JASBIR SINGH, J. - (1.) THIS order will dispose of two appeals viz. Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 588 of 2014 titled as "Sant Lal and Others v. State of Haryana and Others and No. 586 of 2014 titled as "Sumer Chand and Others v. State of Haryana and Others", as the common questions of law and facts are involved therein. To dictate order, facts are being taken from Letters Patent Appeal No. 588 of 2014.
(2.) IN view of peculiar facts of this case, application is allowed. Delay of 569 days in filing the appeal stands condoned. Respondents No. 4 to 15 filed Civil Writ Petition No. 17280 of 2011 with a prayer that instructions dated 16.3.2006 providing seniority to the scheduled caste employees be set aside being violative of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. It was their further case that those instructions deserve to be quashed having been issued contrary to the ratio of judgment of the Supreme Court in M. Nagaraj v. Union of India and Others (2006) 8 Supreme Court Cases 212 besides other judgments. Their further prayer was to quash orders dated 16.9.2010 (Annexure P5) and 17.9.2010 (Annexure P6), respectively vide which their claim for stepping up of pay of senior general category employees at par with their junior counterparts of reserved category employees was rejected. That writ petition was allowed vide order dated 7.8.2012. Instructions and orders, referred to above, were quashed. As per admitted facts on record, issue regarding accelerated promotion came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in M.Nagraj's case (supra) and it was observed as under: - "123. However, in this case, as stated above, the main issue concerns the "extent of reservation". In this regard the State concerned will have to show in each case the existence of the compelling reasons, namely, backwardness, inadequacy of representation and overall administrative efficiency before making provision for reservation. As stated above, the impugned provision is an enabling provision. The State is not bound to make reservation for SC/ST in matter of promotions. However, if they wish to exercise their discretion and make such provision, the State has to collect quantifiable data showing backwardness of the class and inadequacy of representation of that class in public employment in addition to compliance with Article 335. It is made clear that even if the State has compelling reasons, as stated above, the State will have to see that its reservation provision does not lead to excessiveness so as to breach the ceiling -limit of 50% or obliterate the creamy layer or extend the reservation indefinitely."
(3.) IT was specifically noted that such like promotions can be given if the competent authority is satisfied on the basis of quantifiable data that there was backwardness, inadequacy of representation in public employment and overall administrative efficiency. It was further said that only if such an exercise is done by the Government then reservation in promotion can be given. Noting that above exercise was not done by the Government, in M.Nagraj's case (supra) the promotions were quashed and parameters were laid down to adopt such a policy of accelerated promotion.;