Judgment Ravi S.Dhavan, J. 1. There seems to be an endless explanation being offered on behalf of the State respondent even after the aspect is absolutely clear that but for certain judgments of the Supreme Court, Article 16 (4-A) would have taken effect. 2. In this context at the outset it may be placed on record that the Constitution itself while taking the amendments by the 77th Amendment Act, 1995 declared that Sub Clause 4-A will take effect from 17.6.1995. In the same context, the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter relating to R.K. Sabharwal and others v. The State of Punjab and others (1995)2 Supreme Court Cases 745 in no uncertain terms declared in paragraph 11 "we, however, direct that the interpretation given by us to the working of the roster and our findings on this point shall be operative prospectively." The date of the judgment is 10.2.1995. 3. Even subsequent cases of the Supreme Court in Re. Ajit Singh and others (II) vs. State of Punjab and others (1999)7 Supreme Court Cases 209 refer to a catch-up rule which is to be applied and this aspect is considered in paragraph 80 of the judgment. The catchup rule comes subsequently on the four level exercise indicated by the Supreme Court. 4. The last promotion which was received by the appellants (Messers Jaikishore Das & Balrup Das) was in 1988. Thus, whether prior from the date when the constitutional amendment took effect or from the effect of the judgment in Re. Sabharwal case (supra), whichever, to consider promotion for the two appellants or any similarly situated incumbent is a matter which has yet to be taken up as an exercise. On the other hand this is not to be confused with the exercise of balancing the rights in the context of the catch-up rule in Re. Ajit Singh and others (II) case (supra). These two aspects are distinct from each other. 5. In the circumstances, the appellants are not incorrect when they submit that the judgment sought to be challenged has not considered these aspects. Thus, the judgment dated 17th February, 1997 in CWJC No. 12196 of 1996: Jai Kishore Das and another vs. The State of Bihar. and others is set aside. 6. 5. In the circumstances, the appellants are not incorrect when they submit that the judgment sought to be challenged has not considered these aspects. Thus, the judgment dated 17th February, 1997 in CWJC No. 12196 of 1996: Jai Kishore Das and another vs. The State of Bihar. and others is set aside. 6. The State respondents are directed to carry out the exercise of considering the appellants, or like incumbents, for promotion after giving them due notice and any other person who may be affected and this exercise should be carried out within two months from today. 7. The appeal succeeds.