1. Promotion to a single post — Application of reservation roster — Senior candidate bypassed for junior candidate from a reserved category. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1999 Supreme(SC) 886
1999(8) Supreme 716
Supreme Court of India
Sujata V. Manohar, K. Venkataswami & M. Jagannadha Rao, JJ.
Sh. S.R. Murthy -Appellant
versus
The State of Karnataka & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4480 of 1990
Decided on 19-8-1999
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Abhay N. Dass, Advocate for M.M. Kashyap, Advocate.
For the Respondents : K.H. Nobin Singh, Advocate for M. Veerappa, Advocate.
Important Points
Important Point
In case promotional post is a single post, application of roster for purpose of promotion of reserved candidate (SC/ST) is not permissible.
In case promotional post is a single post, application of roster for purpose of promotion of reserved candidate (SC/ST) is not permissible.
Subject
Employment - Promotions and Reservations
Act Referred
SERVICE LAW: .
Headnote
Service Law-Promotion-Reservation to SC/ST-Roster system-In case of single post, application of roster for purpose of promotion is not permissible. (Paras 2 to 5)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether promotional vacancies in a single post cadre must be rotated in accordance with the reservation roster. (Para 2 )
3. Reservation via rotation in a single post cadre results in total exclusion of general members, which is constitutionally impermissible. (Para 3 , 4 )
4. Application of a reservation roster for promotion is not permissible in a single post cadre. (Para 3 , 4 )
5. Appeal allowed — Tribunal order and promotion set aside — Recovery of salary already paid disallowed. (Para 5 )
6. Is the application of a reservation roster permissible for promotion to a single post cadre?
No, the application of a roster for the purpose of promotion is not permissible when the post in question is a single post. (Para 3 , 4 )
7. Why is reservation via rotation prohibited in a single post cadre?
Because such rotation would result in the single post being reserved exclusively for backward classes, leading to the total exclusion of general members of the public, which is not permitted within the constitutional framework. (Para 3 )
Order
This appeal deals with the promotion given by the first respondent to the respondent No. 3 to the post of Head of Section, Ceramics in a Government Polytechnic. There is no dispute that this is a single post. The first respondent, however, applied the roster relating to reservations to this post. Hence although the appellant was the senior-most person eligible for promotion to that post, he was not appointed. Instead, respondent No. 3, who was junior to him, but who belonged to the Scheduled Caste category was appointed since on the roster point, the vacancy was reserved for a Scheduled Caste candidate.
2. The Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in the impugned judgment proceeded on the basis that since this was a promotional post, all promotional vacancies would have to be rotated in accordance with the roster. Hence the promotion of respondent No. 3 to the post of Head of Section, Ceramics, was a valid appointment.
3. The Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh v. Faculty Association and Ors.1 , has held, after discussing all decisions on this question, that :
“In a single post cadre, reservation at any point of time on account of rotation or 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 background classes is not permitted within the constitutional frame word.”
4. In the light of this ratio since the post in question was a single post, the application of the roster for the purpose of promotion was not permissible.
5. The appeal is allowed and the impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside. The promotion of respondent No. 3 on the basis of the roster is set aside. However, the salary already received by the third respondent in the promotional post shall not be recovered.
(C.R.) Appeal allowed.
**************
