Department of Personnel and Training has issued about 5-6 Office Memorandums. Keeping with the spirit of the Constitution, they are quite derogatory and violating the spirit of the Constitution.

OM No.1
         There was an order of the DOPT dated 30th January 1997, which relates to the case, the Government of India versus Virpal Singh. In that case, they mentioned that if a Scheduled Caste candidate is promoted to a higher post or grade earlier than his senior general candidate, thereafter the senior general candidate is promoted to the some higher post, the seniority of the senior general candidate be retained. It is nothing but snatching the seniority and promotion of the Scheduled Caste candidate by the general candidate.
         While issuing that OM, the DOPT had forgotten the latest decision in this matter. This is nothing but going away from the safeguards provided in the Constitution. It is not keeping with the spirit of the judgment dated 7th May 1997 in the matter of Jagdish Lal and others versus State of Haryana and others.
         Here it was observed that on promotion to the higher cadre the reserved candidates steaf a march over the general candidates.

OM No.2
         The second OM is dated 2nd July 1997 issued by the DOPT regarding the judgment delivered in the case of R.K. Sabharwal versus the State of Punjab as well as J.C. Malick versus the Ministry of Railways. But, conveniently, they have forgotten the judgment that is relevant to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, that is, the case of R.K. Sabharwal and P.S. Gehlot. It observed that the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates competing with general candidates, with the same seniority-cum-fitness, would be counted against the general posts and not against the reserved posts. The content of the OM is contrary to this judgment.

OM No.3
        Then, there is a third OM, dated 22nd July, 1997. That OM was issued on the basis of the Supreme Court judgment in the matter of Vinod Kumar versus the Government of India. That OM stated that they had withdrawn the relaxation concessions. 

OM No.4
        There is another OM, dated 13th August, 1997 of DOPT. It contented that the existing reservation in promotion is up to the lower rung of Class-I and not beyond that. This is contrary to the spirit of Article 16(4A) and this decision was taken by this august House through the 27th Amendment of the Constitution.
        What right has the DOPT got? This is derogatory to the decision of Parliament. The entire Parliament ought to have taken cognizance of it. Why should DOPT take such decision which is contrary to the decision of Parliament? 

OM No.5
         Another OM, dated 29th August, 1997 of DOPT stated that special recruitment drive cannot be continued even to clear the backlog vacancies. They want to stop the reservation policy but at the same time, the DOPT has ignored the judgment in the case of Post-Graduate Institution of Medical Education and Research versus K.M. Narsimha. The judgment says that the filling up of backlog vacancies by special recruitment drive is not by violating the principle of carrying forward backlog vacancies within one year and within the 50 per cent quota.