S. Dhanabir Singh and Others vs Promotee Assistant Engineers Asson and Others

J.N. Sarma, J.—We have heard all the writ appeals analogously as they are against the common judgment dated 16.5.97 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CRs 673/94, 512/88, 822/94, 520/96, 521/96, 332/95, 235/93, 525/95, 49/96, 1145/96, 904/96 & 780/96.

We have heard Mr. N. Kotishwar Singh, learned Counsel for Appellants in WAs 88/97, 92/97, 93/97 and Mr. NPC Singh, learned Counsel for Appellants in WAs 82/97, 85/97, 86/97, 87/97, 91/97 and 105/97. Other advocates did not appear in the respective appeals. We have heard Mr. H.N.K. Singh, learned Counsel for Respondents in WAs 82/97, 88/97 and Mr. A. Nilamani Singh, learned Counsel for Respondents in WAs 91/97 and also Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 and 19 in Ws 85/97, none appears for the State of Manipur.

WAs 92/97 has been filed by 2 persons who were the Respondents 4 and 10 in CP 520/95. WA 91/97 has been filed by the persons who were Respondents 2 and 19 CR 904/96. In WA 85/97 the Appellants was the Respondents 9 and 13 in CR 332/95. The Respondents 10 and 16 have filed WA 88/9 WA 105/97 has been filed by 3 persons who were Respondents in the respective Civil Rule. WA 122/97 has been filed by the persons who were the Respondents 1, 3, 4, 6 and 7 in CR 673/94. WA 86/97 has been filed by the Appellants who were the Respondents 9 and 11 in CR 520/95. In WA 87/97 the Appellants are the Respondents 9 and 11 in CR 521/95. The Appellants in WA 130/97 are the Respondents in the respective Civil Rule. WA 150/97 has been filed by the Appellant who were the Respondent No. 21 in CR 673/94.

The learned Single Judge by the impugned order and judgment dated 16.5.97 rejected the Civil Rule being CR 822/94 as the Petitioner did not fulfil the eligibility condition of the R.R. for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer. That part of the judgment is upheld as a matter of fact, there is no appeal against that part of the order at para, 7 of the judgment and as such that part of the judgment shall hold the field.

In all the CRs the final seniority list has been challenged. In CR 780/96 the Petitioner prays for setting aside the Order 3.8.96 (Annexure-A/4) by which Respondents 3, 4 and 5 were allowed to hold the charge of the post of Executive Engineer, Irrigation & Flood Control Department on the ground that he is senior to Respondents 3, 4 & 5 and therefore the said Respondents should not have been allowed to hold the charges of the post of Executive Engineer superseding the Petitioner. In para 38 of the judgment, the learned Single Judge has inter-alia held as follows:

Having regard to the facts and circumstances stated above and after considering the arguments made by the Id. counsel of all the parties I am of the opinion that the final seniority list of the Asst. Engineers published by the State Govt. on 23.10.93 should be quashed. Accordingly the final seniority list of AEs published by Govt. on 23.10.93 is quashed. The Respondent, State Govt. is directed to prepare the seniority list of the Petitioner promotee Asst. Engineers and direct recruits AEs of 1980, 1981 and 1982 batches according to the quota of vacancies reserved for promotee Asst. Engineers and Direct Recruit AES. The State Govt. is further directed to ascertain the vacancy position of the post of AEs from the year 1975 to 1983 and quota reserved for promotees and direct recruit for the aforesaid years. While fixing the relative seniority of promotees and direct recruit AEs the State Govt. is directed to follow the following principles:

(a) The seniority of the Petitioner promotee AE shall be counted from the date of their regularisation. In other words, their seniority shall be counted from the date of their initial appointment as AE on adhoc basis;

(b)The seniority of the direct recruit Asst. Engineer shall be counted from the date of their regular appointment in the post of Asst. Engineers;

(c)A calendar year shall be taken as Unit for fixing the seniority between promotee and direct recruits and quota reserved for promotee and direct recruits shall be filled up by rotation of vacancies;

Explanation: for fixing seniority between direct recruits and promotees for a year, the seniority list should be prepared after showing three promotees senior to two direct recruits and thereafter again three promotees and the two direct recruits and so on;

(d) In the year 1975 there is only promotee Asst. Engineer. If there is any vacancy in that year in the quota of promotee, then he should be entertained against the post for that year. If no vacancy is available, his seniority may be shown in the subsequent year when vacancy is available. Similarly, in the year, 1978 there is one promotee AE and there is no direct recruit. If vacancy is available in the quota of promotee he may be entertained against the post in the year 1978. If no vacancy is available he may be entertained in subsequent year when vacancy is available under promotion quota and seniority be entertained accordingly. In 1979 there six promotees AEs. If vacancy is available in the quota of promotees during the year, 1979, then they may be accommodated in that year, 1979, if vacancies are not available they may be entertained in the subsequent year when vacancies are available under the quota of promotees and seniority be determined accordingly.

For the years, 1980 and 1982 there are promotee AEs and direct recruit AEs. Their seniority may be fixed according to the quota of vacancies reserved for each categories in the aforesaid years. If, however, the quota for promotee is not available, during the aforesaid years they may be entertained in subsequent year when vacancy for promotee will be available and their seniority be fixed accordingly.

(e) If the four AEs are promoted in the post of EEs in pursuance of the decision of the High Court in CR 660/92, then their seniority-should not be re-opened and they seniority may be shown in the grand of EE.

(f) The State Govt. is directed to prepare a fresh seniority list of Asst. Engineers as per the above guidelines within a period of three months from today.

Hence, these writ appeals.

Let us first take up the appeals argued by Mr. N. Kotishwar Singh, learned Counsel being WAs 88/97, 92/97 and 93/97. His argument briefly is as follows:

The Direct Recruits were appointed as Assistant Engineers on regular basis on the recommendation of MPSC in the year 1980. Hence the seniority of the Direct Recruits are to be counted w.e.f. 1980.

The promotee Assistant Engineers had filed several writ petitions collectively and in individual capacities claiming seniority w.e.f. the date of initial appointment as AE on adhoc basis/the dates on which they became eligible for promotion. Earlier there was another final seniority list of AEs which was framed in the year 1984, in which the direct recruits were included. However, the promotees were not included in the said seniority list as they were not yet appointed as AEs on regular basis. Final seniority list of the Assistant Engineers was framed on 27.10.93 which was quashed by die learned Single Judge. In the said seniority list, the Direct Recruits are placed at Sl. No. 5 to 20 whereas the promotees were placed between Sl. No. 21 and 49. The basis for die claim of the promotees over the direct recruits is that no DPCs were held for a long time between 1979 and 1987, thus denying them the opportunity of regular promotion in die grade of AE. If the claim of the promotees for seniority w.e.f. the date of their initial appointment as AE is allowed, they will supersede the Direct Recruits who were appointed on regular basis to the Promotee seven years before. The Direct Recruits main contention is that because of certain prevailing situation it was not possible to hold the DPC during 1980-1982 or to regularise the service of the present Promotees at that time. As such even if DPC were to be held after 1982, the Promotees can not claim seniority over the Direct Recruits.

That among die Section Officers, there were many who were very senior to the present promotees who were appointed during 1966, 1970-1972 and holding the post of AE on adhoc basis till 1980-1982. The AEs who were regularised in the year 1980-1982, were very much senior to these present Promotees and appointed as AE on adhoc basis much earlier to the present Promotees. The present Promotees could not have claimed any precedence over these seniors for regularisation during 1980.

It is not clear that all the promotees were appointed on adhoc basis against promotion quota. Till 1980-1982, mere were as many as 29 adhoc AEs who were regularised as AEs during 1980-1982. By order dt. 9.7.79 33 SOS were appointed as adhoc AEs including the present promotees. Thus, altogether mere were as many as 62 Promotee AEs as on 9.7.79, which is far in excess of die promotion quota. In the year 1980-1981 only 24 direct recruitment were made. As the adhoc promotions were made in excess of the promotion quota, they can be said to be appointed as per rules, but in violation of the quota rule.

Apart from the regularisation of the Senior SOs who were holding the post of AE on adhoc basis for a long time and who were also holding the post of EE on adhoc basis, regular vacancies could not be worked out properly in view of the impending bifurcation of the erstwhile PWD which started in 1980 and could be completed only in 1982. In the midst of die trifurcation, except for regular appointment to AE by invoking me exemption clause, Regulation No. 7 of the MPSC (Exemption from consultation with MPSC) Regulations, it was not feasible to earmark the respective vacant posts in the newly created three departments of IFCD, PWD and PHE. Therefore for not holding of DPC for promotion during 1980-1982 could not be found fault with because of the massive rearrangements taking place due to trifurcation of the erstwhile PWD into three independent departments.

Further, even chalking out year-wise vacancy of IFCD prior to the trifurcation of the PWD is impossible, as the posts of AE were inter transferable amongst the three departments within the PWD.

The holding of the DPC was not feasible not practicable during the period of trifurcation (1980-1982) and as such the Govt. cannot be blamed for the same as the process was a complicated and cumbersome. Even if the complaint against holding of DPC late in 1987 is accepted, it does not help die case of the promotees as DPC could not held in 1980-1982 because of genuine difficulties faced by the department. As even if die DPC had been held in 1982 or thereafter, the present promotees would still be junior to the direct recruits who were already AE in 1980 or regular basis.

Most of the promotees were considered by DPC for promotion earlier but they could not success themselves. Some of them even competed for appointment under direct recruit quota in 1980 along with the present direct recruits but were rejected by the MPSC.

The memorandum No. 22011/3/76-Estt (D) dt. 24.12.80 issued by the Govt. of India was adopted by the Govt. of Manipur and mat memorandum was followed by the DPC held on 28.3.87 in the matter of promotion by selection, for the recommendation of the present promotees provides that after preparing a consolidated select list by placing the select list of the earlier year above the one for the next and so on. The aforesaid memorandum further provides that while promotions will be made in the order of me consolidated select list, such promotion will have only prospective effect, even in case where the vacancy relates to an earlier year. The same principle is also incorporated in the revised instructions as contained in Govt. of Manipur Office Memorandum No. 17/2/80-DP(I) dt. 20.11.1982 which is presently applicable. As such the present promotees even if recommended against vacancies arising prior to 1987, the order of promotion will take prospective effect i.e. with effect from the date of the Order 26.9.87 by virtue of the aforesaid principle for fixing the date of effect of promotion.

The Hon''ble Court refused to grant benefit of seniority with retrospective effect. The Govt. also rightly fixed die seniority of the promotees from the dates of their regular appointment on the recommendation of the DPC while issuing order for retrospective regularisation.

Before we go the submissions, let us have a look at the orders passed by this Court in different Civil Rules earlier. In different Civil Rules, the Division Bench of this Court from time to time passed the following orders:

In view of me law laid down by the Apex Court in Jacob M. Puthuparambil and others Vs. Kerala Water Authority and others, we direct the Respondents to treat the Petitioner as regular Asst. Engineer from the date of his adhoc appointment i.e. 9.7.79 and issue a notification accordingly within a month. The Petitioner shall not be able to claim seniority on the basis of this order, which shall be determined in accordance with the service rules and other Govt. instructions. In absence of such rules/instructions it shall be determined in accordance with the principle laid down by the Apex Court and this Court.

The authority on 29.1.95 passed the following order with regard to 16 persons as mentioned in Annexure-�/14 and that Annexure-�/14 is quoted below:

Government of Manipur Secretariat :: IFC Department Orders by the Government : Manipur Imphal, the 29th January, 1995. No. 4/2/88-IFC : In pursuance of Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench''s orders dtd. 6.7.88 in CR No. 162 of 1988, Order dt. 10.1.92 in CR No. 23/92, 24/92, 25/92, 26/92, 27/92, 28/92, Order dtd. 3.4.92 in CR No. 108/92, 109/92, 117/92, 118/92, 126/92. order dt.6.4.92 in CR No. 110/92, the Governor of Manipur is pleased to give retrospective effect to the regularisation of the services of the following Assistant Engineers of the IFC Department, Manipur from the dates shown against their names. However, their seniority will be fixed as per Rules i.e. with effect from the dates of their regular appointment made on the recommendation of DPC.

Sl. Name of officers Reference Date from No. No. for which retros- regular ap- pective effect pointment is given as by DPC AE as per HD''s order. 1. L. Lalchand Singh No.9/4/84- 16.8.75 IFC dt 26.9.87 2. Kh Dinachandra Singh --do-- 9.7.79 3. T Munal Singh --do-- 9.7.79 4. L Ibopishak Singh --do-- 9.7.79 5. Ksh. Kunjo Singh --do-- 9.7.79 6. MR. adheshyam Singh --do-- 28.12.78 7. L Prabhasi Singh --do-- 13.7.79 8. L. Lukhoi Singh --do-- 5.9.80 9. Y. Ibungohal Singh --do-- 5.9.80 10. Ch Dwijamani Singh --do-- 5.7.80 11. H. imaichand Singh --do-- 13.2.79 12. L Yaiskul Singh --do-- 31.10.81 13. L Roskumar Singh --do-- 31.10.81 14. A. BasantakumarSingh --do-- 31.10.81 15. Kh Lala Singh --do-- 31.10.81 16. L Rabango Singh --do-- 9.7.79 By Orders & in the name of the Governor,

Sd/- Illegible (Letkhogin Haokip) Deputy Secretary (IFC), Govt. of Manipur.

The grievance of the writ Petitioners are that once regularisation is made from a retrospective date as per the order of the Court, seniority also must be fixed from that date and it cannot be at the mercy of the authority i.e. of the DPC and for this purpose strong reliance is placed on The Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers'' Association and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers'' Association v. State of Maharashtra. The two propositions quoted in para 18 of the judgment are quoted herein below:

(A) Once an incumbent is appointed to a post according to rule, his seniority has to be counted from the date of his appointment and not according to the date of his confirmation.

The corollary of the above rule is that where the initial appointment is only adhoc and not according to rules and made as a stop-gap arrangement, the officiation in such post cannot be taken into account for considering the seniority.

(B) If the initial appointment is not made by following the procedure laid down by the rules but the appointees continues in the post uninterruptedly till the regularisation of his service in accordance with the rules, the period of officiating service will be counted.

It was urged before the learned Single Judge that it is this corollary ''B" quoted above which will apply in the case of the Petitioners and that contention of the Petitioner was accepted by the learned Judge.

The corollary ''A'' & ''B'' were considered by the Supreme Court in Keshav Chandra Joshi and others etc. Vs. Union of India and others, and the Supreme Court in para 25 of the judgment laid down as follows:

...propositions ''A'' and ''B'' cover different aspects of one situation. One must discern the difference critically. Proposition ''B'' must, therefore, be read along with para 13 of the judgment wherein the ration decidendi of Narendra Chadha was held to have considerable force. The later postulated that if the initial appointment to a substantive post or vacancy was made deliberately, in disregard of the rule and allowed the incumbent to continue on the post for well over 15 to 20 years without reversion and still the date of regularisation of the service in accordance with the rules, the period of officiating service has to be counted towards seniority. This Court in Narendra Chadha''s case was cognizant of the fact that the rules empower the Government to relax the rule for appointment. Without reading paragraph 13 and proposition ''B'' and Narendra Chadha''s ratio together the true import of proposition will not be appreciated...

This aspect of the matter was further considered in State of W.B. and Others Vs. Aghore Nath Dey and Others, Chief Engineer and Secretary, Engineering Department, U.T., Chandigarh Vs. Kamlesh Baboo and Others, Chief of Naval Staff and another Vs. G. Gopalakrishna Pillai and others, U. P. Secretariat U.D.A. Association v. State of U. P., 1999 (1) SCC 278 Vijaya Kumar Shrotriya Vs. State of U.P. and Others, Abraham Jacob and Others Vs. Union of India, The ratio of all the cases is that if the initial appointment is for a fixed period or as a stopgap arrangement, then corollary ''A'' will apply. That is not the position in hand. The appointments herein were not by way of stopgap arrangement. No doubt it was in excess of quota as rightly urged by Mr. Kotishwar Singh, learned Counsel and that itself will not wipe out the rights of the writ Petitioners. Mr. Kotishwar, learned Counsel also relies on the following decisions:

(I) Union of India (UOI) Vs. H.R. Patankar and Others, wherein the Supreme Court in Para 4 of the judgment held as follows:

It is now well settled law that even if there are no statutory rules in force for determining seniority in a service or even if there are statutory rules but they are silent on any particular subject, it is competent to the Government by an executive order to make appropriate seniority rules or to fill in the lacuna in the statutory rules by making an appropriate seniority rule in regard to the subject on which the statutory rules are silent...

(II) K. Madhavan and Another Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, wherein the Supreme Court in para 15 of the judgment held as follows:

The retrospective appointment or promotion to a post should be given most sparingly and on sound reasoning and foundation. But if the meeting of the DPC scheduled to be held is arbitrarily or mala fide cancelled without any reasonable justification therefore to the prejudice of an employee and he is not considered for promotion to a higher post, the Government in a suitable case can do justice to such an employee by granting him promotion or appointing him to the higher post for which the DPC was to be held, with retrospective effect so that he is not subjected to a lower position in the seniority list.

Mr. Kotishwar, learned Counsel further argues as follows:

(i) It cannot be said certainly that the adhoc promotion of the present promotees in the year 1979 were against promotion quota. Thus if the initial adhoc promotion was not against promotion quota, the same is not as per rules;

(ii) The adhoc promotions were not made through any DPC or screening of all the eligible candidates. There was no element of consideration of merit, as the post of AE is a selection post. Hence, the initial appointment on adhoc basis is not as per rules;

(iii) There is a specific rule which provides that the promotion will be prospective even for past vacancies.

(iv) The initial adhoc promotion was purely a stop gap arrangement;

(v) The officiating/adhoc appointment must be for a long period for the claim of seniority with retrospective effect which is not the case herein.

Regarding the contention so far Mr. Kotishwar Singh made we are of the view that it is under the wisdom and domain of the authority concerned to examine in the matter as to whether the adhoc promotion of the present promotees in the year 1979 were against the promotion quota or not or whether it was made for stop gap arrangement or not as because of the fact that all the related service papers/books/documents of those officers are with the State Respondents.

On the other hand the Respondents relies on the following decisions:

(i) Shri. Amrik Singh and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, wherein the Supreme Court held that even for administrative lapse, the concerned employee can not be victimised.

(ii) (1991) Suppl. 2 SCC Nirmal Chandra Bhattacharjee and Ors. v. Union of India wherein the Supreme Court held that an employees cannot be made to suffer on account of intervening events.

(iii A. Janardhana Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, wherein it has been laid down where there has been a breakdown in the enforcement of the quota rule and once the quota rules fails, the rota can no longer be enforcement without causing prejudice to officers with longer periods of service in the cadre.

(iv Union of India and others Vs. N.R. Banerjee and others, wherein it has been laid down that preparation of yearly panel is the requirement unless appointing authority certified about non-availability of vacancy or eligible candidates.

(v Vijay Singh Deora and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, wherein it was held that temporary appointees, being qualified candidates at the time of their initial appointment, were entitled to seniority from the date of availability of substantive vacancies irrespective of the fact that they were confirmed subsequently.

In Keshav Deo and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others, wherein the Supreme Court considered the various judgments in para 8 the questions which were posed for consideration, that were answered in favour of the Appellant. The questions posed for consideration are as follows:

I. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Appellants are entitled to seniority on the post of Assistant Engineers from the date they have been officiating as such or from the date they were selected and approved by die Commission?

II. Whether the Appellants can be deprived of the benefits of their officiating service prior to the approval of the Commission for die purpose of seniority in view of die fact that the delay in granting approval for making diem regular on die post of Assistant Engineer was attributable to die State Government and die Commission, as the Appellants were fully qualified to be appointed and approved as Assistant Engineers even on die date, diey were appointed to officiate as such?

In para 26 of the judgment, the aforesaid questions were answered in favour of the Appellants. This is quoted below:

We have no hesitation to hold mat die impugned seniority list of 1995 prepared by me Govt. Pursuant to die directions contained in D.N. Saksena and V.K. Yadav is in accordance with die rules and cannot be interfered with on die ground that promotees have been given die benefit of their service in officiating capacity. The question is answered in favour of die Appellants. As stated already, individual grievances against their placement in die list have to be agitated in appropriate forum. The judgment of die High Court is unsustainable and it is set aside. The writ petition filed by Respondents 3 and 4 is dismissed. The parties will bear their respective costs.

That appears to be the latest judgment on this point and it is squarely binding on us.

The other cases relied by the Respondents are as follows:

(i) Ram Pal Malik Vs. State of Haryana and Others,

(ii) AIR 1990 SC 1607

(iii) State of W.B. and Others Vs. Aghore Nath Dey and Others,

(iv) K. Madhavan and Another Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others,

(v) Smt. Reena Padhi and others Vs. Owners and Parties and another,

(vi) AIR 1996 SC 638

(vii) State of Bihar and others Vs. Sri Akhouri Sachindra Nath and others,

(viii) AIR 1994 SC 1223

(ix) Food Corporation of India Vs. Thaneswar Kalita and others,

It is not necessary to discuss all the cases as almost all these cases have been discussed in the latest judgment of the Supreme Court quoted above.

In view of that matter, these writ appeals are disposed of with the following directions.

Before we part with the record, we make it clear that if any benefit has been given by way of promotion according to the rules on the basis of the seniority quashed by the learned Single Judge, that benefit shall not be wiped out and that shall hold the field as we do not want to make things topsy turvy. We direct that the State Respondents are at liberty to make a fresh seniority list if so advised in accordance with the guidelines given by this Court and the Apex Court or to fill up the vacant post of Executive Engineer as per related Service Rules and it is made clear that if there are some adhoc appointees, that adhoc appointees shall not be regularised however, their services shall not be disturbed till determination of such seniority and thereafter only if the persons come within the zone of consideration, their case also shall be taken into consideration as right to be considered for promotion has now been recognised as a fundamental right see 1999 (3) GLT 1 Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors. That judgment is available at Ajit Singh and Others Vs. The State of Punjab and Others, and in paras 22 and 23 the Supreme Court has given the guidelines as follows:

22...The word ''employment'' being wider, mere is no dispute that it takes within its fold, die aspect of promotions to posts above die stage of initial level of recruitment. Article 16(l) provides to every employee otherwise eligible for promotion or who comes within the zone of consideration, a fundamental right to be ''considered'' for promotion. Equal opportunity here means the right to be ''considered'' for promotion. If a person satisfies the eligibility and zone criteria but is not considered for promotion, then there will be a clear infraction of his fundamental right to be ''considered'' for promotion, which is his personal right.

''Promotion'' based on equal opportunity and ''seniority'' attached to such promotion are facets of fundamental right under Article 16(1).

Where promotional avenues are available seniority becomes closely interlinked with promotion provided such a promotion is made after complying which the principle of equal opportunity stated in Article 16(1). For example, if the promotion is by rule of ''seniority-cum-suitability, the eligible seniors at the basic level as per seniority fixed at that level and who are within the zone of consideration must be first considered for promotion and be promoted if found suitable. In the promoted category they would have to count their seniority from the date of such promotion because they get promotion through '' a process of equal opportunity. Similarly, if the promotion from the basic level is by selection or merit or any rule involving consideration of merit, the senior who is eligible at the basic level has to be considered and if found meritorious in comparison with others, he will have to be promoted first. If he is not found so meritorious, the next in order of seniority is to be considered and if found eligible and more meritorious than the first person in the seniority list, he should be promoted. In either case, the person who is first promoted will normally count his seniority from the date of such promotion, (there are minor modifications in various services in the matter of counting of seniority of such promotees but in all cases the senior most person at the basic level is to be considered first and then the others in the line of seniority.) That is how right to be considered for promotion and the ''seniority'' attached to such promotion become important facets of the fundamental right guaranteed in Article 16(1).

Right to be considered for promotion is not mere statutory right.

The conclusion is at para 89 and that is quoted below:

It is axiomatic in service jurisprudence that any promotions made wrongly in excess of any quota are to be adhoc. This applies to reservation quota as much as it applies to direct recruits and promotee cases. If a Court decides that in order only to remove hardship such roster-point promotees are not to face reversions, - then it would, in our opinion be, necessary to hold - consistent with our interpretation of Article 14 and 16(1) - that such promotees cannot plead for grant of any additional benefit of seniority flowing from a wrong application of the roster. In our view while Courts can relieve immediate hardship arising out of a past illegality, Courts cannot grant additional benefits like seniority which have no element of immediate hardship. Thus, while promotions in excess of roster made before 10.2.1995 are protected, such promotees cannot claim seniority. Seniority in the promotional cadre of such excess roster-point promotees shall have to be reviewed after 10.2.1995 and will count only from the date on which they would have otherwise got normal promotion in any future vacancy arising in a post previously occupied by a reserved candidate. That disposes of the ''prospectivity'' point in relation to Sabharwal.

For the reasons, observations and direction made above, these writ appeals are disposed of. The impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge that merge with this judgment and order.