JUDGMENT - A.P. SHAH, J.:---This petition under Article 226 arises out of the dispute between a general candidate and reserved candidates working in Mumbai Port Trust Hospital in regard to their seniority. The petitioner is a general candidate. She is presently working as Sister in Charge in Mumbai Port Trust Hospital of respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 4 was also working as Sister in charge who has been now promoted to the post of Asst. Matron. The respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are also members of the nursing staff of respondent No. 1 and working as Sister in Charge in the hospital of respondent No. 1. The petitioner joined the services of respondent No. 1 on 1-8-1969 as Nursing Sister. On 1-3-1972 she was promoted to the higher post of Nursing Sister (Senior). She was further promoted to the post of Sister in Charge on 1-1-1994. The respondent Nos. 4 to 6 joined service of respondent No. 1 much later. As seen from the seniority list at Annexure A to the petition respondent No. 4 joined service of respondent No. 1 in 1974 while respondent Nos. 5 and 6 joined in the year 1977 and 1981 respectively. The respondent Nos. 4 and 5 belong to Scheduled Caste whereas respondent No. 6 belongs to Scheduled Tribe and they all belong to reserved category. 2. The promotional channel as provided in the respondent No. 1's hospital for Class III Nursing Cadre is as follows :Level 1-Nursing Sister; Level 2 Nursing Sister (Senior); Level 3-Sister in Charge and Level 4-Assistant Matron. The petitioner was senior to respondent Nos. 4 to 6 at Level 1. At Levels 2 and 3, the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 got accelerated promotions as reserved candidates. The petitioner also got eventually promoted to Level 3 i.e. Sister in Charge on 1-1-1994. We hasten to add that there is no reservation at Level 4 i.e. the post of Assistant Matron being a single cadre post. At Level 3, the petitioner had to be considered senior to the reserved candidates following the catch up rule laid down by the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in (Ajit Singh II v. State of Punjab)1, A.I.R. 1999 S.C. 3471. The respondent No. 1 however, informed the Department Promotional Committee (for short D.P.C.), by its letter dated 26-6-2000 that the respondent Nos. The respondent No. 1 however, informed the Department Promotional Committee (for short D.P.C.), by its letter dated 26-6-2000 that the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 should be treated as senior to the petitioner as they belong to the reserved category. It seems that earlier respondent No. 1 had issued a circular dated 17-4-2000 to all heads of departments in the form of guidelines and asked them to follow the reservation policy. By the said circular it was directed that the seniority of employees consisting of reserved and general candidates at Level 3 is to be revised only in cases of the promotions of the reserved candidates effected after 1-4-1997 to the concerned feeder post. It is stated by the respondent in it reply that the circular dated 17-4-2000 has been issued in accordance with the directions of the Government of India as contained in the Office Memoranda dated 30-1-1997, 21-3-1997 and 2-7-1997. It is stated that the Office Memorandum dated 30-1-1999 does not contemplate review of the seniority list prevailing on 30-1-1997, nor does it prohibit promotion of officers (including SC/ST officers) on the basis of the seniority list prevailing on 30-1-1997. The validity of the circular dated 17-4-2000 as also the promotion of the respondent Nos. 4 to the post of Assistant Matron pursuant to the said circular is questioned in the present petition under Article 226. 3. We have heard Mr. Sanglikar for the petitioner, Mr. Bharucha for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. C.U. Singh for respondent Nos. 4 to 6. 4. We have given our anxious thought to the submissions made by the learned Counsel at the Bar. In our opinion the impugned circular dated 17-4-2000 is contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Ajit Singh II (supra) and consequently the promotion of respondent No. 4 based upon the said circular is totally illegal and invalid. In Ajit Singh II the Supreme Court has held that the roster point promotees (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 them in the lower category and who were later promoted. In Ajit Singh II the Supreme Court has held that the roster point promotees (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 them 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 that level. It was also clarified that the catch up rule will not apply if reserved candidate is further promoted to the higher level and the extreme contention of the general candidates that the roster candidates must wait at level 3 before being promoted to level 4 till the last senior general candidate at level 1 reached level 3 was rejected. 5. The Supreme Court explained the catch up rule in the following terms : (at page 3492) "80. As accepted in (Union of India v. Virpal Singh Chauhan)2, see 1995(6) S.C.C. 684 at 702 and (Ajit Singh (I) v. State of Punjab)3, see 1996(2) S.C.C. 715 at p. 729, we hold that in case any senior general candidate at Level 2 (Assistant) reaches Level 3 (Superintendent Grade II) before the reserved candidate (roster point promotee) at Level 3 goes further up to Level 4 in that case the seniority at Level 3 has to be modified by placing such a general candidate above the roster promotee, reflecting their inter se seniority at Level 2. Further promotion to Level 4 must be on the basis of such a modified seniority at Level 3, namely that the senior general candidate of Level 2 will remain senior also at Level 3 to the reserved candidate, even if the letter had reached Level 3 earlier and remained there when the senior general candidate reached that Level 3. Further promotion to Level 4 must be on the basis of such a modified seniority at Level 3, namely that the senior general candidate of Level 2 will remain senior also at Level 3 to the reserved candidate, even if the letter had reached Level 3 earlier and remained there when the senior general candidate reached that Level 3. In cases where the reserved candidate has gone up to Level 4 ignoring the seniority of the senior general candidate at Level 3, seniority at Level 4 has to be refixed (when the senior general candidate is promoted to Level 4) on the basis of when the time of reserved candidate for promotion to Level 4 would have come, if the case of the senior general candidate was considered at Level 3 in due time. To the above extent we accept the first part of the contention of the learned Counsel for the general candidates. Such a procedure in our view will properly balance the rights of the reserved candidates and the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 16(1) to the general candidates." The argument that this "catch up" principle would lead to frequent alterations of the seniority list at Level 3 was also rejected by the Supreme Court. It was observed that the seniority list at Level 3 would have only to be merely amended whenever the senior general candidate reaches Level 3. 6. In Ajit Singh II the Supreme Court considered the prospectivity of Ajit Singh (I) decided on 1-3-1996. In this connection paras 89 to 91 of the said judgment are material and the same are reproduced below : (at page 3494) "89. Coming to the prospectivity of Ajit Singh, decided on 1-3-1996, the question is in regard to the seniority of the reserved candidates at the promotional level where such promotions have taken place before 1-3-1996. 90. We have accepted, while dealing with points 1 and 2 that the reserved candidates who get promoted at two levels by roster points (say) from level 1 to level 2 and level 2 to level 3 cannot count their seniority at level 3 as against senior general candidates who reached Level 3 before the reserved candidates move up to level 4. The general candidate has to be treated as senior at level 3. 91. The general candidate has to be treated as senior at level 3. 91. Where, before 1-3-1996 i.e. the date of Ajit Singh's judgment, at the level 3, there were reserved candidates who reached there earlier and also senior general candidates who reached there later (but before the reserved candidate was promoted to level 4) and when inspite of the fact that the senior general candidate had to be treated as senior general candidate is further promoted to level 4 without considering the fact that the senior general candidate was also available at level 3 then, after 1-3-1996 it becomes necessary to review the promotion of the reserved candidate to level 4 and reconsider the same (without causing reversion to the reserved candidate who reached level 4 before 1-3-96). As and when the senior reserved (general) candidate is later promoted to level 4, the seniority at level 4 has also to be refixed on the basis of when the reserved candidate at level 3 would have got his normal promotion, treating him as junior to the senior general candidate at level 3. (Chander Pal v. State of Haryana)4, 1997(10) S.C.C. 474 has to be understood in the manner stated above." 7. The decision in the case of Ajit Singh II was followed in (Ram Prasad v. D.K. Vijay)5, 1999(7) S.C.C. 251 , (Jatindrapal Singh v. State of Punjab)6, 1999(7) S.C.C. 257 , (Sube Singh Bahmani v. State of Haryana)7, 1999(8) S.C.C. 213 and (M.G. Badappanavar and another v. State of Karnataka)8, J.T. 2000(Supp. 3) S.C. 408. In the light of the abovesaid decisions it is seen that the seniority of the candidates will have to be re-fixed irrespective of the fact whether the general candidate was promoted to level 3 before or after Ajit Singh II. Of course if the reserved candidate was already promoted to level 4 prior to Ajit Singh II, the reserved candidate will not be reverted but his seniority at level 4 will be re-fixed when the general candidate reaches level 4, applying the catch up principle laid down in Ajit Singh II. 8. It is clear on the facts of this case that the initial recruitment of the general candidates and the reserved candidates was as Nursing Sister and then the next promotion was to the post of Nursing Sister (Senior) and then to the post of Sister in charge. 8. It is clear on the facts of this case that the initial recruitment of the general candidates and the reserved candidates was as Nursing Sister and then the next promotion was to the post of Nursing Sister (Senior) and then to the post of Sister in charge. At both these levels, admittedly, there has been a roster operating. Beyond the post of Sister in Charge, there is no roster. The petitioner and respondent Nos. 4 to 6 (reserved candidates) were recruited as Nursing Sisters and the petitioner was senior to the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 at Level 1. The respondent Nos. 4 to 6 thereafter got promotion as per roster points from Level 1 to Level 2 Nursing Sister (Senior). From level 2 the roster promotees were promoted again to level 3 as Sister in Charge by way of a further roster. The petitioner got promoted as per rules and reached level 3. By that time the reserved candidates were still at level 3, but they were treated as senior to the petitioner and on that basis respondent No. 4 was promoted at Level 4. This was done pursuant to the circular dated 17-4-2000 which stipulates that the seniority should be judged on the basis of the inter se seniority as on 1-4-1997. This is supposedly done on the basis of Memorandum of the Central Government dated 30-1-1997. 9. In our view the impugned circular contravenes the law laid down in Ajit Singh II. According to Ajit Singh II when the general candidates are promoted at Level 3, the seniority list has to be first reviewed, treating the general candidates as seniors to such of the reserved candidates provided the senior general candidates reached level 3 before the concerned reserved candidates were promoted to level 4. In Ajit Singh II reversions were directed not be made in respect of reserved candidates promoted on the basis of roster point seniority before 1-4-1996. However, in case the general candidates reach level 3 before the reserved candidates are further promoted to level 4, the seniority will have to be re-fixed irrespective of whether the general candidate reached level 3 before or after 1-4-1996. 10. Accordingly rule is made absolute in terms of prayer Clauses (a), (b) and (c) excluding the bracketed portion. However, in case the general candidates reach level 3 before the reserved candidates are further promoted to level 4, the seniority will have to be re-fixed irrespective of whether the general candidate reached level 3 before or after 1-4-1996. 10. Accordingly rule is made absolute in terms of prayer Clauses (a), (b) and (c) excluding the bracketed portion. Respondent No. 1 is directed to refix the seniority at level 3 in the light of the observations made in this judgment and fill up the vacancy of Asst. Matron in accordance with law within a period of three months. The parties and the authorities to act on the ordinary copy of this order duly authenticated by the personal secretary of this Court. Rule made absolute. -----