current position of catch up rule and consequential seniority The concept of "catch-up" rule and "consequential seniority" are judicially evolved concepts in Indian service jurisprudence to control the extent of reservation. These concepts are not constitutional requirements and cannot be elevated to the status of constitutional principles. They are based on practices and are not implicit in clauses (1) and (4) of Article 16 of the Indian Constitution [MUKUND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA VS STATE OF U. P. ][Maya M. Pednekar VS State of Goa through the Chief Secretary][PREM KUMAR SINGH VS STATE OF U. P. ][B. K Pavitra VS Union of India].The "catch-up" rule is a concept that allows reserved category candidates who are promoted later to regain their seniority over general category candidates who were promoted earlier. On the other hand, "consequential seniority" refers to the seniority of reserved category candidates being fixed from the date of their promotion, even if it is later than that of general category candidates [S. PANNEER SELVAM VS GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU][Sudhakar Baburao Nangnure VS Noreshwar Raghunathrao Shende].The Indian judiciary has held that the insertion or deletion of the concept of "consequential seniority" does not destroy or abrogate the structure of Article 16(1) of the Constitution, nor does it violate the "equality code" under Articles 14, 15, and 16. These concepts are not constitutional principles and can be modified or deleted through the amending power of the Parliament [MUKUND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA VS STATE OF U. P. ][Maya M. Pednekar VS State of Goa through the Chief Secretary][PREM KUMAR SINGH VS STATE OF U. P. ].In cases where the rules do not provide for consequential seniority, the "catch-up" rule will prevail, and reserved category candidates cannot count their seniority in the promoted category from the date of their promotion. Instead, the seniority of general category candidates will be restored if they reach the promotional level later [Sudhakar Baburao Nangnure VS Noreshwar Raghunathrao Shende][Paresh Chandra Deka VS State of Assam].It is important to note that seniority is not a fundamental right but rather a statutory right, mostly relevant in cases of promotion. The key issue in this context is whether the "catch-up" rule and the concept of "consequential seniority" are constitutional requirements of Article 16 and equality, beyond the constitutional amendatory process. The Indian judiciary has clarified that these concepts are not constitutional requirements and are not implicit in Article 16 [MUKUND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA VS STATE OF U. P. ][Maya M. Pednekar VS State of Goa through the Chief Secretary][M. Nagaraj VS Union of India].In summary, the "catch-up" rule and "consequential seniority" are concepts derived from service jurisprudence and are not constitutional requirements. They are based on practices and can be modified or deleted through the amending power of the Parliament. The absence of a provision for consequential seniority in the rules will result in the application of the "catch-up" rule.
See Also
Manufacturing Tomato Ketchup