ORDER 1. In an administrative suit, the parties had agreed for sale of a property at Ootacamund in the State of Tamil Nadu. The receivers appointed by the court for the purpose sold the said property. The appellants herein are the purchasers thereof. Some of the parties to the suit raised objections to the sale purporting to be under Order 21, Rule 90 read with Section 151 CPC. An objection was raised before the trial court that such objections were not maintainable. The trial court framed a preliminary issue and went into the matter. It rejected the application as being not maintainable. The respondents herein took the matter in appeal to the High Court which was placed before a Division Bench for disposal. The High Court agreed with the trial court that an objection under Order 21, Rule 90 CPC to such a sale did not lie. But since the sale had been effected by the court through its appointed receivers, the High Court viewed that the court had full control and grip over the matter, empowering it to oversee whether the sale had been properly conducted and if there was any other objection thereto, what was the merit of the objection. This role of the court was spelled out by the High Court to be within the domain of Section 151 SPC which recognises and preserves the inherent powers of the civil court. It is for that purpose that the High Court effected a remand to the trial court to go into the matter, holding the application filed by the respondents maintainable. That view is in question before this Court. 2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are in total unison with the views expressed by the High Court. In an administrative suit, the receivers appointed by the court to perform a function are agents of the court and like a good principal, the court can put the receivers to accountability. To awaken the role of the court in that behalf, applications by the parties connected with the suit are perfectly in order to obviate any doubt entering in that regard and to effect a sense of transparency so that on blame or aspersion is cast on the court for its having handled the matter in a particular way. The courts role is of a balancer. 3. The courts role is of a balancer. 3. It has also to be born in mind that interests of justice are the primary consideration in granting or not granting prayers in a petition under Section 151 CPC. No rule or procedure can curtail that power of the court. The High Court has rightly pursued that path in permitting the trial court to examine the objections raised, to promote the cause of justice. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere in the said order. 4. The appeal, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. But without any order as to costs. 33. Shri Dhavan points out yet another anomaly. Where a candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste gets selected on his merit, i.e., in the general category, he will be treated as a general candidate and on that account he suffers prejudice vis-a-vis another reserved category candidate who could not be selected on his merit (i.e. in the general category) and was selected only because of and under the rule of reservation. For illustrating his submission, learned counsel says, take an instance where out of forty candidates selected, a Scheduled Caste candidate selected on merit stands at SI. No. 18 in the select list, whereas another Scheduled Caste candidate selected under and only because of the reserved quota stands at SI. No. 33. But when the occasion for appointment arises, the Scheduled Caste candidate at SI. No. 33 will be appointed against the first roster point, whereas the Scheduled Caste candidate at SI. No. 18, being a general candidate has to wait for his turn. This, the learned counsel says, amounts, in effect, to punishing the Scheduled Caste candidate at SI. No. 18 for his merit. Because he was meritorious, he was selected in general category and is treated as a general candidate. He suffers all the disadvantages any other general candidate suffers while another Schedule Caste candidate, far less meritorious than him and who was selected only by virtue of rule of reservation, steals a march over him in the matter of initial appointment and in promotion after promotion thereafter. This is undoubtedly a piquant situation and may have to be appropriately rectified as and when the occasion arises. It is not pointed out that any such situation has arisen in the appeals before us. It is probable that many such situations may arise which cannot be foretold now. This is undoubtedly a piquant situation and may have to be appropriately rectified as and when the occasion arises. It is not pointed out that any such situation has arisen in the appeals before us. It is probable that many such situations may arise which cannot be foretold now. According to the general category candidates herein concerned, of course, the rule of reservation/roster has already given rise to many distortions. According to them, the representation of the reserved categories in Guard Grade 'A' Special has reached 40 per cent as against the prescribed 22.5 per cent. It is not possible for us to say, on the material before us, how and why the said situation has come about. It may be partly because the rule now enunciated in R.K. Sabharwal was not there and was not being followed. It may also be that such a result has been brought about by a combined operation of the factors mentioned in (i) and (ii) above. The fact remains that the situation - assuming that it is what is described by the general candidates - cannot be rectified with retrospective effect now. The Constitution Bench in R.K. Sabharwal too has directed that the rule enunciated therein shall have only prospective operation. So far as the present appeals are concerned, it is sufficient to direct that the Railway authorities shall hereinafter follow Rules (i), (ii) and (iii) (stated in para No. 29) with effect from the date of judgment in R.K. Sabharwal, i.e., 10-2-1995. 34. Learned counsel have sought to bring to our notice individual facts of some of the appeals before us but we do not propose to enter into those facts or make any pronouncement thereon. The proper course, in our considered opinion, is to send all these matters back to the Tribunal to work out the rights of individuals concerned applying the three principles aforesaid. These appeals are accordingly disposed of in the above terms and matters remanded to the respective Tribunals. Writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. SELECTION POSTS Civil Appeal No. 9276 of 1995 arising out of SLP (C) No. 18370 of 1993 35. Delay condoned. Leave granted. 36. This appeal arises from the judgment of Central Administrative Tribunal (Madras Bench) allowing Original Application No. 869 of 1991 filed by the respondent, Shri D. Williams. Writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. SELECTION POSTS Civil Appeal No. 9276 of 1995 arising out of SLP (C) No. 18370 of 1993 35. Delay condoned. Leave granted. 36. This appeal arises from the judgment of Central Administrative Tribunal (Madras Bench) allowing Original Application No. 869 of 1991 filed by the respondent, Shri D. Williams. The relevant facts, drawn from the counter filed on behalf of the Railway Board and its officials the Tribunal, are the following. 37. The cadre of Station Masters is divided into five grades. The grads and inter se percentage is as follows: ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sl. Category & Grade Whether selection Percentage No. or non-selection distribution of post in each grade ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. Asstt. Station Master Recruitment/Selection 10% Rs. 1200-2040 2. Station Master Non-Selection 70% Rs. 1400-2300 3. Station Master/TI Non- Rs. 1600-2660 Selection/Recruitment 10% 4. Dy. Station Supdt./TI Selection 10% Rs. 2000-3200 5. Station Supdt./TI Selection 10% of Rs. 2375-3500 posts in Rs. 2000- 3200 ----------------------------------------------------------------- 38. The posts of Assistant Station Masters in the scale of Rs. 1200-2040 are filled by direct recruitment through Railway Recruitment Boards to the extent of 50 per cent. The balance 50 per cent is filled by promotion of department employees. The higher grades in the said cadre are filled by promotion from the immediately lower grade. Twenty-five per cent of the posts in the scale of Rs. 1600-2660 are, however, filled by direct recruitment of Traffic Apprentices. 39. The first respondent, Shri Williams (petitioner in the original application before the Tribunal) was promoted to the post of Deputy Station Superintendent/Traffic Inspector in the scale of Rs. 2000-3200 on 30-12-1989. Actually, he was initially appointed as a Signaller in the scale of Rs. 60-150. Over the years, he earned promotions one after the other. In the scale of Rs. 130-240, he was senior to Respondents 4 to 10 in the original application (they are not impleaded as respondents in this appeal), all of whom belong to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes. Because of rule of reservation and the manner in which it was implemented, the said Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates were promoted to the higher categories sooner. They came to be promoted to the post of Deputy Station Superintendent/Traffic Inspector in the scale of Rs. 2000-3200 far earlier to Shri Williams, i.e., on 1-1-1984 or earlier. Because of rule of reservation and the manner in which it was implemented, the said Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates were promoted to the higher categories sooner. They came to be promoted to the post of Deputy Station Superintendent/Traffic Inspector in the scale of Rs. 2000-3200 far earlier to Shri Williams, i.e., on 1-1-1984 or earlier. On that basis, the said Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates were being treated as seniors to Shri Williams who is, of course, a general candidate. 40. The posts of Station Superintendent/Traffic Inspector in the scale of Rs. 2375-3500 are controlled by and dealt with at Head Quarter's level. They are filled on "All Railway" basis by a process of selection (which comprises of viva voce only) from among the Deputy Station Superintendents/Traffic Inspectors in the scale of Rs. 2000-3000. 41. Eleven vacancies arose in the scale of Rs. 2375-3500. According to rules, three candidates have to be considered for every vacancy. Accordingly, a list of thirty-three seniormost candidates in the scale of Rs. 2000-3200 was prepared on the basis of their respective dates of entry in the said grade. They were 'alerted' to be ready to appear for the interview by a letter dated 12-7-1991. All the thirty-three seniormost employees so alerted belong to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes. Shri Williams was not among the thirty-three. It is then that Shri Williams approached the Tribunal praying for setting aside the alert notice dated 12-7-1991, to revise the seniority list of all the grades in the Station Masters' category protecting the seniority of general candidates and for a further declaration that rule of reservation cannot be applied against vacancies. He sought a further declaration that the said rule of reservation is confined to recruitment to the scale of Rs. 1200-2040 alone - i.e. to the lowest grade in the cadre - and not to higher grades. 42. The Tribunal allowed the original application filed by Shri Williams following its earlier decision in Original Application No. 85 of 1989. The Tribunal declared that for the purpose of promotion under the general quota, seniority of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates should not be determined on the basis of the date of their actual promoted but on the basis of the date on which they would have been promoted in due course if the rule of reservation were not applied. The Tribunal, however, declared that the seniority in the grade of Rs. The Tribunal, however, declared that the seniority in the grade of Rs. 1600-2660 shall not be disturbed because the applicant had not approached the Tribunal in time to challenge the seniority in that scale. The relief granted by the Tribunal is in the following terms: "In the result, we allow the application and pass the following orders: We direct the respondents to revise the seniority of the applicants and respondents in the scale of Rs. 2000-3200 taking into account for the applicant his date of actual promotion and for Respondents 4 to 10 the date on which they would have been granted promotion in that grade but for the preferential treatment based on reservation. Promotion shall be made according to a selection based on the revised list." 43. The learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the appellants (Union of India and the Railways) challenged the correctness of the decision of the Tribunal on the ground that it has evolved a principle of seniority not recognised by any rule or circular orders of the Railway Board and is unsustainable in any event. He submitted, relying upon the decision in Karam Chand v. SEB that the date of promotion to a particular grade of category determines the seniority in that grade or category. Inasmuch as the said thirty-three candidates were alerted (called for) on the basis of their seniority for interview (for selection to eleven posts in the grade of Rs. 2375-3500) no valid grievance can be made by anyone to such a course. 44. Shri S. Muralidhar, learned counsel for Shri D. Williams submits that this is a demonstrable case of injustice being done to general candidates by applying not only the rule of reservation at every stage of promotion but also because the rule of seniority enunciated by the Railway Board in its several circulars was not being followed by the authorities concerned. He submits that it is for the Railways to explain how the situation has come about where all the thirty-three candidates being considered for eleven vacancies happen to belong exclusively to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe categories. He submits that Shri Williams was admittedly a senior to Respondents 4 to 10 (in the original application, i.e., Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates) in the grade of Rs. 130-240 but then the said Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates obtained rapid and preferential promotions to next higher grades, viz., Rs. 330-560, Rs. 425-640, Rs. He submits that Shri Williams was admittedly a senior to Respondents 4 to 10 (in the original application, i.e., Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates) in the grade of Rs. 130-240 but then the said Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates obtained rapid and preferential promotions to next higher grades, viz., Rs. 330-560, Rs. 425-640, Rs. 455-700, Rs. 1600-2660 and then to the grade of Rs. 2000-3200. They reached the grade of Rs. 2000-3200 more than five years earlier to Shri Williams who was their senior in the lower category of Rs. 130-240. The result to faulty implementation of rule of reservation and rule of seniority is that all the top grades have come to be occupied exclusively by the reserved category members, a situation, which he characterises as a total negation of the Rule of Equality underlying Articles 16(1), 16(4) and 14. He emphasises the fact that the Railways have not explained in their counter as to how the above situation has come above except stating baldly that since the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates were seniors to Shri Williams in the grade of Rs. 2000-3200, they were rightly alerted for interview. 45. It is true that this case presents a rather poignant turn of events. Of the thirty-three candidates being considered for eleven vacancies, all are Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates. Not a single candidate among them belongs to general category. The learned counsel for the respondent is justified in complaining that the appellants have failed to explain how such a situation has come about. Not only the juniors are stealing a march over their seniors but the march is so rapid that not only erstwhile compatriots are left far behind but even the persons who were in the higher categories at the time of entry of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates in the service have also been left behind. Such a configuration could not certainly have been intended by the Framers of the Constitution or the framers of the rulers of reservation. In the absence of any explanation from the authorities, the best we can do is to ascribe it as faulty implementation of the rule of reservation. Such a configuration could not certainly have been intended by the Framers of the Constitution or the framers of the rulers of reservation. In the absence of any explanation from the authorities, the best we can do is to ascribe it as faulty implementation of the rule of reservation. In other words, not only have the Railways not observed the principle that the reservation must be vis-a-vis posts and not vis-a-vis vacancies but they had not kept in mind the rule of seniority in the promotion posts enunciated in the Railway Board's circulars referred to supra. Yet another principle which the authorities appeared to have not observed in practice is that once the percentage reserved for a particular reserved category is satisfied in that service category or grade (unit of appointment) the rule of reservation and the roster should no longer be followed. Because of the breach to these three rules, it appears, the unusual situation complained of by the general candidates has come to pass. The learned counsel for general candidates is right that such a situation is bound to lead to acute heart-burning among the general candidates which is not conducive to the efficiency of administration. Be that as it may, the question is can the said situation be rectified. Probably not, until we direct all the promotions to be reviewed and redone. This may not be advisable at this distance of time. The enormity of the exercise should deter anyone from launching upon such a course. It is evidently for this reason that the Constitution Bench has directed in R.K. Sabharwal that the rule affirmed by them should be applied only prospectively. There is yet another circumstance: the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates cannot be barred from competing for general posts. We are constrained to remark that it is the application of rule of reservation in the matter of promotions - which entitles a reserved category candidate to avail of the benefit of reservation any number of times which is mainly responsible for such a situation. 46. While referring to the Railway Board's circulars/letters in Virpal Singh Chauhan, we had referred to the Railway Board's circular/letter dated 19-1-1972 dealing with promotion to selection posts. 46. While referring to the Railway Board's circulars/letters in Virpal Singh Chauhan, we had referred to the Railway Board's circular/letter dated 19-1-1972 dealing with promotion to selection posts. (Para 3 of the said letter is in the same terms as para 4 of the Railway Board's circular/letter dated 31-8-1982 referred to supra.) The said para 3 reads: "(3) The seniority of candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes vis-a-vis others will continue to be determined as at present, i.e., according to the panel position in the case of categories where training is not provided and in accordance with the merit position in the examination where training is provided." But inasmuch as the post of Station Superintendent/TI in the scale of Rs. 2375-3500 is a selection post, the panel referred to in the said circulars/letters would mean the panel prepared at the time of making selections for promotion to the said post (Rs. 2375-3500) - and not the panel/select list prepared at the time of entry into the initial grade, viz., Assistant Station Master (Rs. 1200-2040). It also means that members in one panel take precedence over the members in the next panel. The application of the rule of seniority referred to in the said circular/letter - and other circulars/letters referred to supra most of which do not make any distinction between selection and non-selection posts - has to be subject to the said limitation. 47. It may be noticed that of the five grades in the Station Masters' category, two are non-selection posts while the remaining three are selection posts. While in the case of non-selection posts the rule enunciated in the main opinion (Virpal Singh Chauhan) would be applicable, in the case of selection posts, in the rule explained herein has to be followed. We may clarify that Rules (i) and (ii) in para 29 of Virpal Singh Chauhan apply to both selection and non-selection posts. Rule (iii) also applies to both but subject to the above rider. As explained in the main opinion, while there is no question of a 'panel' being prepared at the time of promotion to non-selection posts, a panel has to be prepared for promotion to selection posts. (48) This appeal is accordingly allowed and the matter remanded to the Tribunal with a direction to dispose of the original application afresh in the light of the principles enunciated herein. No costs. (48) This appeal is accordingly allowed and the matter remanded to the Tribunal with a direction to dispose of the original application afresh in the light of the principles enunciated herein. No costs. Civil Appeal No. 9275 of 1995 [arising out of SLP (C) No. 4102 of 1994] 49. Delay condoned. Leave granted. 50. The respondent [petitioner before the Central Administrative Tribunal (Allahabad Bench)], Shri Mohd. Sabir, joined the Railways as an Office Clerk on 20-12-1957. He was promoted as Head Clerk and then as an Assistant Superintendent. His promotion to the post of Assistant Superintendent was on 12-3-1985. The next promotion is to the post of Superintendent. He approached the Tribunal complaining that when two vacancies arose in the category of Superintendents, the Railway Authorities called certain Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates for interview in preference to him though they are far junior to him. He gave three instances, viz., (1) Shri A.P. Pramanik, who joined the service twenty years after him and who was promoted as Assistant Superintendent only on 22-2-1988. (2) Shri Kamal Kishore, who was initially appointed as Class IV employee but who is being treated as senior to the petitioner and (3) Shri Amrendra Kumar Das, who was appointed as an Office Clerk twenty-two years after his appointment and who came to be promoted as Assistant Superintendent on 25-2-1986. The grievance of Shri Mohd. Sabir is this: the total sanctioned strength of the category of Superintendents (Grade Rs. 2000-3200 RPS) is thirteen. There are three vacancies. Of the remaining ten, only two are general candidates and the remaining eight belong to Scheduled Castes. In spite of the same, the candidates now being considered for promotion are again Scheduled Caste candidates which is likely to result in an almost total reservation in the said category in favour of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates. The case of the appellants (respondents in the original application) is that they are considering the seniormost candidates for the vacancies arising in the category of Superintendents and, therefore, no objection can be taken with the said course by anyone. 51. The Tribunal has allowed the original application in the following terms: "It appears that some mathematical mistake occurred on the part of department in making the promotion and deciding the seniority. According to learned counsel in view of Virpal Singh Chauhan case these candidates are to be reverted. 51. The Tribunal has allowed the original application in the following terms: "It appears that some mathematical mistake occurred on the part of department in making the promotion and deciding the seniority. According to learned counsel in view of Virpal Singh Chauhan case these candidates are to be reverted. Whether they are to be reverted or not that is the matter for the respondents to decide all such observations which have been made in Virpal Singh case, but the respondents are directed to promote the members of the general community to the extent they are entitled to by adhering to the seniority. Accordingly, since the matter is not decided finally by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, however those persons who have already been promoted, it is for the respondents to make arrangement either for the ex cadre post for them otherwise if they are now interested, keep them for the post of Superintendent and will adjust the seniority list accordingly in accordance with Virpal Singh case. Let all these be done within the period of 3 months from the date of communication of this order. No order as to the costs." 52. This appeal is liable to be dismissed applying the principle enunciated in R.K Sabharwal. It is evident that out of the cadre strength of thirteen, there were three vacancies on the date of filing of the original application before the Tribunal and of the remaining ten posts, only two were occupied by the general candidates and the remaining eight were occupied by the members of Scheduled Castes. Since the representation of Scheduled Castes is already far beyond their quota, no further Scheduled Caste candidates could have been considered for the remaining three vacancies. This means that the Scheduled Caste candidates can be considered only as and along with general candidates but not as members belonging to a reserved category. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with the aforesaid clarification. Civil Appeal No. 9274 of 1995 [arising our of SLP (C) No. 6924 of 1988] 53. Delay condoned. Leave granted. 54. This matter pertains to promotion to the posts of Office Superintendent Grade-I, Office Superintendent Grade-II and Head Clerk. The original application was filed by three candidates belonging to general category. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with the aforesaid clarification. Civil Appeal No. 9274 of 1995 [arising our of SLP (C) No. 6924 of 1988] 53. Delay condoned. Leave granted. 54. This matter pertains to promotion to the posts of Office Superintendent Grade-I, Office Superintendent Grade-II and Head Clerk. The original application was filed by three candidates belonging to general category. Their grievance was that the representation of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes candidate has already exceeded the percentage reserved for them and in spite of that the Scheduled Caste candidates are again being considered for the vacancies arising in the said categories. By way of illustration, they pointed out, the sanctioned strength of the category of Head Clerks is six. Four are filled up and there are two vacancies. Out of the four posts already filled up, two are held by general category candidates and two by the members of Scheduled Castes. The claim of the original petitioners (respondents in this appeal), which has been upheld by the Calcutta Tribunal, is that the remaining two vacancies should go only to general candidates. Similar direction has been made with respect to other two categories as well. The Tribunal further directed that the rule of reservation must be applied with reference to posts and not with reference to vacancies. The main contention of the Union of India and the Railway Authorities in this appeal is that the rule of reservation in favour of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes should be applied to vacancies and not to total number of posts in the cadre. It is submitted that the Tribunal was in error in holding that the rule of reservation should be so applied as to ensure that the posts held by Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes do not exceed the prescribed percentage. It is submitted that this was never the intention of the Constitution or the rule of reservation. 55. The only contention urged by the appellants herein is concluded against the appellants by the decision of this Court in R.K. Sabharwal, referred to hereinbefore. Following the said decision this appeal is dismissed with the clarification that the members of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes can also compete as general candidates. The appellant shall follow and apply the said decision. No costs. 56. Before parting with these appeals, we feel obliged to reiterate the principle affirmed in Indra Sawhney that providing reservation in promotion is not warranted by Article 16(4). The appellant shall follow and apply the said decision. No costs. 56. Before parting with these appeals, we feel obliged to reiterate the principle affirmed in Indra Sawhney that providing reservation in promotion is not warranted by Article 16(4). The facts of these cases illustrate and demonstrate the correctness of the said holding. They also being home the intractable problems that arise from such provision - problems that defy solutions. No more need we say on this aspect. The decision in Indra Sawhney speaks for itself.