ORDER 1. These writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution relate to reservation for Backward Classes in Civil Services in the State of Haryana. The petitioners in these writ petitions, who belong to the general category, have raised the following grievances : (1) Earlier, by Notification dated 23-7-1970/24-7-1970, it was prescribed that persons who belong to castes or classes which are listed as Backward Classes by the State Government on the basis of their economic backwardness, social status or occupation etc. will be eligible for appointment against the posts reserved for Backward Classes only if their income does not exceed Rs. 1800 per annum. The said ceiling about income has been removed by Notification dated 17-5- 1973. (2) The quantum of reservation for Backward Classes which was earlier fixed at 2% was raised to 5% by Notification dated 9-2-1979 and has further increased to 10% by Notification dated 16-12-1980. (3) Earlier reservation was being given against posts and not against vacancies. By Notification dated 9-2-1979 reservation has been given both against the new posts whether permanent or temporary as well as a vacancies which may occur as a result of death, retirement, resignation, removal or dismissal. By Notification dated 8-5-1980 reservation is also given against vacancies which may occur as a result of promotion on regular basis. (4) Under Rule 9 of the Punjab Civil Secretariat (State Service Class III) Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"), which had been made applicable in the State of Haryana, it was provided that inter se seniority of members of the service holding the same class of posts shall be determined by the date of their substantive appointment to such post. As a result of the said rule, persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes as well as Backward Classes, who have obtained the benefit of reservation, would get accelerated promotion to the higher post by virtue of their seniority on the basis of their earlier promotion. 2. Grievances (1) and (2) : These grievances regarding removal of ceiling on income in the matter of eligibility for appointment against posts reserved for Backward Classes and the enlargement of quantum of reservation for Backward Classes are covered by the judgment of this Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India [1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 : 1992 SCC (L&S) Supp 1 : (1992) 22 ATC 385]. The notifications referred to above in that regard, if not reviewed so far, will be reviewed by the authorities concerned in accordance with the law laid down by this Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992 Supp (3) Scc 217 : 1992 SCC (L&S) Supp 1 : (1992) 22 ATC 385). 3. Grievance (3) : The question whether reservation is to be against posts or against vacancies has been decided by the Constitution Bench of this Court in R. K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab ( (1995) 2 SCC 745 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 548 : (1995) 29 ATC 481 ) wherein it has been laid down that promotion is permissible only on the basis of posts and not on the basis of vacancies. In the said judgment it has also been laid down that the said declaration of law will have prospective operation. The Notifications dated 9-2-1979 and 8-5-1980, if not reviewed so far, will be reviewed in the light of the law laid down in R. K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab ( (1995) 2 SCC 745 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 548 : (1995) 29 ATC 481 ) with effect from the date of the said decision. 4. Grievance (4) : The law as regards accelerated promotion to higher post by virtue of seniority on account of earlier promotion due to reservation is now settled by the decision of this Court in Union of India v. Virpal Singh Chauhan ( (1995) 6 SCC 684 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 1 : (1995) 31 ATC 813) and Ajit Singh Januja v. State of Punjab ( (1996) 2 SCC 715 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 540 : (1996) 33 ATC 239 ). In Virpal Singh Chauhan ( (1995) 6 SCC 684 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 1 : (1995) 31 ATC 813) It is expressly stated that the said judgment would have prospective operation with effect from the date of the judgment in R. K. Sabharwal ( (1995) 2 SCC 745 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 548 : (1995) 29 ATC 481 ). But in Ajit Singh Januja ( (1996) 2 SCC 715 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 540 : (1996) 33 ATC 239 ) there is nothing to show that the said decision is intended to be prospective in operation. 5. But in Ajit Singh Januja ( (1996) 2 SCC 715 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 540 : (1996) 33 ATC 239 ) there is nothing to show that the said decision is intended to be prospective in operation. 5. On behalf of the petitioners in these cases it has been pointed out that many of the respondents have already retired or have been promoted to higher posts but some of the respondents and the petitioners are placed on posts at the same level. In the circumstances it is directed that the seniority of those respondents who have already retired or are promoted to higher posts shall not be disturbed. The seniority of the petitioners and the respondents who are holding posts at the same level or in the same cadre will be adjusted by the respondent-State keeping in view the principles laid down in the case of Virpal Singh Chauhan ( (1995) 6 SCC 684 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 1 : (1995) 31 ATC 813) and Ajit Singh Januja ( (1996) 2 SCC 715 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 540 : (1996) 33 ATC 239 ) but if any promotions have been given to any of them during the pendency of these matters the same shall not be disturbed. 6. The writ petitions are disposed of with the above directions. No order as to costs.