Chandra Prakash & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

1. The petitioners, who are respondents No. 7 to 9 and 17 to 22 in O.A. No. 4230/2015 filed bythe respondents No. 4 to 7 herein, are aggrieved by a common judgment dated 22.03.2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, wherein the issue relating to reservation in promotion was raised. In the impugned judgment, by placing reliance on its earlier decision dated 22.01.2018 in the case of Ram Pher Yadav & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (O.A. No.3476/2013) as also the directions issued by the Supreme Court in M. Nagarai & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Others [(2006) 8 SCC 212], the Tribunal has held that if the State wishes to exercise its discretion and make provisions for reservation in promotion, it must collect quantifiable data showing backwardness of the Class and inadequacy of representation of that Class in public employment in addition to complying with Article 335. Noting that the respondents herein have not conducted the exercise as directed by the Constitution Bench in M Nagarai Csupra) and that without such an exercise being conducted, no State/Authority can apply the rule of reservation in promotion, the Tribunal has disposed of the original fV.F. (C) 7051/2018 Page 1 of[2] 2018:DHC:8538-DB apphcafonw.ththesamedirectionsashad beenissuedtotherespondentsin he caseofRamPhejOada,^to redrawthepromotional lists/panels •already issued, withall consequential benefits exceptforany backwages mthe circumstances ofthe case.

2. Dr. Rajesh, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the nunal has failed to appreciate that in arecent order dated 14.11 2017 passed by the Supreme Court in State.MJnm!ra &Qrs. vs [Civil Appeals No.4562-4564 of2017], it was opined that the case requires to be heard by aConstitution Bench as per the constitutional mandate underArticle 145(3)ofthe Constitution ofIndia for consideration, includingarelookifnecessa^,atthejudgmeminM. Nasaraj fsupral

3. On perusing the order dated 14.11.2017 in Javanta (mrnl, we find that the counsel for the petitioners therein had pressed for an interim relief, which was declined by the Supreme Court with an express view that even interim relief needs to be considered by the Constitution Bench, andlibertywasgrantedtotheparties thereintomentiontheurgency before the Hon'ble ChiefJustice ofIndia. P 4. This being the position, we are not inclined to interfere in the.mpugnedjudgment or entertain the present petition, which is disposed of alongwith the pending applications with liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the Supreme Court for appropriate relief HIMAJCQHLI, j JULY10,2018/na REKHWiALLI,J W.P.(C) 7051/2018 / / Paie^of[2]