JUDGMENT : Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Since common questions of law and fact are involved in these writ petitions, therefore are being taken up together and are being decided by this common judgment. However, for the sake of brevity, facts of Writ Petition (S/B) No. 253 of 2020 alone are being considered. 2. Petitioners are employees of Uttarakhand Jal Sansthan, which is a statutory corporation established under provisions of U.P. Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1975. A seniority dispute was raised by first respondent(Kailash Chandra Peinuly) before Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal by filing Claim Petition No. 42/DB/2018, with the contention that he was substantively appointed as Junior Engineer in the year 1987 while respondent nos. 4 to 7 in the claim petition were appointed as Junior Engineer only in the year 2005, therefore, he should be treated as senior on the promoted post of Assistant Engineer, even though, his promotion was delayed by two years. Learned Tribunal, after hearing the parties, allowed the claim of first respondent by setting aside the seniority list dated 06.07.2017, with a direction to the Competent Authority to revise the seniority list by placing his name, above the name of private respondents in the claim petition. 3. Feeling aggrieved by judgment dated 28.07.2020 rendered by learned Tribunal, private respondents in the claim petition have approached this Court. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. It is not in dispute that petitioners as well as first respondent were appointed as Junior Engineer. First Respondent was initially appointed as ad-hoc Junior Engineer on 16.10.1982, and thereafter, he was regularised on the post of Junior Engineer w.e.f. 16.12.1987. 6. Petitioners who belong to Scheduled Caste category, were regularly appointed as Junior Engineer w.e.f. 06.08.2005, and they were promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer against reserved vacancies, vide order dated 11.03.2011; while, first respondent was promoted as Assistant Engineer only on 09.04.2013. 7. In the year 2015, a seniority list of Assistant Engineers, serving in Uttarakhand Jal Sansthan was issued, however, it was later cancelled and a fresh seniority list was published on 06.07.2017, in which first respondent was placed below the petitioners. This seniority list was challenged before learned Tribunal by filing Claim Petition No. 42/DB/2018, which earlier also was allowed by learned Tribunal, vide judgment dated 25.03.2019. This seniority list was challenged before learned Tribunal by filing Claim Petition No. 42/DB/2018, which earlier also was allowed by learned Tribunal, vide judgment dated 25.03.2019. Operative portion of the said judgment dated 25.03.2019 is extracted below:- “ORDER “The seniority list dated 06.07.2017 (Annexure: A-1) is hereby quashed. Respondents No. 1 to 3 are directed to redraw the seniority of the parties (petitioner and private respondents) in accordance with Rule-6 and it’s ‘Explanation’ of the Uttarakhand Government Servants Seniority Rules, 2002 read with Rule 24 of Uttarakhand Jal Sansthan Engineering Service Rules, 2011, within a period of four months from today. The petitioner shall also be entitled to consequential benefits, if any, accrued to him, in law. It is made clear that in the absence of any relief thus sought in this behalf, this Tribunal has not expressed any opinion on the legality or otherwise, of the promotions of the private respondents to the post of Assistant Engineers. No order as to costs.” 8. Petitioners challenged said judgment rendered by learned Tribunal by filing Writ Petition (S/B) No. 264 of 2019 & Writ Petition (S/B) No. 344 of 2019. Those writ petitions were allowed by Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide judgment dated 12.06.2020; judgment of learned Tribunal was set aside and the matter was remanded to learned Tribunal. Coordinate Bench held that since petitioners were promoted as Assistant Engineer much before enforcement of 2011 Rules, therefore, their seniority would be governed by 1996 Rules, which were in vogue on the date of their promotion. 9. Upon remand, learned Tribunal again decided the claim petition in favour of first respondent, vide judgment dated 28.07.2020, which is put to challenge in these writ petitions. 10. Learned Tribunal has considered and discussed all relevant statutory provisions and has proceeded to decide the seniority dispute, based on Uttar Pradesh Palika and Jal Sansthan Water Works Engineering (Centralized) Service Rules, 1996. Rule 26 of the said Rules, deals with seniority, which reads as under:- “26. Seniority:- Seniority on a post in the Centralised Services shall be determined by the date of substantive appointment, provided that if two or more candidates are appointed from the same date their seniority shall be determined according to the order in which their names appear in the list prepared under 20 and 21.” 11. Seniority:- Seniority on a post in the Centralised Services shall be determined by the date of substantive appointment, provided that if two or more candidates are appointed from the same date their seniority shall be determined according to the order in which their names appear in the list prepared under 20 and 21.” 11. Before learned Tribunal, petitioners contended that since catch-up rule is not incorporated in Rule 26 of 1996 Rules, therefore, a person even though senior in the feeder post, if promoted later, will not regain his seniority and he will be treated as junior on the promoted post. 12. First respondent argued before learned Tribunal that Rule 46 of 1996 Rules, governing the service conditions of Jal Sansthan employees, if read in the light of proviso to Rule 6 of Uttar Pradesh Government Servant Seniority Rules, 1991, will make the catch-up Rule applicable. Rule 46 of 1996 Rules reads as under:- “46. Regulation of other matters:- In regard to the matters not specifically covered by these rules, persons appointed to the centralized services including the Palika and Jal Sansthan Hill Sub-Cadre, shall be governed by the rules, regulations and orders applicable generally to Government servants serving in connection with the affairs of the State.” 13. Learned Tribunal allowed the claim petition by holding that in the absence of any provision for consequential seniority in the applicable Service Rules, catch-up rule will be applicable. Paragraph No. 55 of the impugned judgment, which contains the reasoning given for allowing the claim of first respondent is reproduced below:- “55. In the absence of any provision for ‘consequential seniority’ in the U.P. Palika and Jal Sansthan Water Works Engineering (Centralized) Service Rules, 1996, the ‘catch-up rule’ will be applicable, which is a judicially evolved concept to control the extent of reservation, and the roster point reserved category promotes cannot count their seniority in the promoted category from the date of their promotion and the senior general candidates, if later reach the promotional level, general candidates will regain their seniority. Article 16 (4-A) of the Constitution of India does not automatically give ‘consequential seniority’ in addition to ‘accelerated promotion’ to the roster point promotes.” 14. The conclusions arrived at by learned Tribunal on various issues are enumerated in paragraph no. Article 16 (4-A) of the Constitution of India does not automatically give ‘consequential seniority’ in addition to ‘accelerated promotion’ to the roster point promotes.” 14. The conclusions arrived at by learned Tribunal on various issues are enumerated in paragraph no. 53 of the impugned judgment, however, since this Court is concerned only with the question of law, therefore, those conclusions are not being considered and discussed. 15. Article 16 guarantees equality of opportunity to all citizens in matters of public employment, while Article 16(4) enables the State to make reverse discrimination for ensuring adequate representation to any backward class of citizens in public services. 16. Article 16 (4-A) was inserted by Constitution 77th Amendment (Act 1995) w.e.f. 17.06.1995; while, the expression ‘consequential seniority’ was added in Article 16 (4-A) by the Constitution 85th Amendment Act, 2001 with retrospective effect from 17.06.1995, 17. However, Article 16 (4-A) is only an enabling provision, which empowers the State to make provision for reservation in promotion for SC & ST candidates with consequential seniority, however it does not create any right of consequential seniority in favour of reserved category candidates, who get accelerated promotions against roster point vacancies. 18. The relevant provision in the Service Rules of 1996 do not provide for consequential seniority, therefore, a person promoted earlier by virtue of Rule of Reservation/roster shall not be entitled to claim seniority over person senior to him in the feeder post; and when a person, senior to him in the feeder post is promoted, he shall regain his seniority. In other words, a person senior in the induction level post will regain his seniority, upon his promotion, even though it is delayed. 19. Mr. K.P. Upadhyaya, learned Senior Advocate appearing for petitioners contended that Division Bench of this Court had remanded the matter to learned Tribunal to consider the question as to whether there is any provision in 1996 Rules providing for catch-up rule, however, learned Tribunal went astray in holding that catch-up rule will be applicable in the absence of any provision therefor. He further contended that learned Tribunal on the one hand held that Rule 46 of 1996 Rules would not be applicable, but, on the other hand it held that ‘catch-up rule’ would be read into the relevant provision dealing with seniority, even though, the rules are silent on this aspect. 20. He further contended that learned Tribunal on the one hand held that Rule 46 of 1996 Rules would not be applicable, but, on the other hand it held that ‘catch-up rule’ would be read into the relevant provision dealing with seniority, even though, the rules are silent on this aspect. 20. The submission made on behalf of petitioners is bereft of merit. The ‘catch-up’ rule is a judicially evolved concept to control the extent of reservation, which has to be read into the Rules, if the Rules do not provide for consequential seniority to roster point promotees. 21. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Panneer Selvam and others v. State of Tamil Nadu and others reported in (2015) 10 SCC 292 while considering identical dispute considered and discussed the concept of ‘catch-up rule’ and ‘consequential seniority’ in detail and held as under:- “26. The true legislative intent under Article 16(4-A) of the Constitution is to enable the State to make provision or frame rules giving consequential seniority for the accelerated promotion gained based on the rule of reservation. Rule 12 evidently does not provide for the consequential seniority for reserved category promotees at any point of time. The consequential seniority for such reserved category promotees can be fixed only if there is express provision for such reserved category promotees in the State rules. In the absence of any specific provision or policy decision taken by the State Government for consequential seniority for reserved category accelerated promotees, there is no question of automatic application of Article 16(4-A) of the Constitution. 36. In the absence of any provision for consequential seniority in the rules, the “catch-up rule” will be applicable and the roster-point reserved category promotees cannot count their seniority in the promoted category from the date of their promotion and the senior general candidates if later reach the promotional level, general candidates will regain their seniority. The Division Bench appears to have proceeded on an erroneous footing that Article 16(4-A) of the Constitution of India automatically gives the consequential seniority in addition to accelerated promotion to the roster-point promotees and the judgment of the Division Bench cannot be sustained.” 22. The aforesaid view was reiterated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sudhakar Baburao Nangnure v. Noreshwar Raghunathrao Shende and others reported in (2010) 11 SCC 399. Paragraph nos. The aforesaid view was reiterated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sudhakar Baburao Nangnure v. Noreshwar Raghunathrao Shende and others reported in (2010) 11 SCC 399. Paragraph nos. 46, 47 & 48 of the said judgment are reproduced below:- “46. In Panneer Selvam the issue before a two-Judge Bench of this Court was thus:(SCC p. 298, para 1) “1.1. (i) In the absence of policy decision taken by the State/rules framed pursuant to the enabling provision of Article 16(4-A) of the Constitution of India, whether a reserved category candidate promoted on the basis of reservation earlier than his senior general category candidate in the feeder category can claim consequential seniority in the promotional post?” Rule 12 of the sub-rules to the Tamil Nadu Highways and Engineering Service provided as follows: “12. Reservation of appointment.—The rule of reservation of appointments (General Rule 22) shall apply to the appointment of Assistant Divisional Engineers by direct recruitment and recruitment by transfer separately and the appointment of Assistant Engineers by direct recruitment.” Under Rule 12, reserved category Assistant and Junior Engineers had secured promotion as Assistant Divisional Engineers earlier than their counterparts belonging to the general category as a result of accelerated promotion following the rule of reservation. 47. R. Banumathi, J. speaking for the two- Judge Bench held that Rule 12 did not provide for consequential seniority to candidates drawn from the reserved category who are granted accelerated promotion and, in the absence of a specific provision or policy, consequential seniority could not be granted : (Panneer Selvam case [S. Panneer Selvam v. State of T.N., (2015) 10 SCC 292 : (2016) 1 SCC (L&S) 76], SCC p. 308, para 26) “26. The true legislative intent under Article 16(4-A) of the Constitution is to enable the State to make provision or frame rules giving consequential seniority for the accelerated promotion gained based on the rule of reservation. Rule 12 evidently does not provide for the consequential seniority for reserved category promotees at any point of time. The consequential seniority for such reserved category promotees can be fixed only if there is express provision for such reserved category promotees in the State rules. Rule 12 evidently does not provide for the consequential seniority for reserved category promotees at any point of time. The consequential seniority for such reserved category promotees can be fixed only if there is express provision for such reserved category promotees in the State rules. In the absence of any specific provision or policy decision taken by the State Government for consequential seniority for reserved category accelerated promotees, there is no question of automatic application of Article 16(4-of the Constitution.” The Court noted that the appellants who belonged to the general category were not questioning the accelerated promotion granted to their counterparts from the reserved category by following the rule of reservation but were only seeking the application of the catch-up rule in the fixation of seniority in the promotional cadre. The Court held that in the absence of any provision of consequential seniority in the rules, the catch-up rule will prevail : (Panneer Selvam case, SCC pp. 312-13, para 36) “36. In the absence of any provision for consequential seniority in the rules, the “catch-up rule” will be applicable and the roster-point reserved category promotees cannot count their seniority in the promoted category from the date of their promotion and the senior general candidates if later reach the promotional level, general candidates will regain their seniority. The Division Bench appears to have proceeded on an erroneous footing that Article 16(4-A) of the Constitution of India automatically gives the consequential seniority in addition to accelerated promotion to the roster-point promotees and the judgment of the Division Bench cannot be sustained.” 48. The decision in Panneer Selvam has since been followed by a two-Judge Bench of this Court in B.K. Pavitra. A.K. Goel, J. speaking for the Bench held thus : (B.K. Pavitra case, SCC p. 641, para 29) “29. It is clear from the above discussion in S. Panneer Selvam v. State of T.N., (2015) 10 SCC 292 : (2016) 1 SCC (L&S) 76, that exercise for determining “inadequacy of representation”, “backwardness” and “overall efficiency”, is a must for exercise of power under Article 16(4-A). Mere fact that there is no proportionate representation in promotional posts for the population of SCs and STs is not by itself enough to grant consequential seniority to promotees who are otherwise junior and thereby denying seniority to those who are given promotion later on account of reservation policy. Mere fact that there is no proportionate representation in promotional posts for the population of SCs and STs is not by itself enough to grant consequential seniority to promotees who are otherwise junior and thereby denying seniority to those who are given promotion later on account of reservation policy. It is for the State to place material on record that there was compelling necessity for exercise of such power and decision of the State was based on material including the study that overall efficiency is not compromised. In the present case, no such exercise has been undertaken. The High Court erroneously observed [M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, 2010 SCC OnLine Kar 5407] that it was for the petitioners to plead and prove that the overall efficiency was adversely affected by giving consequential seniority to junior persons who got promotion on account of reservation. Plea that persons promoted at the same time were allowed to retain their seniority in the lower cadre is untenable and ignores the fact that a senior person may be promoted later and not at the same time on account of roster point reservation. Depriving him of his seniority affects his further chances of promotion. Further plea that seniority was not a fundamental right is equally without any merit in the present context. In absence of exercise under Article 16(4- A), it is the “catch-up” rule which fully applies. It is not necessary to go into the question whether the Corporation concerned had adopted the rule of consequential seniority.” 23. In the present case also, there is no provision for consequential seniority in the Service Rules, therefore, in view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Panneer Selvam and others v. State of Tamil Nadu (supra), candidates drawn from the reserved category, who were granted accelerated promotion, cannot be given consequential seniority. Thus, the view expressed by learned Tribunal in paragraph no. 55 of the impugned judgment is correct, which cannot be interfered with in exercise of power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution. 24. Thus, the view expressed by learned Tribunal in paragraph no. 55 of the impugned judgment is correct, which cannot be interfered with in exercise of power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution. 24. Before insertion of Article 16 (4-A), a three Judge Bench of Apex Court in the case of Ajit Singh Januja v. State of Punjab reported in (1996) 2 SCC 715 , accepted the principle of the ‘catch-up rule’, as laid down in Union of India v. Virpal Singh Chauhan, (1995) 6 SCC 684 , by observing that the balance must be maintained in such a manner that there was no reverse discrimination against the general category candidates and any rule/circular or order, which gives seniority to the reserved category candidates promoted at the roster point would be violative of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India.. 25. The issue was again considered by a Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajit Singh (2) v. State of Punjab, reported in (1999) 7 SCC 209 , where it was 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-à-vis the general candidates who were senior to them in the lower category and who were later promoted. 26. Therefore, the contention raised on behalf of petitioners that learned Tribunal erred in reading ‘catch- up rule’ into the provision dealing with seniority, cannot be countenanced in the eyes of law. Similarly, the argument based on Rule 46 of 1996 Rules also cannot be accepted. Catch-up rule is evolved by Hon’ble Supreme Court to control the extent of reservation and in the absence of any provision providing for consequential seniority to roster point promotees, catch-up rule will have to be read into the relevant rule dealing with seniority. 27. Thus, we find no infirmity in the impugned judgment, which may warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. 28. We are told that first respondent is due to retire on 30.06.2023; he is still serving as Assistant Engineer; while, petitioners were promoted as Executive Engineer in the year 2018. 29. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. 28. We are told that first respondent is due to retire on 30.06.2023; he is still serving as Assistant Engineer; while, petitioners were promoted as Executive Engineer in the year 2018. 29. We, therefore, direct Managing Director, Uttarakhand Jal Sansthan to re-draw the seniority list in terms of judgment rendered by learned Tribunal on or before 22.06.2023 and to grant all consequential benefits, including promotion, to first respondent within one week thereafter. 30. We make it clear that monetary benefits will not be denied to first respondent, on the ground that he has not served on the promoted post.