The power of reservation conferred on the State under Art. 16(4) can be exercised by the State in a proper case not only by providing for reservation of appointments but also by providing for reservation of selection posts.

Judgement

GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. : (On behalf of himself, Sarkar and Das Gupta JJ.)

On a writ petition filed by the respondent K. Rangachari in the Madras High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution a writ of mandamus has been issued by the said High Court restraining the appellants, the General Manager, Southern Railway, and the Personnel Officer (Reservation), Southern Railway, from giving effect to the directions of the Railway Board ordering reservation of selection posts in Class III of the railway service in favour of the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and in particular the reservation of selection posts among the Court Inspectors in Class III one of which is held by the respondent. After the writ was thus issued the appellant applied for and obtained a certificate from the said High Court under Art. 132 (1) of the Constitution as it involved a substantial

question of law, namely, the scope of Art. 16 (4) of the Constitution. It is with this certificate that the appeal has been brought to this court, and the only question which it raises for our decision is about the scope and effect of Art. 16 (4). This question is of considerable public importance though the dispute raised by it lies within a very narrow compass.

2. In the railway services there are four grades of Court Inspectors included in Class III, (1) Court Inspectors on Rs. 200-300, (2) Court Inspectors. On Rs. 260 - 350, (3) Chief Court Inspectors on Rs. 300-400, and (4). Chief Court Inspectors on Rs. 360 - 500. It appears that Inspectors of the first category are recruited partly directly and partly by selection from other categories of railway services. To the remaining three grades appointments are made by promotion and they are classified as selection posts. Selection to these grades is made by a committee of officers constituted for the purpose. In respect of non-selection posts seniority in service is the qualification but in regard to selection posts seniority is only one of the qualifications for promotion to such posts; suitability to promotion is considered on other relevant grounds as well.

3. The respondent was initially recruited to the grade of Rs. 200-300 and was confirmed in that grade on November 21, 1956. Between May 23, 1958 and August 22, 1958 as well as between December 8, 1958 and December 31, 1958 he was promoted to officiate in the grade of Rs. 260-350. He got a chance of another similar promotion to officiate on April 8, 1959. These promotions were in the nature of ad hoc promotions and were consequently of temporary duration. Later, on June 16, 1959 he was interviewed by the selection committee and his promotion to the said higher grade was regularised and an order was passed in that behalf on June 30, 1959. By this order he was allowed to continue to officiate in the said grade. Since then he has been officiating in that grade.

4. On April 27,1959 and on June 12, 1959 the two impugned circulars were issued by the Railway Board and addressed to the General Managers. As a result of the said circulars, the selection committee decided to consider the case of Hiriyanna for promotion to the grade of Rs. 260-350, Hiriyanna being a member of the Schedule Castes. The record shows that at the time when the respondent was interviewed and selected he was placed as Number One by the selection committee and one Parthasarthy was placed as Number Two. On the said occasion Hiriyanna was not selected and put in the panel. The selection committee desired to examine the case of Hiriyanna in order to decide whether he was suitable for promotion to higher grade in the light of the two directives issued by the Railway Board and so a meeting of the selection committee was called on November 18, 1959. The respondent thought that the proceedings of, the said proposed meeting may result prejudicially to his interest and so on November 16, 1959 he filed the present Writ Petition No. 1051 of 1959. In this petition he applied for a writ in the natur