(1) LEAVE granted.

(2) THIS appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High court of Patna in CWJC No. 4220 of 1990 dated 5/3/1992. The only question that arises for consideration is whether Sita Ram Prasad, Respondent 2 was entitled to be promoted as Office Superintendent in a supertime scale on the basis that he was a reserved candidate in the 6th vacancy. The High court in the impugned judgment relying on the judgment of this court in Chakradhar Paswan (Dr) v. State of Bihar 1 held that since the post of Superintendent is a single post, it cannot be reserved for the reserved candidates. Accordingly, the order of appointment to the reserved vacancy was held to be illegal, a direction was issued to the government to consider the case of the 1st respondent for promotion to the post of OS as a general candidate. The State has impugned that order in this appeal.

(3) IN the government circular, Annx. R-l bearing Letter No. 21-AG-1- 125-KG-20165, the government have decided in providing for reservation and prepared the roster to the posts in the cadre. In para 2, it is stated thus:

"THEREFORE, the State government has taken decision that for the removal of these criticisms and doubts there should be modification in roster for 50 vacancies in the form of sample by those letters. Sample of modified roster is given below, this will be applicable for the recruitment and promotion from now onwards."

(4) SAMPLE roster for all categories of first, second, third and fourth divisions of service have been given. Second vacancy is reserved for Scheduled Castes, fourth vacancy for Scheduled Tribes and first, third, sixth and seventh vacancies are unreserved for general candidates. In para 3, it was stated that it has to be made clear that in the matter of reservation, if there is only one vacancy, the second turn of the vacancy of the same post would be filled by the appointment of persons from reserved castes. The roster is not concerned with the post but with vacancy arising according to the roster and will go on implementing the vacancy arising on each successive occasion. Thus in considering the question whether a person can be considered for a promotion from the reserved category on the basis of the roster, it is not the post that is material but it is the vacancy which is material. In Paswan case 1 one post of Director and other posts of Deputy Director was sought to be fused for purpose of treating the posts available for reservation. The pay scales of the posts of Director and Deputy Director are different. The ratio does not preclude the power of the government to fuse all posts of equal scale of pay for applying rule of reservation under Articles 16(1 and 16(4 or successive vacancies arising in single post. Therefore, the general candidates, when were promoted to the post of Office Superintendent, the second vacancy which ought to have been reserved for Scheduled Castes and fourth for Scheduled Tribes, have been filled by the general candidates since Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes were not, then available. When sixth vacancy had arisen, the claim of the reserved candidate was available and the authorities are enjoined to consider the claim of the reserved candidate. The High court was clearly in error in relying the ratio in Paswan case 1 which stood entirely on a different situation to hold that the post cannot be reserved. Under these circumstances, the order of the High court is set aside and the second respondent was rightly considered for promotion and was legally promoted as Superintendent. The writ petition stands dismissed. The appeal is allowed. But in the circumstances without costs.