The distinction between a special drive for filling up backlog vacancies and regular promotion to candidates from reserved and unreserved categories is crucial. The court emphasized the need to differentiate between ad hoc promotions and regular promotions, and upheld the validity of the Office Memorandum dated 24.12.1980.

JUDGMENT :

HEMANT GUPTA, J.

1. The present three appeals have been preferred by the Union of India; two appeals viz. Civil Appeal No. 3314 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 5933 of 2010 arise out of an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal¹[For short, the ‘Tribunal’], affirmed by the High Court of Delhi and High Court of Punjab & Haryana, directing separate zone of consideration for promotion of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates to the post of Superintendent in the Customs and Central Excise Commissionerate from the post of Inspector, whereas the Civil Appeal No. 9436 of 2010 is directed against a similar direction by the High Court of Delhi but in respect of Indo-Tibetan Border Police for promotion to the post of Assistant Commandant from the post of Subedar Major Stenographer.

2. For the sake of brevity, the facts are quoted from the Civil Appeal No. 3314 of 2010. The grievance of the applicants²[For short, the ‘candidates’], belonging to the Scheduled Tribes, was that there is backlog of vacancies for the post of Superintendent which have not been filled up for the reason that the candidates are not available within the zone of consideration. Therefore, to fill up the 29 posts of Superintendent, it was prayed that a separate zone of consideration be created for the Scheduled Tribe candidates so that the vacancies in the cadre of Superintendent meant for them could be filled up.

3. The Tribunal found that the Office Memorandum dated 30.9.1983 which restricted the zone of consideration to five times of the posts to be illegal. Reliance was placed upon the orders passed by this Court in U.P. Rajya Vidyut Parishad SC/ST Karamchari Kalyan Sangh v. U.P. State Electricity Board & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4026 of 1988 decided on 23.11.1994, C.D. Bhatia & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 14566 of 1995 decided on 20.10.1995; and, Basudeo Anil & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 1194 of 1992 decided on 7.9.2000 wherein the Office Memorandum dated 30.9.1983 restricting the zone of consideration was found to be illegal.

4. The attention of the Court was drawn to the earlier Office Memorandum dated 24.12.1980 which contemplated that the zone of consideration can be extended to five times the number of vacancies and the Scheduled Tribe candidates (and not any other) coming within the extended field of choice, should also be considered against the vacancies reserved for them. The relevant extract reads thus:

“(a) The Department Promotion Committee (DPC) shall for 'the purpose of determining the number of officers who should be considered from out of those eligible officers in the feeder grade(s) restrict the field of choice as under, with reference to the number of clear regular vacancies proposed to be filled in the year.

(b) Where, however, the number of eligible officer in the feeder grade(s) is less than the number in Col. (2) above, all the officers so eligible should be considered.

(c)Where adequate number of SC/ST candidates are not available within the normal field of choice as above, the field of choice may be extended to 5 times the number of vacancies and the SC/ST candidates (and not any other) coming within the extended field of choice, should also be considered against the vacancies reserved for them.

Officers belonging to SC/ST selected for promotion against vacancies reserved for them from out of the extended field of choice under sub para (e) above, would however be placed en bloc below all the other officers selected from within the normal field of choice.”

5. It is thereafter, an Office Memorandum was issued on 30.4.1983 for regulating ad-hoc promotions for consideration of cases for Scheduled Caste a