‘V\s per the material on record, the case of the petitioners is covered by the judgment in B.K.Pavitra vs. Union of India, dated 09.02.2017 reported in (2017) 4 see 620, wherein the Supreme eourt held as follows:“Itisclearfromtheabove discussion that exercise for determining "inadequacy of representation’, 'backwardness' and ‘overall efficiency;, is a must for exercise of power Under Article 16(4A). Mere fact that there is no proportionate representation in promotional posts for the population of SCs and STs is not by itself It is clear from the above discussion that exercise for determining ‘inadequacy of representation’, ‘backwardness’ and ‘overall efficiency;, is a must for exercise of power under Article 16(4A). Mere fact that there is no proportionate representation in promotional posts for the population of SCs and STs is not by itself enough to grant consequential seniority to promotes who are otherwise junior and thereby denying seniority to those who are given promotion later on account of reservation policy. It is for the State to place materialonrecordthattherewas compelling necessity for exercise of such power anddecisionoftheStatewas based on material including the study that overall efficiency is not compromised. In the present case, no such exercise has been undertaken. The High Court erroneously observed that it was for the petitioners to plead and prove that the overall efficiency was adversely affected by giving consequential seniority to junior persons who got promotion on account of reservation. Plea that persons promoted at the same time were allowed to retain their seniority in the lower cadre is untenable and ignores the fact that a senior persons may be promoted later and not at same time on account of roster point reservation. Depriving him of his seniority affects his further chances of promotion. Further plea that seniority was not a fundamental right is equally without any merit in the present context. In absence of exercise under Article 16(4A), it is the ‘catch up’ Rule which isfully applies. It is not necessary to go into the question whether the concerned Corporation had adopted the Rule of consequential seniority. In view of the above, we allow these appeals, set aside the impugned judgment and declare the provisions of the impugned Act to the extent of doing away with the ‘catch up’ Rule and providing for consequential seniority under Sections 3 and 4 to persons belonging to SCs and STs on promotion against rosterpointsto beultravires Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The judgmentwillnotaffectthosewho have already retired and will not affect ifnancial benefits already taken. Consequential promotions granted to serving employees, based onconsequential seniority benefit, will be treated as ad hoc and liableto bereviewed.Senioritylist may be now revised in the light of this judgment withinthree monthsfromtoday. Further consequential action may be taken accordinglywithinnextthreemonths.’’
