Law of Limitation Must Be Applied Strictly; Mere Negligence or Inaction Cannot Justify Delay: Punjab & Haryana High Court Discharge from Service for Non-Disclosure of Criminal Case Held Arbitrary, Reinstatement Ordered: Calcutta High Court Maintenance for Children Restored from Date of Petition, Residence Order Limited to Pre-Divorce Period: Kerala High Court Shared Resources Must Be Preserved: P&H HC Validates Co-Owner's Right to Irrigation Access Position of Authority Misused by Lecturer to Exploit Student: Orissa High Court Rejects Bail to Lecturer in Sexual Assault Case Temporary Disconnection Of Water Supply Without Unlawful Or Dishonest Intent Does Not Constitute ‘Mischief’: Kerala High Court Quashed Criminal Proceedings Adult Sons' Student Loans Not a Valid Ground to Avoid Alimony: Calcutta High Court Ancestral Property Requires Proof of Unbroken Succession: Punjab & Haryana HC Rejects Coparcenary Claim Grant of Land for Public Purpose Does Not Divest Ownership Rights: Bombay High Court on Shri Ganpati Panchayat Sansthan's Reversionary Rights Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules Against Government Directive on Proving Experience of Deputy District Attorneys Orissa High Court Reduces Compensation in Motor Accident Case: Insurer’s Appeal Partly Allowed Service Law – Promotion Criteria Cannot Be Imposed Beyond Recruitment Rules: Supreme Court Access To Clean And Hygienic Toilets Is Not Just A Matter Of Convenience But A Fundamental Right Under Article 21: Supreme Court Promotions Under Merit-Cum-Seniority Quota Cannot Be Based Solely on Comparative Merit: Supreme Court Reliefs Must Be Both Available and Enforceable at the Time of Filing to Attract Order II Rule 2 Bar: Supreme Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Collector’s Appointment of Ex-Serviceman as Lambardar: Preference for Service to the State Valid Tax to Be Computed at 100% Under DTVSV Act, Rejects Inclusion of Belated Grounds in Disputed Tax: Bombay High Court Petitioner’s Father Did Not Fall Within Definition of Enemy – Kerala High Court Quashes Land Classification Under Enemy Property Act Calcutta High Court Upholds Cancellation of LPG Distributor LOI for Violating Guidelines Recording 'Reasons to Believe' is a Mandatory Safeguard, Not a Mere Formality Under PMLA: P&H High Court Illegality Is Incurable, Unauthorized Constructions Cannot Be Regularized: Bombay High Court Kerala High Court Quashes Tribunal’s Order Granting Retrospective UGC Benefits to Librarians Without Required Qualifications

Reservation Quota Cannot Exceed 20% Once Roster is Fulfilled: PH High Court for Scheduled Castes in Promotions

16 September 2024 2:56 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


On September 5, 2024, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, in Navdeep Singh and Another vs. State of Punjab and Others, directed the State to strictly adhere to the 20% reservation quota for Scheduled Caste candidates in promotions for Head Teachers. The court emphasized that once the quota is filled, further promotions should be based on merit, in accordance with the Supreme Court’s ruling in R.K. Sabarwal vs. State of Punjab.

The petitioners, Navdeep Singh and another, challenged the promotions to the post of Head Teacher, alleging that the State of Punjab was exceeding the 20% reservation quota for Scheduled Caste candidates. According to the petitioners, the quota had already been fulfilled, yet additional reserved category candidates were being promoted, which they claimed was illegal and arbitrary. The petition relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in R.K. Sabarwal vs. State of Punjab (1995), which mandates that once the reserved category quota is filled, the roster system should stop operating.

The main legal question revolved around the over-promotion of reserved category candidates beyond the 20% reservation quota prescribed by the Punjab Scheduled Castes & Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006. The petitioners contended that once the reserved category quota was fulfilled, further promotions should be based on merit, not reservation.

Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi, presiding over the case, held that the State must strictly comply with the 20% reservation limit for Scheduled Castes. The court noted that of the total 425 Head Teacher posts, 319 were to be filled through promotions, and 64 of those were reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates. The court observed that as of 2016, only 54 Scheduled Caste candidates were promoted, which meant that some reserved posts were still unfilled. However, the court also emphasized that any candidate promoted based on seniority and merit should not be counted towards the reserved quota.

The court ordered the State to complete the promotion process by first determining how many Scheduled Caste candidates were promoted under the reserved quota and ensuring that the 20% limit was not exceeded. The roster system, it ruled, would stop operating once the quota was fulfilled, and further promotions would be based on merit.

Adherence to Reservation Quota: The court reiterated that the 20% reservation for Scheduled Castes must be strictly followed. Once the roster is completed and the reserved quota is filled, the promotions must be made based on merit.

Supreme Court’s Ruling in R.K. Sabarwal: The court heavily relied on the principles set in R.K. Sabarwal vs. State of Punjab (1995), which mandates that reserved category candidates promoted on the basis of merit should not be counted toward the reserved quota.

Backlog Posts: The court directed that the backlog of 42 unfilled reserved posts be reviewed and filled only if the 20% reservation had not already been met.

Protection of Rights: The court balanced the interests of both reserved and unreserved category candidates, ensuring that neither group was given undue advantage or subjected to unfair treatment.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court directed the State of Punjab to strictly adhere to the 20% reservation quota for Scheduled Castes in promotions and ensure that no excess benefit is given to reserved category candidates. The court emphasized that once the reserved quota is fulfilled, further promotions should be based on merit, as per the Supreme Court’s ruling in R.K. Sabarwal.

Date of Decision: September 5, 2024

Navdeep Singh and Another vs. State of Punjab and Others

Similar News