Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 706 (TS)

Suresh Ramancha v. Union of India, Railway Board

2022-11-04

SUREPALLI NANDA

body2022
ORDER : Surepalli Nanda, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 5 and learned counsel appearing for the unofficial respondents. 2. This petition is filed to stay all further proceedings in pursuance of the letter No. X/P.529/SI PF-70/2021, dated 28.09.2022 pending implementation of the directions issued by the Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) in RBE No. 53/2022, dated 13.04.2022, Railway Board Letter No. 2018 - (E) SCR/1/25/9, dated 02.05.2022 and Railway Board letter No. 2018/E/SCT/1/25/9, dated 22.06.2022 and RBE No. 114/97, dated 21.08.1997. 3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows: a) The Centralized examination for promotion to ASI to SI was not held in the month of August, 2022, however, in the letter dated 23.09.2022, it was proposed to conduct the examination in the third week of November. Now the 3rd respondent, the IG-Principle Chief Security Commissioner vide letter No. X/P.529/SI PF - 70/2021 - 22, dated 28.09.2022 decided to hold the examination for promotion for ASI to the rank of SI PF under Rule 70 of RPF Rules 1987 at RPF Training Centre, Moula ali, Secunderabad and also circulated a list of eligible candidates for the written examination including the names of the respondents 6 to 14 who were irregularly promoted as ASIs depriving the petitioners. b) The petitioner have put in more than 16 to 23 years of service without any promotion and are fully qualified and eligible for promotion as ASI and SI PH, but their names were not considered in spite of the instructions/directions issued by the Railway Board. It was also communicates that the eligible candidates shall report to the Selection Committee at RPF Training Centre at Moula-Ali one day before the scheduled date of examination i.e. at 10 hours on 17.10.2022 for appearing in the said selection. c) The petitioners were selected as ASI in the examination notified in the year 2015 and held in the year 2016 and were empanelled for promotion vide Force Order No. 91/2016, dated 29.08.2016. The petitioners have also under gone the pre examination training required for promotion as ASIs. c) The petitioners were selected as ASI in the examination notified in the year 2015 and held in the year 2016 and were empanelled for promotion vide Force Order No. 91/2016, dated 29.08.2016. The petitioners have also under gone the pre examination training required for promotion as ASIs. But unfortunately by quoting RBE 117/2016, dated 30.09.2016, which is not at all applicable to the petitioners, the promotion orders were not issued and after six months the panel was revised arbitrarily though it was not called for and the unofficial respondents were included in the panel and were promoted in the place of the petitioners by revising the panel without the approval of the Railway Board which is in itself is irregular. d) The contentions raised in the counter affidavit filed in I.A. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2022 by the official respondents are unacceptable and contrary to the Railway Board instructions, RPF Rules, DOPT Office Memorandum and not in conformity with the orders and judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in case of Jarnail Singh and others v Lachimi Narain Gupta and R.K. Sabarwal v State of Punjab. e) The Apex Court in SLP No. 30621 of 2011 and batch and SLP No. 4831 of 2012 upheld that the constitutional amendments made providing for Rule of Reservation for promotion in respect of Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes with consequential seniority by following the principles laid down by the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in R.K. Sabarwal v State of Punjab (1995 SC 1371) about the strict maintenance of rosters and that the SC and ST candidates selected on their own merit should be considered against the unreserved roster points. f) The usual practice is to order promotions subject to the orders of the Court cases if any and the same will not come in the way of the 2nd and 3rd respondents in ordering notional promotions to the petitioners with retrospective effect and with all consequential service and monetary benefits as per the directions of the Railway Board. g) Therefore, it is just and necessary to stay the conduct of the examination for promotion from ASI to SI pending consideration of their case. 4. g) Therefore, it is just and necessary to stay the conduct of the examination for promotion from ASI to SI pending consideration of their case. 4. Unofficial respondents 1 to 5 filed counter in the main writ petition, but did not file counter affidavit in the present I.A. The learned Government Pleader relied upon the counter affidavit filed in I.A. No. 2 of 2018 in the present writ petition and requested the Court to treat the same as counter affidavit to I.A. No. 3 of 2018 and put forth his submissions on the basis of the said counter.. 5. Paras, 5 and 6 of the said counter affidavit filed in I.A. No. 2 of 2018 reads as under: 5. In reply to Para 8, it is submitted that 54 RPF staff (UR-43, SC-10 and ST-01) who were recommended for promotion to the ran of ASIPF under Rule 72 during the selection held in the year 2016 as per the merit were empanelled for promotion to the rank of ASIPF under Rule 72 vide this office Force Order No. 91/2016, dated 29.08.2016 and they were sent for eight weeks of pre promotion course training from 03.10.2016 to 21.11.2016. 6. In reply to para 9 No comments, in reply to para 10, it is submitted that as per Rule 64.2, "passing of pre-promotional course shall be essential for regular promotion which will take effect from the data on which such enrolled member of the Force reports for duty against a clear vacancy after passing the said course." V. Further, the matter was referred to DOPT vide Railway Board's ID Notes No. E(GP)2018/2/13, dated 11.12.2018 and o.2018-E(SCT1/25/17, dated 17.12.2018. In response to which, DOPT vide their ID Dy. No. 1348347/18/CR, dated 16.01.2019 brought out that individual cases relating to 'reservation in promotion relating to SCs/STs 'and 'reservation in promotion in own merit' are still pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and hence DOPT is not in a position to give any further clarification till settlement of all cases on "own merit" and "reservation in promotion" pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Till then, the instructions in OM dated 15.06.2018 are to be followed. VI. It is submitted that RPF is governed by RPF Act, 1957 and as per Section 8 of RPF Act, 1957, the command, Supervision and administration of the Force is vested in the Director General. Till then, the instructions in OM dated 15.06.2018 are to be followed. VI. It is submitted that RPF is governed by RPF Act, 1957 and as per Section 8 of RPF Act, 1957, the command, Supervision and administration of the Force is vested in the Director General. Further, rule 28 of RPF Rules, 1987 empowers the Director General to issue directives and guidelines. Therefore, the guidelines issued by the Director General/RPF regarding reservation in promotion i.e. 'reserve to reserve' and 'unreserved to unreserved' in accordance with DoPT OM dated 15.06.2018 was in conformity with the provisions of RPF Rules, 1987. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners mainly contends as follows: a) The petitioners were selected as ASI in the examination notified in the year 2015 and held in the year 2016 and were empanelled for promotion vide Force Order No. 91/2016, dated 29.08.2016. b) In view of the clear instructions in office Memorandum dated 12.04.2022 of the Deputy Secretary to the Government of India, and the instructions dated 22.06.2022, No. 2018-E(SCT)l/25/9 of the Deputy Director, Estt (SCT) Railway Board addressed to the General Manager (P) All India Railway and Production Units and as per the contents of the letter dated 21.08.1997 of the Executive Director establishment Ref. Railway Board No. 95-E(SCT)l/49/5(2), dated 21.08.1997, the petitioners are entitled to be promoted against the reserved posts. c) As per the instructions issued vide proceedings dated 28.09.2022, No. X/P.529/SIPF-70/2021-22 issued by the office of the IG-PRL. Chief Security Commissioner/SC the respondents are proceeding with the written examination on 05.11.2022 and therefore all further proceedings in pursuance to the said letter No. X/P.529/SIPF-70/2021-22, dated 28.09.2022 needs to be stayed. d) The Supreme Court in SLP (c) No. 31288 of 2017 in The State of Maharashtra v Vijay Ghogre vide its order dated 05.06.2018 observed as follows: "It is made clear that the Union of India is not debarred from making promotions in accordance with law, subject to further orders, pending further consideration of the matter. Tag to SLP (C) No. 30621 of 2011." e) Learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on the above referred order of the Apex Court pleads that I.A. No. 3 of 2022 has to be ordered as prayed for. 7. Tag to SLP (C) No. 30621 of 2011." e) Learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on the above referred order of the Apex Court pleads that I.A. No. 3 of 2022 has to be ordered as prayed for. 7. Learned counsel appearing for respondents 6 to 10 and 12 to 14 put forth the contentions as follows: a) As per the judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India v Sam Divanni and others dated 18.01.2001 in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (c) No(s) 20841 of 2021 promotions of reserved candidates cannot be effected to unreserved vacancies unless it is based on merit and the same has been upheld by the Apex Court vide its judgment dated 28.03.2022 in Special Leave to Appeal(c) No(s) 20841 of 2021 b) None of the policy circulars relating to the reservation in promotion and its allied issues like own merit of SC/ST are available for operation after the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered a judgment in M. Nagaraj case. c) As per Rule 64(a) of Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987, the petitioners have no right of promotion till they pass the pre promotional course and reports for duty against a clear vacancy after passing the said course. In the instant case, the petitioners have not passed the pre promotional course and not having clear vacancy of SC roster point. d) In view of the judgments passed by the Apex Court more particularly in M. Nagaraj case, the Jarnail Singh case the petitioners are not entitled for grant of any relief in I.A. No. 3 of 2022 in I.A. No. 2 of 2022 and the writ petition also needs to be dismissed. e) Learned Government Pleader places reliance on the averments made in the counter affidavit filed in support of I.A. No. 2 of 2022 in W.P. No. 5215 of 2018 and contends that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: 8. e) Learned Government Pleader places reliance on the averments made in the counter affidavit filed in support of I.A. No. 2 of 2022 in W.P. No. 5215 of 2018 and contends that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: 8. The latest order of the Apex Court in Jarnail Singh and others v Lachhmi Narain Gupta and others reported in 2022 Law Suit (SC) 96, dated 28th January, 2022, which also refers to S.L.P. No. 30621 of 2011 and batch and S.L.P. No. 4831 of 2012, at para 16, 29, 30, 31, 42 and 46 held as follows, in respect to the each of the six points formulated by the Apex Court for determination: 1) What is the yardstick by which, according to M. Nagaraj (supra), one would arrive at quantifiable data showing inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs in public employment? Pavitra & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. ("B.K. Pavitra II")? 16. Determination of inadequate representation of SCs and STs in services under a State is left to the discretion of the State, as the determination depends upon myriad factors which this Court cannot envisage. A conscious decision was taken by this Court in M. Nagaraj (supra) and Jarnail Singh (supra) to leave it to the States to fix the criteria for determining inadequacy of representation. The submission of the learned Attorney General for India that this Court has to lay down the yardstick for measuring adequacy of representation did not yield a favourable result as this Court in Jarnail Singh (supra) found it befitting for the States to 24 Page liberty to evaluate the representation of SCs and STs in public employment. Laying down of criteria for determining the inadequacy of representation would result in curtailing the discretion given to the State Governments. In addition, the prevailing local conditions, which may require to be factored in, might not be uniform. Moreover, in M. Nagaraj (supra), this Court made it clear that the validity of law made by the State Governments providing reservation in promotions shall be decided on a case-to-case basis for the purpose of establishing whether the inadequacy of representation is supported by quantifiable data. Therefore, we are of the opinion that no yardstick can be laid down by this Court for determining the adequacy of representation of SCs and STs in promotional posts for the purpose of providing reservation. Therefore, we are of the opinion that no yardstick can be laid down by this Court for determining the adequacy of representation of SCs and STs in promotional posts for the purpose of providing reservation. 2) What is the unit with respect to which quantifiable data showing inadequacy of representation is required to be collected? 29. In the Office Memorandum dated 02.07.1997, the Union of India set out the principles for making and operating post-based rosters, in which it has been expressly stated that cadre is to be construed as the number of posts in a particular grade. It is made clear that rosters have been prepared grade-wise which are reviewed on a yearly basis and that reservation in promotions is implemented on the basis of these rosters, which operate grade-wise. In M. Nagaraj (supra), this Court approved that the percentage of reservation in promotions was to be applied to the entire cadre strength, as held in R.K. Sabharwal (supra). While doing so, this Court in M. Nagaraj (supra) made it clear that the unit for operation of the roster would be the cadre strength. Before providing for reservation in promotions to a cadre, the State is obligated to collect quantifiable data regarding inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs. Collection of information regarding inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs cannot be with reference to the entire service or 'class'/'group' but it should be relatable to the grade/category of posts to which promotion is sought. Cadre, which should be the unit for the purpose of collection of quantifiable data in relation to the promotional post(s), would be meaningless if data pertaining to representation of SCs and STs is with reference to the entire service. 3) Whether proportion of the population of SCs and STs to the population of India should be taken to be the test for determining adequacy of representation in promotional posts for the purposes of Article 16(4-A)? 30. In R.K. Sabharwal (supra), it was observed that State Governments may take the total population of a particular Backward Class and its representation in the State services for the purpose of coming to a conclusion that there is inadequate representation in the State services. 30. In R.K. Sabharwal (supra), it was observed that State Governments may take the total population of a particular Backward Class and its representation in the State services for the purpose of coming to a conclusion that there is inadequate representation in the State services. In M. Nagaraj (supra), this Court was of the considered view that the exercise of collecting quantifiable data depends on numerous factors, with conflicting claims to be optimised by the administration in the context of local prevailing conditions in public employment. As equity, justice and efficiency are variable factors and are context-specific, how these factors should be identified and counter-balanced will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The attempt of the learned Attorney General for India to impress upon this Court that the proportion of SCs and STs in the population of India should be taken as the test for determining whether they are adequately represented in promotional posts, did not yield results. This Court in Jarnail Singh (supra) found no fault with M. Nagaraj (supra) regarding the test for determining the adequacy of representation in promotional posts in the State. While emphasising the contrast in the language used between Article 330 and Articles 16(4-A) and 16(4-B) of the Constitution, this Court declined the invitation of the learned Attorney General for India to hold that the proportion of SCs and STs to the population of India should be the test for determining inadequacy of representation in promotional posts. Therefore, we are not persuaded to express any opinion on this aspect. It is for the State to assess the inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs in promotional posts, by taking into account relevant factors. 4) Should there be a time period for reviewing inadequacy of representation? 31. There is near unanimity amongst the counsel for both sides that the data collected to establish inadequacy of representation, which forms the basis for providing reservation for promotions, should be reviewed periodically. Ms. Indira Jaising, learned Senior Counsel appearing for members of the reserved categories, supported the submissions of the learned Attorney General for India that a review should be conducted every 10 years. Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, learned Senior Counsel, submitted that it is time for reservation in public employment to be discontinued. Ms. Indira Jaising, learned Senior Counsel appearing for members of the reserved categories, supported the submissions of the learned Attorney General for India that a review should be conducted every 10 years. Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, learned Senior Counsel, submitted that it is time for reservation in public employment to be discontinued. Additionally, he submitted that the lion's share of reservation for members of SCs and STs accrued to the benefit of a select few within these categories, which further strengthened the requirement for review to appraise whether certain groups/classes within these categories had achieved the desired representation. We are not inclined to express any view on discontinuation of reservations in totality, which is completely within the domain of the legislature and the executive. As regards review, we are of the opinion that data collected to determine inadequacy of representation for the purpose of providing reservation in promotions needs to be reviewed periodically. The period for review should be reasonable and is left to the Government to set out. 5) Whether the judgment in M. Nagaraj (supra) can be said to operate prospectively? 42. This Court in Golak Nath (supra) and Ashok Kumar Gupta (supra), referred to above, has laid down that Article 142 empowers this Court to mould the relief to do complete justice. To conclude this point, the purpose of holding that M. Nagaraj (supra) would have prospective effect is only to avoid chaos and confusion that would ensue from its retrospective operation, as it would have a debilitating 39 H.H. Maharajadhiraja Madhav Rao Jivaji Rao Scindia Bahadur of Gwalior & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. (1971) 1 SCC 85 40 Girnar Traders v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2007) 7 SCC 555 effect on a very large number of employees, who may have availed of reservation in promotions without there being strict compliance of the conditions prescribed in M. Nagaraj (supra). Most of them would have already retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. The judgment of M. Nagaraj (supra) was delivered in 2006, interpreting Article 16(4-A) of the Constitution which came into force in 1995. Most of them would have already retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. The judgment of M. Nagaraj (supra) was delivered in 2006, interpreting Article 16(4-A) of the Constitution which came into force in 1995. As making the principles laid down in M. Nagaraj (supra) effective from the year 1995 would be detrimental to the interests of a number of civil servants and would have an effect of unsettling the seniority of individuals over a long period of time, it is necessary that the judgment of M. Nagaraj (supra) should be declared to have prospective effect. 6) Whether quantifiable data showing inadequacy of representation can be collected on the basis of sampling methods, as held by this Court in B.K. 46. The first term of reference for the Ratna Prabha Committee was to collect data cadre-wise. The conclusion of this Court in B.K. Pavitra II (supra) that the expression 'cadre' has no fixed meaning in service jurisprudence is contrary to the judgments of this Court, which have been referred to above while answering point 2. In clear terms, M. Nagaraj (supra) held that the unit for collection of quantifiable data is cadre, and not services as has been held in B.K. Pavitra II (supra). Article 16(4-A) of the Constitution enables the State to make reservation in promotions for SCs and STs, which are not adequately represented in the services of the State. However, the provision for reservation in matters of promotion is with reference to class or classes of posts in the services under the State. That 'groups' consist of cadres is a fact which was taken into consideration by this Court in B.K. Pavitra II (supra). The conclusion that the collection of data on the basis of 'groups' is valid, is contrary to the decisions of this court in M. Nagaraj (supra) and Jarnail Singh (supra). 9. The Division Bench of this Court in Union of India and others v B. Laxmi Narayana and others reported in 2016(1) ALD 370 observed as follows: "71. As the Tribunal has merely followed the law laid down by the Supreme Court in M. Nagaraj 1, in allowing the O.As, the orders of the Tribunal, to the extent it declared the action of the Railways in providing reservation in promotion without fulfilling the parameters laid down in M. Nagaraj 1 to be illegal, do not necessitate interference. As the Tribunal has merely followed the law laid down by the Supreme Court in M. Nagaraj 1, in allowing the O.As, the orders of the Tribunal, to the extent it declared the action of the Railways in providing reservation in promotion without fulfilling the parameters laid down in M. Nagaraj 1 to be illegal, do not necessitate interference. The fact however remains that, despite the amendment to the Constitution by insertion of Articles 16(4-A) and (4-B) nearly fourteen years ago, the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes still face uncertainty on whether or not they are entitled for reservation in promotion, and to be extended the benefit of consequential seniority. This predicament, they find themselves in, is for no fault of theirs but is on account of the failure of the Union of India to gather data, and form its opinion, on the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in M. Nagaraj 1. The prevailing uncertainty can only be put an end to if the petitioner Railway is directed to undertake the aforesaid exercise, and take a decision, within a specified time frame. 72. The Writ Petitions are, accordingly, disposed of directing the petitioner-Railways to undertake and complete the exercise of gathering data, and forming its opinion on the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in M. Nagaraj 1, with utmost expedition and, in any event, not later than six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. As this stalemate cannot be permitted to effect railway administration, and the services it renders to the public at large, it is open to the petitioner-Railways to make in-charge arrangements in the interregnum, making it clear to those, who are given charge of the posts, that this arrangement is temporary and would continue only till the exercise of formation of opinion, on the need to provide reservation in promotion, is completed. 10. The Apex Court in Mukesh Kumar and another v State of Uttarakhand and others reported in (2020) 3 SCC 1 at para 18 observed as under: "18. The direction that was issued to the State Government to correct quantifiable data pertaining to the adequacy or inadequacy of representation of persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in Government services is the subject matter of challenge in some appeals before us. The direction that was issued to the State Government to correct quantifiable data pertaining to the adequacy or inadequacy of representation of persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in Government services is the subject matter of challenge in some appeals before us. In view of the law laid down by this Court, there is no doubt that the State Government is not bound to make reservations. There is no fundamental right which inheres in an individual to claim reservation in promotions. No mandamus can be issued by the Court directing the State Government to provide reservations. It is abundantly clear from the judgments of this Court in Indra Sawhney, Ajit Singh (II), M. Nagaraj and Jarnail Singh (supra) that Article 16 (4) and 16 (4-A) are enabling provisions and the collection of quantifiable data showing inadequacy of representation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in public service is a sine qua non for providing reservations in promotions. The data to be collected by the State Government is only to justify reservation to be made in the matter of appointment or promotion to public posts, according to Article 16 (4) and 16 (4-A) of the Constitution. As such, collection of data regarding the inadequate representation of members of the Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes, as noted above, is a pre requisite for providing reservations, and is not required when the State Government decided not to provide reservations. 11. In the judgment of the Apex Court in M. Nagaraj v Union of India reported in 1995 6 SCC 684 a Constitution Bench of this Court, while upholding the Constitution (85th) Amendment Act of 2001 held that, the State is not bound to make reservation for SCs/STs in matter of promotions. However it was held that, if they wish to exercise their discretion and make such provision, the State has to collect quantifiable data showing backwardness of the class and inadequacy of representation of that class in public employment in addition to compliance with Article 335 of the Constitution of India. It is further made clear that even if the State has compelling reasons, the State will have to see that its reservation provision does not lead to excessiveness so as to breach the ceiling of 50% or obliterate the creamy layer or extend the reservation indefinitely. 12. In B.K. Pavitra & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. It is further made clear that even if the State has compelling reasons, the State will have to see that its reservation provision does not lead to excessiveness so as to breach the ceiling of 50% or obliterate the creamy layer or extend the reservation indefinitely. 12. In B.K. Pavitra & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. Reported in 2017(4) SCC 620 this Court has held that the determination of 'inadequacy of representation', 'backwardness' and 'overall efficiency' is mandatory for exercising power under Article 16(4A). It is further held in the said case that the mere fact that there is no proportionate representation in promotional posts for reserved category candidates, by itself is not sufficient to extend the benefit of consequential seniority to promotes who are otherwise juniors. It is held that in absence of such mandatory exercise by the State the "Catch Up Rule" fully applies. 13. After Constitution (Eighty-Fifth) Amendment Act, 2001, Article 16(4A) reads as under: "16. Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment.- (1) - (4)............ (4A) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for reservation in matters of promotion, with consequential seniority, to any class or classes of posts in the services under the State in favour of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes which, in the opinion of the State, are not adequately represented in the services under the State." 14. The above said amended constitutional provision makes it clear that in case the State is of opinion, SC & STs are not adequately represented, State is empowered to make a provision for reservation in matters of promotion with consequential seniority, to any class. When the validity of the constitutional amendment was questioned, same was upheld by this Court in the case of M. Nagaraj referred to and extracted above a Constitution Bench of this Court has held that the State is not bound to make reservation for SCs/STs in matters of promotion. However, if they wish to exercise their discretion and make reservations in promotion, the States have to collect quantifiable data showing backwardness of the C.A. Nos. 3240 of 2011 etc. class and inadequacy of representation of that class in public employment, keeping in mind maintenance of efficiency, as indicated by Article 335 of the Constitution of India. It is further held that such exercise depends on availability of data. 15. 3240 of 2011 etc. class and inadequacy of representation of that class in public employment, keeping in mind maintenance of efficiency, as indicated by Article 335 of the Constitution of India. It is further held that such exercise depends on availability of data. 15. The Apex Court in its judgment reported in Bhargavi Constructions v Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy, dated 07.09.2017 reported in 2018 (13) SCC 480 held that law includes not only legislative enactments but also judicial precedents. An authoritative judgment of the Court including higher judiciary is also law. It was observed in the said judgment as follows: Black's Law Dictionary (Ninth Edition) defines the expression "law". It says that "Law" includes the "judicial precedents" (see at page 962). Similarly, the expression "law" defined in Jowett's Dictionary of English Law (Third Edition Volume-2, (pages 1304/1305) says that "law is derived from judicial precedents, legislation or from custom. When derived from judicial precedents, it is called common law, equity, or admiralty, probate or ecclesiastical law according to the nature of the Courts by which it was originally enforced". 16. As per the Apex Court judgment in Jarnail Singh and other v Lachhmi Narain Gupta and others reported in 2022 Law Suit (SC)96, dated 28.01.2022, the three conditions set out that are to be satisfied by the Government for the purpose of implementing the policy of reservation in promotions are: (i) Collection of quantifiable data regarding inadequacy of representation of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes; (ii) Application of this data to each cadre separately; and (iii) If a roster exists, the unit for operation of the roster would be the cadre for which the quantifiable data would have to be collected and applied in regard to the filling up of the vacancies in the roster. 17. This Court taking into consideration the above referred observations of the Apex Court and also the law laid in the various Apex Court judgments referred to and discussed above opines that unless and until the pre-requisite conditions of collection of quantifiable data regarding inadequacy of representation of scheduled caste and scheduled tribes and application of this data to each cadre separately is undertaken and complied with the third condition cannot be undertaken or even proceeded with, is of the firm opinion that the prayer of the petitioner cannot be granted at this stage and I.A. No. 3 of 2022 is accordingly dismissed. No costs.