JUDGMENT Honble Mr. Attar Singh, Vice Chairman:-The main controversy in the case is that whether the roster point promotes (reserved category) count their seniority in the promoted category from the date of their continuous officiation vis-a-vis general candidates who were senior to them in the lower category and who were later promoted to the same level. 2. Briefly the case of the applicant is that he was promoted as Superintendent Grade II w.e.f. 7th August, 1989. He is eligible for promotions to the post of Undersecretary but persons junior to him have been promoted by the respondent department ignoring his preferential claim for such promotion. The applicant is a senior most officer in the feeder category. It is further submitted by the applicant that there has been a prolong litigation between the reserve and general category officers and ultimately go concluded before the Honble Supreme Court of India when judgmentsinl R.K. Sabharwal and others vs. State of Punjab and others, Union of India and others Vs. Virpal Singh Chauhan etc. and A.S. Januja & others vs. State of Punjab and others were delivered by the court. On the basis of the judgments, the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh on 27.05.1996 issued instructions to various Heads of the Departments. According to these instructions 8 even if a scheduled caste/scheduled tribe candidate is promoted earlier by oay of rule of reservations/roster then his senior general candidate and the senior general candidate is promoted later to the said higher grade, the general candidate shall regain his seniority over such earlier promoted scheduled caste/scheduled tribe candidate. These judgments given by the Supreme Court became a subject matter of further discussions in Jagdish Lal & others vs. State of Haryana which was decided by the Supreme Court on 07.05.1997. The Court held that the scheduled caste officers promoted on the basis of reservation cannot be denied the benefit of further promotion simply because they gained any seniority in the higher cadre because of their promotion against reserved points. The Supreme Court in the operative part of the judgment in Jagdish Lal & Others vs. State of Haryana and other observed that: "Their seniority is not and cannot have the effect of getting wiped out after the promotion of general candidates from their respective date of promotion. The Supreme Court in the operative part of the judgment in Jagdish Lal & Others vs. State of Haryana and other observed that: "Their seniority is not and cannot have the effect of getting wiped out after the promotion of general candidates from their respective date of promotion. The general candidates remain junior in higher echelon to the reserved candidates as was held by the High Court." It is further submitted by the applicant that once a Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe Officer gains promotion to higher post, he ceases to be a member of the lower/feeder cadre and if on the basis of his experience gained on the higher post, becomes eligible for promotion, he cannot be deprived of that benefit simply because his promotion to the higher cadre was on the basis of reservation. This view has already been taken by the Supreme Court in the case of Jagdish Lal vs. State of Haryana. The applicant submits that he has been deprived of legitimate right to promotion hence this application. 3. Reply has been filed by the respondents. In the reply filed by respondents 1 and 2, it has been stated that the applicant has based his claim for promotion to the post of Under Secretary (HPSS) on seniority list of Section Officers issued on 21.03.1995 (showing position as on 01.02.1995). It is stated that it is not in dispute that the applicant is eligible for promotion to the post of Under Secretary but the fact remains that there is no shortfall in reservation for the category of schedule tribe in the cadre of Under Secretaries. If there is no shortfall in representation to the category of Schedule Tribe he cannot be promoted to the post of Under Secretary as his promotion in such circumstances will result in excessive representation to the Schedule Tribe category which is not permissible in view of the law laid down by the Constitution bench of the Supreme Court of India in R.K. Sabharwals case. This promoting will amount to give him promotion against a general category post which can be done or resorted to only if he is eligible in his own turn on the basis of the entry grade seniority. This promoting will amount to give him promotion against a general category post which can be done or resorted to only if he is eligible in his own turn on the basis of the entry grade seniority. All the Section Officers who were promoted to the post of Under Secretary, even by giving them relaxation in qualifying service or from qualifying the departmental examination have been promoted against the posts meant for general category and they are senior to the applicant in the original seniority of entry grade. It is further submitted by the respondents that rule of reservations gives accelerated promotion, but it does not give the accelerated consequential seniority. This has also been held by the Supreme Court of India in Ajit Singh Januja and other vs. State of Punjab and others (AIR 1990 Supreme Court 1989). The respondents also states that the ratio of the judgment of Supreme Court in Jagdish Lal and others is not applicable fn the case of the applicant as that was with reference to the specific provision of seniority as contained in Rule 11 of the Haryana Education Department Class-Ill service Rules, 1974. In the case of the applicant who is an employee of the respondent state no statutory provisions has been made in the R & P Rules with regard to seniority and as such the seniority and further promotion is to be regulated under the instructions of the Respondent State, Annexure A-7/1 and 7/2 to the original application. 4. Reply has also been filed by respondents 3 and 4. In the reply it has been submitted by them that the plea of the applicant that in the light of the Supreme Court Judgment in Jagdish Lal vs. State of Haryana, (1997) 6 SCC 538, he is entitled to be promoted as Under Secretary, is not correct. In the first instance, the judgment in the case of Jagdish Lal (Supra) pertains to the State of Haryana and cannot be applied, to the facts of the present case which deals with a different service having different instructions on reservation policy. In the first instance, the judgment in the case of Jagdish Lal (Supra) pertains to the State of Haryana and cannot be applied, to the facts of the present case which deals with a different service having different instructions on reservation policy. The instructions pertaining to reservations policy of State of Himachal Pradesh was the subject matter of consideration in the case of Bhagat Ram Kaprate and others v. State of H.P. & others reported in 1987 (4) SLJ 7 which was taken in appeal before Honble Supreme Court of India and while disposing of the said appeal in the case of Guru Lai Negi vs. Bhagat Ram Kaparate, the Honble Supreme Court disposed of the said Appeal in the light of Judgment in the case of Ajit Singh Januja & others 1996 (2) SCC 215. Thus in the present case it is the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in Ajit Singh Januja, which is applicable and later judgment of Honble Supreme Court in case titled Jagdish Lal vs. State of Haryana which is a case arising out of the interpretation of rules in State of Haryana, cannot be made applicable in the present case. The respondents submits that the CWP No.10756/97 and CWP No.10759/97 was filed by the employees in State of Punjab belonging to reserved category. The Punjab and Haryana High Court vide judgment dated October 8, 1998, Annexure R-3/2 issued directions to frame seniority as per the ratio of judgment of Honble Supreme Court in Jagdish Lals case. The SLP (C) No.18028-18029 of 1999 (Annexure R-3/3) were filed before the Honble Supreme Court against the above mentioned judgment of Honble Punjab & Haryana High Court. The Honble Supreme Court was pleased to issue notice on the above mentioned Special Leave Petition on November 20, 1998 (Annexure R3/4). It was further directed that status quo be maintained and any promotions given on the basis of impugned order would be subject to the result of SLP. That vide order dated January 18, 1999, Annexure R-3/5, the Honble Supreme Court granted leave in the above mentioned special Leave Petition. It was further directed that status quo be maintained and any promotions given on the basis of impugned order would be subject to the result of SLP. That vide order dated January 18, 1999, Annexure R-3/5, the Honble Supreme Court granted leave in the above mentioned special Leave Petition. The Honble Supreme Court was further pleased to issue the direction that the said appeal would be listed before the constitution bench after eight weeks and till the matters are resolved by the Constitution Bench, the State shall not make any promotions on the basis of judgments which are subject matter of consideration by the Constitution Bench. Thus the Supreme Court has stayed the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court which had issued direction to follow the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in Jagdish Lal case. 5. The Constitution Bench of the apex Court vide its judgment dated 16.09.1999 in Ajit Singh and others vs. The State of Punjab & Others 1999(5) SCALE, consisting of Honble Mr. A.S. Anand, CJI, K. Venkataswami, G B Pattanik, S.P. Kurkukarand M. Jagnnadha Rao, JJ, framed the following four points for consideration : (i) Can the roster point promotes (reserve category) count their seniority in the promoted category from the date of their continuous officiation vis-a-vis general candidates who were senior to them in the lower category and who were later promoted to the same level ? (ii) Have Virpal, Ajit Singh been correctly decided and has Jagdish Lal been correctly decided ? (iii) Whether the catch up principles contended for by the general candidates are tenable ? (iv) What is the meaning of the prospective operation of Sabharwal and to what extent can Ajit Singh be prospective ? In the case in hand we are concerned with points (1) and (2). 6. (iii) Whether the catch up principles contended for by the general candidates are tenable ? (iv) What is the meaning of the prospective operation of Sabharwal and to what extent can Ajit Singh be prospective ? In the case in hand we are concerned with points (1) and (2). 6. After considering the following case laws; Union of India vs. Virpal Singh (1995) (6) SCO; Ajit Singh Januja & Others vs. State of Punjab 1996 (Z) SCC 215; Indira Sawhney vs. Union of India 1992(2) SCC 215; R. K. Sabharwal vs. State of Punjab 1995(2) SCC 745; (Constitution Bench) Ashok Kumar Gupta vs. State of U.P. 1995 (5) SCC 201 ; Jagdish Lal vs. State of Haryana 1997 (6) SCC 538 ; besides many other case law on the subject the Constitutional Bench held on points 1 and 2 as follows : "We, therefore, hold that the roster point promotes (reserved category) cannot count their seniority in the promoted category from the date of their continuous officiation in the promoted post, vis-a-vis the general candidates who were senior to (sic) in the lower category and who were later promoted. On the other hand, the senior general candidate at the lower level, if he reaches the promotional level later but before the further promotion of the reserved candidate- he will have to be treated as senior, at the promotional level, to the reserved candidate even if the (reserved candidate was earlier promoted to the level. We also hold that Virpal and Ajit Singh have been correctly decided and that Jagdish Lal is not correctly decided. Point 1 and 2 are decided accordingly." 7. The learned counsel for the applicant, Sh.K.D. Shridhar has also brought to our notice in support of his contention the case law of Suba Singh Bahmani and others vs. State of Haryana, Civil Appeal No.5324/99 arising out of SLP(C) No.16648/96, decided by the same Constitutional Bench which has decided the Ajit Singhs case. We have carefully gone through this judgment and we find that this is in no way in conflict with the judgment of Ajit Singhs case. 8. Thus the controversy stands settled as above by the Constitutional Bench and the employees who have acquired seniority on the basis of reservations cannot claim promotion against the post of general candidates. In the present case the applicant belongs to Schedule Tribe Category. 8. Thus the controversy stands settled as above by the Constitutional Bench and the employees who have acquired seniority on the basis of reservations cannot claim promotion against the post of general candidates. In the present case the applicant belongs to Schedule Tribe Category. At present no vacancy is available against the Schedule Tribe category as their quota is full. Accordingly in view of the above discussions and in view of the judgment of the Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court in Ajit Singhs case 1999(5) SCALE, the present original application fails and the same is rejected with no order as to costs. Interim stay granted on 04.01.1999 is hereby vacated.