Here the Court reconciled two conflicting precedents on whether a reserved‑category promotee could claim seniority dating back to continuous officiation. The Bench ruled that roster‑point promotions do not automatically carry seniority against general‑category colleagues promoted later. However, if a general candidate catches up—i.e. is promoted to the same grade before the reserved candidate’s next promotion—that general candidate must be slotted ahead in the seniority list. This “catch‑up” rule preserves both the purpose of reservation and the fairness of the continuous‑officiation principle, giving clearer guidance to every promotional board.
Issues Framed: Whether roster‑point reserved‐category promotees can count seniority from date of officiation vis‑à‑vis general‑category promotees; validity of “catch‑up” principle.
Advocate for Petitioner: K. Parasaran, D.D. Thakur, M.N. Rao & J.P. Verghese (for reserved candidates) blog.ipleaders.in
Arguments (Petitioner): Continuous officiation rule should apply equally; reserved promotees must preserve seniority.
Advocate for Respondent: State of Punjab’s Standing Counsel.
Arguments (Respondent): “Catch‑up” principle permits general candidates to regain seniority when subsequently promoted.
Judgment (Bench): Three‑Judge Bench held reserved promotees cannot count seniority from officiation date against later‑promoted general candidates; “catch‑up” rule applies blog.ipleaders.in
Implication for Common Man: Clarified fair seniority rules in government promotions, balancing equality with reservation policy.
