Important Point
There cannot be reservation in a single post cadre, as 100 quota is not permissible under statute.

Headnote:Constitution of India-Articles 14, 15, 16-Reservation-Single post cadre-Reservation not permissible as it amounts to 100 reservation in view of the decision given by the Supreme Court in Dr. Chakradhar Paswan v. State of Bihar & Ors., 1988(2) SCC 214.
       Held : There is no difficulty in appreciating that there is need for reservation for the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and other backward classes and such reservation is not confined to the initial appointment in a cadre but also to the appointment in promotional post. It cannot however be lost sight of that in the anxiety for such reservation for the backward classes, a situation should not be brought by which the chance of appointment is completely taken away so far as the members of other segments of the society are concerned by making such single post cent per cent reserved for the reserved categories to the exclusion of other members of the community even when such member is senior in service and is otherwise more meritorious. (Para 32)
       Held also : Articles 14, 15 and 16 including Article 16(4), 16(4A) must be applied in such a manner so that the balance is struck in the matter of appointments by creating reasonable opportunities for the reserved classes and also for the other members of the community who do not belong to reserved classes. Such view has been indicated in the Constitution Bench decisions of this Court in Balaji’s case, Devadasan’s case and Sabharwal’s case. Even in Indra Sawhney’s case, the same view has been held by indicating that only a limited reservation not exceeding 50 is permissible. It is to be appreciated that Article 15(4) is an enabling provision like Article 16(4) and the reservation under either provision should not exceed legitimate limits. In making reservations for the backward classes, the State cannot ignore the fundamental rights of the rest of citizens. The special provision under Article 15(4) must therefore strike a balance between several relevant considerations and proceed objectively. In this connection reference may be made to the decisions of this Court in The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. v. U.S.V. Balaram, AIR 1972 SC 1375 and C.A. Rajendran v. Union of India, AIR 1968 SC 507. It has been indicated in Indra Sawhney’s case (supra) that clause (4) of Article 16 is not in the nature of an exception to Clauses (1) and (2) of Article 16 but an instance of classification permitted by clause (1). It has also been indicated in the said decision that clause (4) of Article 16 does not cover the entire field covered by clauses (1) and (2) of Article 16. In Indra Sawhney’s case, this court has also indicated that in the interests of the backward classes of citizens, the State can not reserve all the appointment under the State or even a majority of them. The doctrine of equality of opportunity in Clause (1) of Article 16 is to be reconciled in favour of backward classes under clause (4) of Article 16 in such a manner that the latter while serving the cause of backward classes shall not unreasonably encroach upon the field of equality. (Para 33)
       Further held : In a single post cadre, reservation at any point of time on account of rotation of roster is bound to bring about a situation where such single post in the cadre will be kept reserved exclusively for the members of the backward classes and in total exclusion of the general members of the public. Such total exclusion of general members of the public and cent percent reservation for the backward classes is not permissible within the constitutional frame work. The decisions of this Court to this effect over the decades have been consistent. (Para 35)
       Hence, until there is pluarality of posts in a cadre, the question of reservation will not arise because any attempt of reservation by whatever means and even with device of rotation of roster in a single post cadre is bound to create 100 reservation of such post whenever such reservation is to be implemented. The device of rotation of roster in respect of single post cadre will only mean that on some occasions there will be complete reservation and the appointment to such post is kept out of bound to the members of a large segment of the community who do not belong to any reserved class, but on some other occasions the post will be available for open competition when in fact on all such occasions, a single post cadre should have been filled only by open competition amongst all segments of the society. (Para 36)
       Held finally : We, therefore, approve the view taken in Chakradhar’s case that there can not be any reservation in a single post cadre and we do not approve the reasonings in Madhav’s case, Brij Lal Thakur’s case and Bageswari Prasad’s case upholding reservation in a single post cadre either directly or by device of rotation of roster point. Accordingly, the impugned decision in the case of Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education Research can not also be sustained. The Review Petition made in Civil Appeal No. 3175 of 1997 in the case of Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education Research, Chandigarh, is therefore allowed and the judgment dated May 2, 1997 passed in Civil Appeal No. 3175 of 1997 is set aside. (Para 38)
       Consequently held : As we do not propose to consider the facts and circumstances in other cases which have been heard along with the Review Petition, we direct that the said matters be placed before the appropriate Bench for disposal on the basis of this decision in Review Petition in CA No. 3175 of 1997. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. (Para 39)

Judgment

G.N. Ray, J.-In all these matters a common question arises for decision as to whether in a single cadre post reservation for the backward classes, namely, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other backward classes can be made either directly or by applying rotation of roster point. There are conflicting decisions of this Court on the question of such reservation in a single cadre post.

2. The learned counsel for the parties in all these matters have agreed that the question of law as to the constitutional validity of reservation in a single cadre post is to be decided by the Constitution Bench and thereafter the cases will be placed before the appropriate Bench for disposal on merits in accordance with decision rendered by this Bench. Therefore, the question of constitutional validity of reservation in a single cadre post either directly or by rotation of roster point has been considered by us and we have not taken into consideration other constitutions raised in these matters.

3. In support of the contention that reservation can be made not only in respect of the promotional post but also in respect of a single post in a cadre, Mr. E.C. Agrawala, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in CA No. 2346/81, Mr. Puri, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in CA No. 2345 of 1981, Mr. R.K. Jain, learned senior counsel appearing for the Intervenor in the review petition filed in CA No. 3175 of 1997 on behalf of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Employees Welfare Association, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, and Mr. Andhyarujina, learned Solicitor General appearing for the appellant in SLP (C) No. 13148 of 1997 for the petitioner Union of India have made elaborate submissions. Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel appearing in support of the review petition in CA No. 3175 of 1997 has opposed the contention that a reservation can be made in respect of a single post cadre. Other learned counsel appearing in these matters have adopted the rival contentions, without advancing any separate argument.

4. Mr. Kapil Sibal has submitted that there cannot be any reservation either for initial appointment or for an appointment on promotion in respect of a single post cadre either directly or by the device of rotation of roster. Mr Sibal has contended that the very concept of carry forward or the principle of roster is alien to a single post cadre. He has also contended that the principle of carry forward meaning thereby carrying forward reservation presupposes existence of multi posts cadre. If there is only one post in a cadre, the vacancy for such single post being filled up, there will be no occasion for carrying forward reservation for filling up such vacancy. Mr. Sibal has also contended that the rationale of reservation under Article 16(4) of the Constitution is founded on the inadequacy of representation of a class in the service under the State. The question of adequacy of representation does not and cannot arise in a single post cadre because only one person can be accommodated against the single post, leaving no scope for adequate representation of any particular class in such single post.

5. Mr. Sibal has contended that the impugned judgment cannot be supported because (a) reservation of super speciality is against the decision of Nine Judges’ Bench decision of this Court in Indra Sawhney etc. v. Union of India & Ors.1, and (b) no reservation in a single cadre post is permissible in law. Mr. Sibal has submitted that both in the impugned judgment and also in the judgment of Union of India & Anr. v. Madhav & Anr.2 on which reliance has been made in the impugned judgment, the ratio in the decision of Arati Ray Choudhary v. Union of India & Ors.3 was wrongly appreciated and the ratio was wrongly stated. Mr. Sibal has drawn the attention of the Court to the observations of Justice Reddy speaking for majority decision on Article 335 of the Constitution as contained in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1998 Supreme(SC) 494

Important PointThere cannot be reservation in a single post cadre, as 100 quota is not permissible under statute.

Cases Referred (13)

Important Point
There cannot be reservation in a single post cadre, as 100 quota is not permissible under statute.