  

Judicature at Madras rendered on 09-12-2009 whereby number  

of writ appeals were disposed of, it can clearly be discerned that  

insofar  as  High  Court  is  concerned  its  interpretation  to  the  

aforesaid circular has gone in favour of the SC/ST employees.   

Civil Appeal No.          of 2015 & Ors. Page 3 of 35 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 4385 of 2010 & Ors.)

Page 4

4) Before we revert to the fulcrum of the issue and give our answer  

thereto, we deem it apposite  to recapitulate in brief the historical  

facts which have led to the present lis.

5) As already noted above, the appellant Banks, which are statutory  

Banks and Public Sector Undertakings, have been following the  

reservation policy of the Government of India as issued by the  

Government from time to time. For doing so, the Promotion Policy  

of each of such bank makes specific provision in this behalf. It is  

also  a  matter  of  common knowledge that  Ministry  of  Finance,  

Government of India is the nodal ministry for framing policy on  

reservations for financial institutions/banks. To given an example,  

Regulation 1.1 of the promotion policy for officers of UCO Bank  

makes such a provision in the following manner:

“The Promotion policy for officers in the Bank has  been  designed  in  the  context  of  the  guidelines  issued by the Government from time to time under  the Officers Service Regulations.”  

It will also be relevant to quote hereunder Regulation 22 of  

the  aforesaid  promotion  policy.  This  Regulation  makes  the  

following reading:

“22.   Concession/Relaxations  etc  for  SC/ST,  Physically Handicapped, Ex-servicemen and Other  categories of officers;

Civil Appeal No.          of 2015 & Ors. Page 4 of 35 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 4385 of 2010 & Ors.)

Page 5

22.1 The  guidelines/  directives/  administrative  instructions  issued  by  the  Government  of  India  from time to time regarding relaxation/concession/  reservation etc. for SC/ST, physically handicapped,  Ex-serviceman and such other special  categories  of officers in the matter of scale to scale promotions  within the Officers' Grade shall be deemed to be a  part of the policy and given effect to accordingly.”

6) It is an accepted position that identical promotion policy is framed  

by each of these appellant Banks.

7) As  per  the  aforesaid  promotion  policy,  incorporating  the  

reservation policy framed by the Central Government in respect  

of  candidates  belonging  to  SC/ST  category,  the  banks  are  

according 15% reservation for SC and 7.5% reservation for ST  

candidates. It is done at the initial level of recruitment and also for  

promotion  in  the  clerical  cadre.  Such  a  reservation  is  also  

provided for promotion from clerical grade to the lowest rank in  

the  officers  grade  which  is  commonly  known  as  Junior  

Management Grade Scale-I (Scale-I). However, when it comes to  

promotion  from  Scale-I  to  the  next  scale,  which  is  known  as  

Middle Management  Grade Scale-II  (Scale-II),  the Banks have  

not  been  making  any  reservations  while  carrying  out  these  

promotions.  As  per  the  Banks,  it  is  because  of  Office  

Memorandum  No.  38012/6/83-East(SCT)  dated  01-11-1990  

issued  by  the  Ministry  of  Personnel,  Public  Grievance  and  Civil Appeal No.          of 2015 & Ors. Page 5 of 35 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 4385 of 2010 & Ors.)

Page 6

Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training), Government of  

India clearly stating that there is no reservation within Group 'A'  

posts.

8) The matter regarding reservations in promotions was considered  

by a nine Judge Bench of this Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union  

of India1,  which was a judgment rendered on 15-11-1992. The  

Court specifically held that the reservation under Article 16(4) of  

the  Constitution  of  India  is  confined  to  initial  appointment  and  

cannot extend to reservation in the matters of promotion. In order  

to  nullify  the  effect  of  the  aforesaid  dicta,  there  was  an  

amendment  to  Article  16  by  Constitution  (Seventy-Seventh  

Amendment)  Act  with  effect  from  17-06-1995.  Vide  this  

amendment, after Clause 4, Clause 4A was inserted in Article 16  

of the Constitution, which was couched in the following language:

4A.  Nothing in this article shall prevent the State  from  making  any  provision  for  reservation  in  matters  of  promotion  to  any  class  or  classes  of  posts in the services under the State in favour of  the  Scheduled  Castes  and the  Scheduled  Tribes  which,  in  the  opinion  of  the  State,  are  not  adequately represented in the services under the  state.”  

Clause (4) of Article 16 is worded as follows:

“4. Nothing in this article shall prevent the State  from making  any  provision  for  the  reservation  of  

1

(1992) Supp 3 SCC 217 Civil Appeal No.          of 2015 & Ors. Page 6 of 35 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 4385 of 2010 & Ors.)

Page 7

appointments or posts in favour of any backward  class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State,  is not adequately represented in the services under  the State.

The constitutional position on the insertion of Clause 4A is  

that  the  State  is  now  empowered  to  make  provision  for  

reservation in matter of promotions as well, in favour of SC and  

ST wherever the State is of the opinion that SCs and STs are not  

adequately  represented  in  the  service  under  the  State.  

Nevertheless, it is only an enabling provision which empowers the  

State  to  make  any  provision  for  reservation  for  SC  and  ST  

candidates in the matter of promotion as well.

9) In order to complete the historical narration of facts, it becomes  

necessary  to  mention  that  after  the  aforesaid  amendment,  a  

question had arisen as to whether a person in SC or ST category,  

who gets  accelerated  promotion because of  reservation  would  

also get consequential seniority in the higher post if he gets that  

promotion earlier than his senior in general category.  The Court  

answered this question in the case of Union of India and Others   

etc. v. Virpal Singh Chauhan and Others2 holding that such an  

employee belonging to SC/ST category on promotion would not  

get consequential seniority and his seniority will be governed by  

the panel position. This led to another Constitution amendment  2 (1995) 6 SCC 684 Civil Appeal No.          of 2015 & Ors. Page 7 of 35 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 4385 of 2010 & Ors.)

Page 8

and  the  Parliament  enacted  Constitution  (Eighty-Fifth  

Amendment)  Act,  2001  whereby  Clause  4A of  Article  16  was  

amended. The amended Clause 4A reads as under:

“4A. Nothing in this article shall prevent the State  from  making  any  provision  for  reservation  in  matters of promotion 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 which, in the opinion of the  State,  are  not  adequately  represented  in  the  services under the State.”

10) The  constitutional  position,  as  it  stands  now,  in  view  of  the  

aforesaid amendment, is that such SC/ST candidates who get the  

benefit  of  accelerated  promotion  are  provided  consequential  

seniority as well. This amendment, thus, nullifies the effect of the  

judgment of this Court in Virpal Singh Chauhan (supra). Another  

significant  aspect which is to be noted is that  this amendment  

was  made  retrospectively  from  17.06.1995,  i.e.  the  date  of  

coming into force the original Clause 4A of Article 16.

11) Constitutional validity of Clause 4A of Article 16 as well as Clause  

4B  which  was  also  amended  vide  Eighty-Fifth  Constitution  

Amendment, was challenged before this Court and this challenge  

was repelled in the case of  M. Nagaraj and others v. Union of  

India  and  Others3.  The  Court  specifically  held  that  these  

3 (2006) 8 SCC 212 Civil Appeal No.          of 2015 & Ors. Page 8 of 35 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 4385 of 2010 & Ors.)

Page 9

provisions flow from Article 16(4) and, therefore do not alter the  

structure of Article 16(4). Further, they do not obliterate any of the  

constitutional  requirement,  namely,  ceiling  limit  of  50%  

(quantitative limitation), the concept of creamy layer (qualitative  

exclusion),  the  sub-classification  between  OBCs,  on  the  one  

hand, and SCs/STs on the other hand, as held in Indra Sawhney  

(supra). The Court, at the same time, made it clear that the ceiling  

limit  of  50%,  the  concept  of  creamy layer  and  the  compelling  

reasons,  namely,  backwardness,  inadequacy  of  representation  

and  overall  administrative  efficiency  are  the  constitutional  

requirements without which the structure of equality of opportunity  

in Article 16 would collapse.

12) After  the  amendment  in  Article  16  of  the  Constitution,  with  

incorporation  of  Clause  4A therein,  the  Government  of  India  

issued  Office  Memorandum  dated  13-08-1997  as  the  

interpretation  of  this  O.M.  is  the  bone  of  contention.  As  the  

outcome of these appeals largely depends on the interpretation of  

this Memorandum, we feel apposite to reproduce the said O.M.  

dated 13-08-1997 in toto:

“No. 36012/18/95-Esst(Res.) Pt:II GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

Ministry of Personnel Public, Grievances and  Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training  

Civil Appeal No.          of 2015 & Ors. Page 9 of 35 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 4385 of 2010 & Ors.)

Page 10

North Block, New Delhi Dated the 13th August, 1997

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: RESERVATION FOR THE SCs/STs IN  PROMOTION

The  undersigned  is  directed  to  invite  attention  to  this  Department's  OM  No.  36012/37/93-Esst.  (SCT)  dated  19.8.1993  clarifying that the Supreme Court had, in the Indira  Sawhney  case,  permitted  the  reservation  for  the  Scheduled  Castes  and  Scheduled  Tribes,  in  promotion,  to  continue for  a  period  of  five  years  from 16.11.1992.

2. Consequent  to  the  Judgment  in  Indira  Sawhney's case the Constitution was amended by  the  Constitution  (Seventy  seventh  Amendment)  Act,  1995 and Article 16(4A) was incorporated in  the Constitution.  This article enables the State to  provide for reservation in matters of promotion, in  favour of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled  Tribes,  which in the opinion of  the State are not  adequately represented in the Services under the  State.

3. In pursuance of Article 16(4A), it has been  decided to continue the Reservation in promotion  as at  present,  for  the Scheduled Castes and the  Scheduled Tribes in the services/posts under the  Central  Government  beyond  15.11.1997  till  such  time as the representation of each of the above two  categories  in  each cadre  reaches  the  prescribed  percentages  of  reservation  whereafter,  the  reservation in promotion shall continue to maintain  the representation to the extent of the prescribed  percentages for the respective categories.

4. All  Ministries/Department  are  requested to  urgently bring these instructions to the notice of all  their  attached/subordinate  offices  as  also  the  Public Sector Undertakings and Statutory Bodies  etc.

Sd/- (Y.G. PARANDE)

Director (Reservation)” Civil Appeal No.          of 2015 & Ors. Page 10 of 35 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 4385 of 2010 & Ors.)

Page 11

Impugned Judgment

13) The  respondents  Associations  representing  SC  and  ST  

employees had filed writ  petitions in the High Court of Madras  

submitting that in spite of there being a clear policy of reservation  

even for  promotion  from one category  of  officer  to  the  higher  

category of officers,  the appellant Banks had not been making  

any  provision  for  such  reservations  while  carrying  out  the  

promotions.  Mandamus  was  sought  seeking  directions  against  

the Bank to specify such reservation to SC/ST officers as per the  

promotion  policy  for  officers.  The  learned Single  Judge of  the  

High Court dismissed the writ petitions holding that Article 16(4A)  

was only an enabling provision which permits the State to make  

provisions for reservation insofar as promotions are concerned.  

However, in the instant case, no such provision was made. No  

material  was  produced  by  the  writ  petitioners  which  could  

demonstrate any such specific provision for promotion.

14) The writ petitioners challenged said order by filing writ appeals  

before  the  Division  Bench.  The  Division  Bench  has  taken  a  

contrary view. A perusal of the judgment of the Division Bench  

would spell out that it has gone by the spirit behind Articles 15  

and 16 of the Constitution which are in the nature of affirmative  

Civil Appeal No.          of 2015 & Ors. Page 11 of 35 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 4385 of 2010 & Ors.)

Page 12

actions that can be taken by the State in providing reservations  

for  the  socially  and  educationally  backward  people  and  that  

includes SC and ST classes. It has pointed out that Article 16(4)  

is specifically designed to give a due share in the State power to  

those who have remained out  of  it  mainly  on account  of  their  

social,  educational,  economic  backwardness  as  reservation  

affords such classes of citizens a golden opportunity to serve the  

nation and thus gain security, status, comparative affluence and  

influence in  decision making process.  It  was  with  this  spirit  in  

mind  Clause 4A was inserted introducing an enabling provision  

for providing reservation in the matter of promotion as well. The  

High Court thereafter took note of the statistics that was placed  

on  record  to  show  the  strength  of  SC/ST  officers  in  various  

grades/scales/cadres in respect of UCO Bank as well as Central  

Bank of India and found that there was hardly any representation  

in the higher scales, what to talk of adequate representation. The  

figures given in respect of Central Bank of India are noted in para  

22 of the impugned judgment, stating as under:

“22.  ......A  consolidated  statement  for  the  promotions from the year 1997 to 2008 in MMG:III- IV:, SMG: IV-V; SMG V-VI; TMG VI-TMG VII would  depict a bleak picture regarding the entire aspect  since least or no presentation for SC/ST could be  seen  glaringly.  As  per  these  calculations  for  the  total  promotions  of  20  posts,  only  one  SC  candidate got promotion in the year 2007 and for a  

Civil Appeal No.          of 2015 & Ors. Page 12 of 35 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 4385 of 2010 & Ors.)

Page 13

total  promotions  of  171,  within  these  categories  only  nine  SC  candidates  got  promotion.  In  promotions effected for the years 1997 and 2002,  respectively for 19 posts and six posts, no SC/ST  candidate was offered promotion. In the year 1999,  for  a  total  number  of  126  posts,  only  one  SC  candidate  was  given  promotion.  Likewise,  for  a  whopping 308 numbered of promotions in the year  2006  a  meager  36  candidates  of  SC/ST  were  promoted.”

The  Court  also  noticed  almost  identical  feature  in  UCO Bank  

giving the following details :

“23. …....As  per the scale wise representation  of  SC/ST  officers  as  on  31.3.2008  in  the  UCO  Bank, in Scale IV posts there is a short fall of 50  SC officers and 31 ST officers in Scale V posts,  there  is  a  short  fall  of  10  SC officers  and 7  ST  officers; in Scale VI, there is a short fall  of 5 SC  officers and 2 ST officers and in Scale VII posts,  there is a short  fall  of  3 SC officers and one ST  officer.”

15) Office Memorandum dated 13-08-1997 has been read in the light  

of  the  aforesaid  constitutional  spirit  as  well  as  inadequate  

representation of  SC/ST category officers in the Banks holding  

that the mandate of the said O.M. was to provide for reservation.

16) While holding so, the High Court also repelled the contention of  

the Banks predicated on Article  335 of  the Constitution on the  

basis  of  which  it  was  contended  that  introduction  of  rule  of  

reservation  in  promotion  would  reduce  the  efficiency  of  

administration  of  Banks.  The  Court  specifically  took  note  of  Civil Appeal No.          of 2015 & Ors. Page 13 of 35 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 4385 of 2010 & Ors.)

Page 14

Constitution  Eighty-Second  Amendment  which  was  made  

effective from 08-09-2000 and provides that nothing in this Article  

shall prevent in making any provision in favour of the members of  

the  Scheduled  Castes  and  Scheduled  Tribes  for  relaxation  in  

qualifying marks in any examination or lowering the standards of  

evaluation, for reservation in matters of promotion to any class or  

classes of services or posts in connection with the affairs of the  

Union  or  of  a  State.  In  the  opinion  of  the  High  Court,  when  

Constitution  has  given  such  extra  protection  to  the  under  

privileged  communities  so  as  to  enjoy  equal  opportunities  as  

guaranteed  by  the  Constitution,  the  Banks  are  not  justified  in  

sleeping over the matter providing reservations in promotions for  

a decade with no good reasons to offer.

17) The position taken by both the parties remains the same before  

us as well. According to the Banks, vide O.M. dated 13-08-1997  

“it has been decided to continue the reservation in promotion as  

at present, for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes in  

the services/posts...........”. It is, thus, argued that this O.M. did not  

make any reservation in  the matter  of  promotion but  whatever  

was existing earlier has been continued. M/s. C.S. Vaidyanathan  

and Raju Ramachandran, learned Senior Advocates, who argued  

Civil Appeal No.          of 2015 & Ors. Page 14 of 35 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 4385 of 2010 & Ors.)

Page 15

for these Banks laid strong emphasis on the aforesaid language  

employed in the O.M. and submitted that  only existing position  

continued and the position which was existing was that there was  

no  specific  provision  for  reservation.  The  only  provision  which  

existed  was  judging  the  candidature  of  SC/ST  candidates  for  

promotion in Class A (Class I) service drawing more than basic  

salary of  ₹5,700/-, to apply relaxed standards. It was submitted  

that such a provision existed in O.M. dated 01-11-1990. It  was  

pointed that in para 2 of this O.M. a mention was made about the  

concession which was to be given to the officers belonging to  

these categories and in para 3 it was amply clarified that there is  

no reservation in promotion by selection. Paras 2and 3 of O.M.  

dated  01-11-1990 read as under:

“2. Though in the OM cited above it has been  clearly  mentioned  that  in  promotion  by  selection  within Class I (now Group A) to posts which carry  an ultimate salary of Rs. 2000/- per month or less  (since revised to Rs. 5700/-) the Scheduled Castes  and  Scheduled  Tribes  will  be  given  concession  namely  “those  scheduled  Castes  and  Scheduled  Tribes  who  are  senior  enough  in  the  zone  of  consideration for promotion so as to be within the  number of vacancies for which select list has to be  drawn up, would be included in that list  provided  they are not considered unfit for promotion”, doubts  have  been  expressed  in  certain  quarters  as  to  whether  the  concession  given herein  above  is  a  reservation or a concession.

3. It  is  hereby  clarified  that  in  promotion  by  selection  within  group  A  posts  which  carry  an  

Civil Appeal No.          of 2015 & Ors. Page 15 of 35 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 4385 of 2010 & Ors.)

Page 16

ultimate  salary  of  Rs.  5700/-  p.m.  there  is  no  reservation.”  

18) It  was  argued  that  a  conjoint  reading  of  the  aforesaid  two  

circulars, namely, O.M. dated 01-11-1990 and 13-08-1997 would  

manifest  that  the  provision  was  made  for  concession  and  not  

reservation in the matter of promotion. Reliance was placed on  

two judgments of this Court where distinction between concession  

and reservation is explained lucidly:

(i) National  Federation  of  S.B.I.  and  Others  v. Union  of  

India and Others4

“15. In 1987, the Government of India issued the  7th Edn. of  the said Brochure in which para 9.2,  corresponding to the one quoted above, reads as  follows:

MHA OM No. 1/9/69. Estt.(SCT) dated 26-3-70 and  Deptt.  of  Personnel  &  AR  OM  No.  1/10/74-Estt. (SCT) dated 23-12-1974

“9.2  Promotion  by  selection  method.—  (a)  Promotions  by  selection  within  Group  A  (Class-I).

In  promotions  by  selection  to  posts  within  Group  A  (Class  I)  which  carry  an  ultimate  salary of Rs 2000 per month, or less, (Rs 2250  per month or less in the revised scale) there is   no reservation, but the Scheduled Castes and  Scheduled  Tribes  officers,  who  are  senior  enough  in  the  zone  of  consideration  for  promotion  so as to  be  within  the number  of  vacancies  for  which the select  list  has been  drawn  up,  would  be  included  in  that  list  provided  they  are  not  considered  unfit  for  

4 (1995) 3 SCC 532 Civil Appeal No.          of 2015 & Ors. Page 16 of 35 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 4385 of 2010 & Ors.)

Page 17

promotion.  Their  position  in  the  select  list  would, however, be the same as assigned to  them  by  the  Departmental  Promotion  Committee  on  the  basis  of  their  record  of  service.  They  would  not  be  given  for  this  purpose, one grading higher than the grading  otherwise assignable to them on the basis of  their record of service.

In order to improve the chances of Scheduled  Castes  and  Scheduled  Tribes  officers  for  selection to the higher categories of posts in  Group A (Class I).

(i) Scheduled  Castes/Scheduled  Tribes  officers  in  Group  A (Class  I)  Services/Posts  should be provided with more opportunities for  institutional  training  and  for  attending  seminars/symposia/conferences.  Advantage  would  also  be  taken of  the  training  facilities  available at the Lal Bahadur Shastri National  Academy  of  Administration,  Mussoorie,  National  Police  Academy,  Hyderabad,  Indian  Institute  of  Public  Administration,  New Delhi,  the  Administrative  Staff  College,  Hyderabad  etc. and (ii) It would be the special responsibility of the  immediate superior officers of  the Scheduled  Castes/Scheduled Tribes officers in Class I to  give  advice  and  guidance  to  the  latter  to  improve the quality of their work.”

xx xx xx

19. We  are  unable  to  agree  with  the  learned  counsel. It is admitted on all hands that so far as  promotions  within  Class I  are  concerned — with  which  alone  the  Memorandum  dated  26-3-1970  deals — there are no orders of the Government of  India  applying  the  rule  of  reservation.  We  have  referred hereinbefore  to  the  earlier  Memorandum  dated  11-7-1968  (which  in  turn  refers  to  a  yet  earlier  Memorandum  dated  8-11-1963).  Those  earlier  Memorandums  provide  for  reservation  in  Classes II, III and IV but not for promotion to Class  I and not at any rate to promotions within Class I.  Nor  does  the  Memorandum  dated  26-3-1970  

Civil Appeal No.          of 2015 & Ors. Page 17 of 35 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 4385 of 2010 & Ors.)

Page 18

provide  for  such  reservation.  The  idea  is  self- evident.  While  the  rule  of  reservation  is  made  applicable to the lower categories, viz., Classes II,  III  and  IV  (to  the  extent  specified  in  the  said  Memorandums), no such reservation was thought  advisable in the matter of promotions within Class  I.  Instead  of  reservation,  a  concession  was  provided, the concession explained hereinabove. It  is this fact which has been reiterated, affirmed and  clarified in the subsequent  letters  of  the Finance  Ministry.  It  is  thus  clear  that  the  letters  of  the  Ministry  of  Finance  dated  30-5-1981  and  the  subsequent  ones  do  not  amend  or  modify  the  Office  Memorandum dated  26-3-1970  but  merely  explain it. They make explicit what is implicit in it.  So is the rendering of para 9.2 in the 7th Edn. in  the Brochure. What all they say is that the rule of  reservation  does  not  apply  to  promotions  within  Class I (i.e., promotions to be made on the basis of  selection to posts which carry an ultimate salary of  Rs 2250 per month or less in the revised scale) but  a  concession  in  terms  of  para  2  of  the  Memorandum dated 26-3-1970 is provided in that  behalf. It cannot, therefore, be said that either the  letters of the Ministry of Finance or the rendering of  para  9.2  in  the  7th  Edn.  of  the  Brochure  is  inconsistent  with  the  Memorandum  dated  26-3- 1970 or that they are contrary to the orders of the  Government.

xx xx xx

31. For  the  above  reasons,  we  hold  that  in  the  matter  of  promotion  by  selection  to  posts  within  Class I which carry an ultimate salary of Rs 2250 in  the revised scale of pay per month or less, there is  no  reservation  in  favour  of  Scheduled  Castes/Scheduled  Tribes  but  they  are  entitled  to  the concession contained in  para 2 of  the Office  Memorandum  dated  26-3-1970  issued  by  the  Ministry  of  Home Affairs.  The  concession  is  that  those Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes officers  who are senior enough in the zone of consideration  for  promotion  so  as  to  be  within  the  number  of  vacancies for which the select list has to be drawn  up will be included in the select list provided they  are not  considered unfit  for  promotion.  (This  rule  

Civil Appeal No.          of 2015 & Ors. Page 18 of 35 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 4385 of 2010 & Ors.)

Page 19

has been explained in the body of the judgment by  giving an illustration, which it  is not necessary to  repeat  here.)  The  position  of  such  candidates  included in the select list  would, however,  be the  same as is assigned to them by the Departmental  Promotion Committee on the basis of their record  of  service.  The  said  candidates  would  not  be  entitled, for the purpose of the said selection, one  grading  higher  than  the  grading  otherwise  assignable to them on the basis of their record of  service.  This is also the purport  of  para 9 of  the  Brochure insofar as it deals with promotions within  Class I.”

(ii) Pragjyotish  Gaonlia  Bank  (Now  known  as  Assam  

Gramin Vikash Bank) and Another v. Brijlal Dass5

“24.  Having carefully  considered the submissions  made on behalf of  the respective parties,  we are  inclined to agree with Mr Mehta that the provision  relating to reservation posts extracted hereinabove,  contained  in  the  Circular  dated  10-6-1997,  has  been wrongly interpreted by the Division Bench of  the High Court. The said condition is in the nature  of  a  concession  as  was  contemplated  in  the  Circular  dated  9-11-1994,  issued  by  NABARD in  order to give an opportunity to a Scheduled Caste  or Scheduled Tribe candidate to be automatically  appointed,  if  he  came  within  the  number  of  vacancies available. It was a concession to enable  such a candidate to avoid the process of selection,  which  all  the  other  candidates  were  required  to  undergo.

25. The said provision has been very elaborately  explained by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in  National Federation of SBI v. Union of India; (1995)  3 SCC 532 .  As has been explained in the said  judgment,  the zone of  consideration is  the list  of  selected candidates chosen in order of seniority to  be  considered  for  the  purpose  of  filling  up  the  available vacancies and merely  by coming within  

5 (2009) 3 SCC 323 Civil Appeal No.          of 2015 & Ors. Page 19 of 35 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 4385 of 2010 & Ors.)

Page 20

the  zone of  consideration  a  Scheduled  Caste  or  Scheduled Tribe candidate would not be entitled to  automatic  selection.  The  concession  relating  to  reservation does not mean that any of the vacant  posts were required to be kept reserved for such  Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe candidate. It  is  only  when  such  a  candidate  came  within  the  number of vacancies that such a concession would  be  applicable  to  him/her  for  appointment  without  going through the selection process.

19) Learned counsel appearing for respondents, including Dr. Krishan  

Singh  Chauhan,  Mr.  E.C.  Vidya  Sagar,  Mr.  A.  Subba  Rao,  

Mr.Satyajit  A.  Desai  and  Mr.  C.K.  Chandrasekhar,  Advocates,  

placed strong reliance on the reasons given by the High Court in  

support of its verdict projecting dismal state of affairs virtually no  

representation of the SC/ST employees in the officers category,  

particularly, scale IV and above.

20) It was also argued by these respondents that after the impugned  

judgment  of  the  Division  Bench allowing writ  appeals  of  these  

respondents,  on  14-01-2010  and  01-02-2010,  the  Union  

Government  had  directed  the  implementation  of  the  impugned  

High  Court  judgment.  The  Bank  has  filed  the  SLP,  thereafter.  

Their  present  stand  that  there  will  be  no  reservation  but  only  

concession by considering officers who are senior enough to be  

within the zone and are not declared unfit, is misleading. In fact, a  

Bill  was  passed  in  both  the  Houses  of  the  Parliament  by  the  

Civil Appeal No.          of 2015 & Ors. Page 20 of 35 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 4385 of 2010 & Ors.)

Page 21

previous Government to grant  reservations in promotions at  all  

levels,  (i.e.  117th Constitutional  Amendment),  which had lapsed  

subsequently. It was argued that the Union Government cannot  

take a different stand now.  

21) The claim of the Banks that grant of reservation in promotion from  

Scale-I level onwards would affect efficiency, was also refuted by  

contending  that  the  officers  belonging  to  SC/ST  have  been  

promoted only on the basis of  their  own merit/performance.  It  

was submitted that the State cannot act contrary to Constitutional  

provisions. It was submitted that the decision dated 10-03-1995 in  

National Federation of S.B.I.  (supra) and relied by the Banks  

related to pre-77th Amendment, which came to be passed on 17-

06-1995.   As  per  them,  the  decision  in  M.  Nagaraj (supra)  

answers the issues raised by the Banks.  Pointed reference was  

made to the 117th Amendment Bill, which was taken judicial notice  

of  in  Himachal  Pradesh  Scheduled  Tribes  Employees   

Federation and another v. Himachal Pradesh Samanaya Varg  

Karamchari  Kalayan Mahasangh and others6.   Attention was  

drawn to paras 32 to 34 of the said judgment, which are as under:

“32. Here, we would like to allude to the words of  Lord Denning, in  Rondel v.  Worsley (1967) 1 QB  443 about the conduct expected of an advocate:

6 (2013) 10 SCC 308 Civil Appeal No.          of 2015 & Ors. Page 21 of 35 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 4385 of 2010 & Ors.)

Page 22

“… As an advocate he is a minister of justice  equally  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 the mouthpiece of his client to say what he  wants: or his tool to 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 misstate 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 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.” (QB p. 502)

(emphasis supplied)

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 the members of legal profession.  We expect no less of an advocate/counsel in this  country.

33. Here, in this case, on 26-4-2010 a statement  was made on behalf of the State 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 months after collecting  the  necessary  details  and  datas”.  Having  very  deftly avoided a decision on merits in 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 hemmed and prevaricated from 26-4- 2010 till  date. In spite 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  Dhavan that  the  

Civil Appeal No.          of 2015 & Ors. Page 22 of 35 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 4385 of 2010 & Ors.)

Page 23

applicants  are  seeking  a  mandamus  to  adopt  a  policy in reservation. From the above narration, it is  evident  that  the  applicants  want  the  State  to  implement its own decisions. 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  the  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.”

34. The final  excuse offered by the State for  not  granting the aforesaid relief is that the State now  awaits  the  finalisation  of  the  117th  Constitution  Amendment. We decline to accept the reasons put  forward for not honouring the statement solemnly  made to this Court on 26-4-2010. This Court has  been more than considerate to the requests made  by the State for extension of time. This last excuse  about  awaiting  the  finalisation  of  the  proposed  Hundred-seventeenth Constitutional Amendment is  the proverbial last straw on the camel’s back. As  stated  earlier,  the  proposed  117th  Constitutional  Amendment would not adversely affect the merits  of  the  clam  (sic) of  the  petitioner  for  grant  of  promotion  with  consequential  seniority.  By  the  aforesaid proposed Amendment, the existing Article  16 clause (4-A) is to be substituted by the following  clause (4-A)—

“16. (4-A) 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  the  Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes  in the services of the State.”

Civil Appeal No.          of 2015 & Ors. Page 23 of 35 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 4385 of 2010 & Ors.)

Page 24

22) Much reliance was also placed on a recent decision of this Court  

in the case Rohtas Bhankhar and Others v. Union of India and  

Another7, on the basis of which it was contended that the reliance  

of the Banks in that case on O.M. dated 22.07.1997 was totally  

misplaced as, inasmuch as, in this case the said O.M. is held to  

be bad in law as per the discussion contained in the following  

paragraphs:

“9. We  are  in  respectful  agreement  with  the  decision  in  UT,  Chandigarh  v.  Kuldeep  Singh,   (1997)  9  SCC  199   and  approve  the  same.  Ordinarily,  we would have sent  the matter  to  the  regular  Bench  for  disposal  of  the  matters  but  having regard to the nature of controversy and the  fact that the Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi  (for  short  “the  Tribunal”)  has  followed  S.  Vinod  Kumar v. Union of India, (1996) 6 SCC 580 which is  not good law and resultantly the 1997 OM is also  illegal,  in  our  view,  the  agony  of  the  appellants  need not be prolonged as they are entitled to the  reliefs.

10. Consequently,  the  civil  appeals  are  allowed.  The impugned order is set aside. The 1997 OM is  declared  illegal.  The respondents  are  directed  to  modify  the  results  in  the  Section  Officers/  Stenographers  (Grade  B/Grade  I)  Limited  Departmental  Competitive  Examination,  1996  by  providing  for  reservation  and  extend  all  consequential  reliefs  to  the  appellants,  if  not  granted so far. No costs.”

23) Before  discussing  the  main  issue  involved,  it  would  be  in  the  

fitness of things to iron out some of the creases surrounding the  

7 (2014) 8 SCC 872 Civil Appeal No.          of 2015 & Ors. Page 24 of 35 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 4385 of 2010 & Ors.)

Page 25

main issue.  In fact, this exercise would facilitate understanding  

the precise tenor of the issue that needs to be addressed and  

answered.

24) In  the first  instance,  we make it  clear  that  there is  no dispute  

about the constitutional position envisaged in Articles 15 and 16,  

insofar as these provisions empower the State to take affirmative  

action  in  favour  of  SC/ST  category  persons  by  making  

reservations for them in the employment in the Union or the State  

(or for that matter, public sector/authorities which are treated as  

State under Article 12 of the Constitution).  The laudable objective  

underlying  these  provisions  is  also  to  be  kept  in  mind  while  

undertaking any exercise pertaining to the issues touching upon  

the  reservation  of  such  SC/ST  employees.   Further,  such  a  

reservation  can  not  only  be  made  at  the  entry  level  but  is  

permissible in the matters of promotions as wells.  At the same  

time, it is also to be borne in mind that Clauses 4 and 4A of Article  

16  of  the  Constitution  are  only  the  enabling  provisions  which  

permit  the  State  to  make  provision  for  reservation  of  these  

category  of  persons.   Insofar  as  making  of  provisions  for  

reservation in matters of promotion to any class or classes of post  

is concerned, such a provision can be made in favour of SC/ST  

Civil Appeal No.          of 2015 & Ors. Page 25 of 35 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 4385 of 2010 & Ors.)

Page 26

category employees if, in the opinion of the State, they are not  

adequately  represented in services under the State.   Thus,  no  

doubt, power lies with the State to make a provision, but, at the  

same time, courts cannot issue any mandamus to the State to  

necessarily make such a provision.  It is for the State to act, in a  

given situation, and to take such an affirmative action.  Of course,  

whenever  there  exists  such  a  provision  for  reservation  in  the  

matters  of  recruitment  or  the  promotion,  it  would  bestow  an  

enforceable  right  in  favour  of  persons  belonging  to  SC/ST  

category and on failure on the part of any authority to reserve the  

posts,  while  making  selections/promotions,  the  beneficiaries  of  

these  provisions  can  approach  the  Court  to  get  their  rights  

enforced.  What is to be highlighted is that existence of provision  

for reservation in the matter of selection or promotion, as the case  

may be, is the sine qua non for seeking mandamus as it is only  

when such a provision is made by the State, a right shall accrue  

in favour of SC/ST candidates and not otherwise.

25) It  is  not  in  dispute  that  the  rule  of  reservation  is  followed  for  

promotions from clerical grade to the lowest rank in the officer  

grade.   The  question,  however,  is  as  to  whether  there  is  any  

provision for reservation when promotion from a particular rank in  

the officer grade is to be made to the next rank in the said grade,  Civil Appeal No.          of 2015 & Ors. Page 26 of 35 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 4385 of 2010 & Ors.)

Page 27

namely, from Scale-I to Scale-II, Scale-II to Scale-III and so on.

26) While considering this  question,  we have to keep in  mind that  

reservation policy of the Central Government is applicable to the  

appellant Banks.  It is the common case of both the parties.  In  

fact, as already noted above, there is a specific provision to this  

effect in the promotion policies framed by the appellant Banks.

27) Next  thing  which  is  to  be  kept  in  mind  is  the  two  office  

memoranda, one dated 1.11.1990 and the other dated 13.8.1997,  

which are referred to by the counsel for the parties.  We have  

already reproduced the aforesaid two office memoranda.  Insofar  

as,  Office  Memorandum dated 1.11.1990 is  concerned,  a  bare  

reading of this provision would reflect the following two aspects:

(a) In  promotion  by  selection  within  Class-I  (Group-A)  post,  the  

SC/ST candidates are to be given 'concession'.

(b) This concession is available to those SC/ST employees who are  

senior enough in the zone of consideration for promotion so as to  

be within the number of vacancies for which select list has to be  

drawn up.

Thus, first requirement is that such SC/ST candidates who come  

within the zone of consideration for promotion are senior enough  

to be within the number of vacancies.  Once they come within the  

Civil Appeal No.          of 2015 & Ors. Page 27 of 35 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 4385 of 2010 & Ors.)

Page 28

aforesaid zone of consideration, they have to be included in the  

list, provided they are not considered unfit for promotion.  It clearly  

follows from the above that once they come under the zone of  

consideration  for  promotion  so  as  to  be  within  the  number  of  

vacancies for which select list has to be drawn up, for such SC/ST  

employees  the  only  embargo  to  deprive  them of  promotion  is  

when they are found unfit  for  promotion.   For  other  officers in  

general  category,  depending upon the rule  of  promotion,  there  

may  be  much  stricter  criteria  based  on  comparative  merit  or  

selection by merit, etc.  However, in case of such senior enough  

SC/ST candidates, the criteria appears to be seniority, subject to  

fitness.

(c) This  OM  specifically  clears  the  doubt  that  the  aforesaid  

provision is only a concession and not reservation in favour of  

SC/ST candidates, inasmuch as para 3 of the OM states that “It is  

hereby  clarified  that  in  promotion  by  selection  within  Group-A   

post, which carry ultimate salary of ₹ 5,700/- per month, there is   

no reservation”.  It is clear from the above that insofar as Office  

Memorandum  dated  1.11.1990  is  concerned,  there  was  no  

provision for reservation made in favour of SC/ST candidates in  

promotion by selection within Group-A posts carrying an ultimate  

salary of ₹5,700 per month.

Civil Appeal No.          of 2015 & Ors. Page 28 of 35 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 4385 of 2010 & Ors.)

Page 29

28) No doubt, this Office Memorandum was issued in the year 1990,  

that is much before amendment in Article 16 of the Constitution,  

which was carried out in the year 1995 by inserting Clause 4A.  

However, as already pointed out above, Clause 4A is an enabling  

provision which empowers the State to make reservations in the  

matter of promotions as well as in favour of SC/ST employees.  

There  was  no  such  provision  till  1.11.1990  in  the  matter  of  

promotion  by  selection  within  Group-A  post  which  carry  an  

ultimate salary of 5,700/- per month.₹

29) Having understood this,  we come to  Office  Memoradum dated  

13.8.1997 to find out as to whether this Memorandum makes any  

provision for reservations in the matter of promotion in favour of  

SC/ST employees, inasmuch as no other Office Memorandum or  

Circular or Rule, etc. is produced on record for this purpose.

30) We have already noted above that a nine Judge Bench decision  

of  this  Court  in  Indra Sawhney  (supra)  held  that  Clause 4  of  

Article  16  does  not  cover  the  cases  of  promotion,  meaning  

thereby, as per the said clause no reservation in favour of SC/ST  

persons in the matter of promotions is permissible.  It is to nullify  

the effect of this dicta in the said judgment that Clause 4A was  

Civil Appeal No.          of 2015 & Ors. Page 29 of 35 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 4385 of 2010 & Ors.)

Page 30

inserted  in  Article  16  by  Constitution's  Seventy-Seventh  

Amendment with effect from 17-06-1995.  However, it is also a  

matter of record that in Indra Sawhney's case (supra), this Court  

had also clarified that reservation for SC/STs in promotion would  

continue  for  a  period  of  five  years  from 16-11-1992.   What  it  

meant was that if there is a provision of reservation made in the  

matter of promotions, notwithstanding the dicta in the said case  

that such a reservation is not permissible, those provisions were  

allowed to continue for a period of five years from 16-11-1992.  

Thereafter, before the expiry of five years, constitutional provision  

was incorporated in the form of Clause 4A by making provision for  

reservation in the matter of promotions as well.  These facts are  

taken note of in first two paras of Office Memorandum dated 13-

08-1997.  Thereafter, in the 3rd para of the said Memorandum, it is  

provided:

“3.   In  pursuance of  Article  16(4A),  it  has been  decided to continue the Reservation in promotion  as at  present,  for  the Scheduled Castes and the  Scheduled Tribes in the services/posts under the  Central  Government  beyond  15.11.1997 till  such  time as the representation of each of the above two  categories  in  each cadre  reaches  the  prescribed  percentages  of  reservation  whereafter,  the  reservation in promotion shall continue to maintain  the representation to the extent of the prescribed  percentages for the respective categories.”

Civil Appeal No.          of 2015 & Ors. Page 30 of 35 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 4385 of 2010 & Ors.)

Page 31

31) What is decided is to continue the reservation in promotion, which  

was prevalent at that time, for the SC/ST employees, which was  

to  continue  in  terms  of  the  judgment  of  this  Court  in  Indra  

Sawhney  (supra)  till  15-11-1997,  even  beyond  15-11-1997,  till  

such  time  as  the  representation  of  each  of  the  above  two  

categories in each cadre reaches the prescribed percentages of  

reservation whereof.  It is, thus, crystal clear from a bare reading  

of this para that the existing provision relating to reservation in  

promotion was allowed to continue beyond 15-11-1997.   Thus,  

this Memorandum did not make any new provision for reservation  

in promotion in favour of SC/ST employees.

32) We  have  already  noticed  above  that  in  matters  of  promotion  

within Group-A posts, which carry an ultimate salary of  ₹5,700/-  

per  month,  there  was no provision for  any reservation.   On a  

conjoint  reading  of  these  two  Office  Memorandums,  in  the  

absence  of  any  other  provision  or  Rule  evidencing  such  a  

reservation in  the matter  of  promotions,  it  cannot  be said  that  

there was reservation in promotion within Group-A posts upto the  

ultimate salary  of  5,700/-  per  month.   The High Court  in  the₹   

impugned  judgment  has  gone  by  the  lofty  ideals  enshrined  in  

Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution as well as the fact that in  

these  Banks  there  is  no  adequate  representation  of  SC/ST  Civil Appeal No.          of 2015 & Ors. Page 31 of 35 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 4385 of 2010 & Ors.)

Page 32

category of officers in Group-IV and above.  That may be so.  It  

can only provide justification for making a provision of this nature.  

However,  in the absence of  such a provision,  same cannot be  

read by overstretching the language of Office Memorandum dated  

13-08-1997.  It is for the State to take stock of the ground realities  

and  take  a  decision  as  to  whether  it  is  necessary  to  make  

provision for reservation in promotions to the aforesaid post as  

well.

33) Having said so,  one other  aspect  which has to be necessarily  

addressed to at this stage calls for our attention.  This aspect,  

which we are going to point out  now, has been totally glossed  

over by the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of  

the High Court in their respective judgments.

34) It is provided in Office Memorandum dated 01-11-1990, and we  

have  repeatedly  stated  above,  that  there  is  no  reservation  in  

promotion  by  selection  within  only  those  Group-A posts  which  

carry an ultimate salary of 5,700/- per month.  In such cases, it₹   

is only concession that applies.  We have accepted the contention  

of  the  appellant  Banks  in  this  behalf,  as  per  the  discussion  

contained  hereinabove.   Significantly,  what  follows  is  that  

reservation is provided in promotion by selection qua those posts  

Civil Appeal No.          of 2015 & Ors. Page 32 of 35 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 4385 of 2010 & Ors.)

Page 33

which carry an ultimate salary of less than 5,700/- per month₹   

(pre-revised).

35) The  Department  of  Public  Enterprises  had  issued  an  Office  

Memorandum dated 08-11-2004 as to the salary limit of 5,700/-₹   

mentioned  for  the  purposes  of  reservation  as  18,300/-  (5₹ th  

Central  Pay  Commission)  and  in  the  case  of  Public  Sector  

Undertakings  who  are  following  Industrial  Dearness  Allowance  

(IDA) pattern, the monetary ceiling was fixed as 20,800/- (from₹   

01-01-1996,  i.e.  5th Central  Pay  Commission).   The  said  pay  

ceiling is achieved in the appellant Banks only when an officer  

reaches Scale-VII.  As a fortiorari, the policy of no reservation in  

the  matter  of  promotion  is  applicable  only  from Scale-VII  and  

above.  It, therefore, clearly follows that insofar as promotion from  

Scale-I  to  Scale-II,  Scale-II  to  Scale-III,  Scale-III  to  Scale-IV,  

Scale-IV  to  Scale-V,  Scale-V  to  Scale-VI  are  concerned,  

reservation is  to  be provided.  The appellant  Banks,  therefore,  

cannot take umbrage under the aforesaid Memorandum and deny  

reservation  in  favour  of  SC/ST  employees  while  carrying  out  

promotions upto to Scale-VI.

Civil Appeal No.          of 2015 & Ors. Page 33 of 35 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 4385 of 2010 & Ors.)

Page 34

36) Upshot  of  the  aforesaid  discussion  would  be  to  allow  these  

appeals partly.  While setting aside the impugned judgment of the  

High Court to the extent it holds that Office Memorandum dated  

13-08-1997 makes a provision for reservation, it is clarified that at  

present  there  is  no  provision  for  reservation  in  promotion  by  

selection only in respect of those posts which carry an ultimate  

salary of 5,700/- per month (revised to 18,300/- by 5₹ ₹ th Central  

Pay Commission and 20,800/-  per  month in  respect  of  those₹   

Public Sector Undertakings following IDA pattern).  Qua appellant  

Banks,  that  would  be  in  respect  of  Scale-VII  and  above.  

Therefore,  to  carry  out  promotions  from Scale-I  upwards  upto  

Scale-VI, reservation in promotion in favour of SC/ST employees  

has to be given.   It  would have the effect  of  allowing the writ  

petitions filed by the respondents/unions partly with directions to  

the  appellant  Banks  to  make  provision  for  reservations  while  

carrying out promotions from Scale-I  to to Scale-II  and upward  

upto Scale-VI.

37) In view of the above, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 320 of 2010 is  

disposed of with directions to the appellant Banks to carry out the  

promotions  by  adopting  the  procedure  mentioned  in  this  

judgment.

Civil Appeal No.          of 2015 & Ors. Page 34 of 35 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 4385 of 2010 & Ors.)

Page 35

38) In the peculiar facts of this case, we leave the parties to bear their   

own costs.

.............................................J. (J. CHELAMESWAR)

.............................................J. (A.K. SIKRI)

NEW DELHI; JANUARY 09, 2015.

Civil Appeal No.          of 2015 & Ors. Page 35 of 35 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 4385 of 2010 & Ors.)