The court upheld the validity of the promotion of an SC candidate and the filling of the vacancy based on the shortfall in the SC category.

V. Kameshwar Rao, J.

The challenge in the writ petition is to the remark of "next two posts should be filled strictly as per roaster backlog requirements, SC=1, ST= 1" made on the roaster register of the post of Lab Assistant in the respondent No. 1 college and attempt of the college to fill up the post of Lab Assistant by promotion of a junior person on the ground, he is a SC category candidate, even though, the quota of the said category already stands achieved.

2. The issue falls in a very narrow compass.

3. The petitioner is a General Category candidate, who was appointed as a Laboratory Attendant in the year 2002. The next promotion post is that of Laboratory Assistant which is filled by 100% by way of promotion. There are total eight posts in the college, out of which one has to be filled by an SC category candidate and one by ST category candidate. The petitioner having attained the eligibility, has filed this petition primarily on the ground that the next available vacancy, which arisen on the retirement of Mr. Hans Raj on 31st March, 2012 need to be filled up by an unreserved category candidate i.e. by him being a senior most and not by an SC category candidate Mr. Mahender Singh, who is junior to him in seniority.

4. Mr. R.K. Saini, learned Counsel for the petitioner would primarily submit that the quota of SC category has been achieved on the promotion of Mr. Yad Ram in the year 2004. He would also state, Mr. Yad Ram should have been promoted in the year 1999/2000 when he had attained the eligibility against an SC vacancy which could not be filled up in the year 1993. According to him, had the vacancy of SC category been filled up by Mr. Yad Ram in the year 1999/2000, his promotion would have been treated against SC vacancy, unlike his promotion in the year 2004, which was treated against an unreserved vacancy resulting in the shortfall of SC quota against which Mr. Mahender Singh is sought to be promoted/accommodated. It is also his submission that an SC vacancy could have been carried forward only for a period of three years and not further, which has been done in this case resulting in promotion of Mr. Mahender Singh against an SC category vacancy, otherwise, the SC vacancy would arise only at point No. 21.

5. Mr. A.P.S. Ahluwalia learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No. 1, where has filed the minutes of the DPC proceedings, would submit that Mr. Yad Ram was promoted to the post of Lab Assistant in the year 2004 on his own merit and his promotion could not be counted against SC vacancy. He would state, there is shortfall of SC category candidate, the next available vacancy would be filled by all SC candidate. He would justify the noting made on the roaster.

6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, the only ground o challenge in the writ petition being that on promotion of Mr. Yad Ram, an SC candidate, the quota having been achieved, no promotion can be made by an SC candidate in excess of quota, suffice to state, on a perusal of the DPC proceedings it is clear, Mr. Yad Ram was promoted to the post of Lab Assistant being the senior most. Surely, his promotion cannot be counted against an SC vacancy. So, there is a shortfall of SC candidate. That apart, the petitioner has no locus to contend the Mr. Yad Ram should have been promoted in the year 1999/2000 against an 9 vacancy. Further, it is not the case of Mr. Yad Ram that he should have been promoted in the year 1999/2000. Mr. Yad Ram has accepted his promotion as Lab Assistant with effect from 2004. So one must proceed on that premise only. That apart, if the contention of Mr. Saini is to be accepted, rights of persons who were promoted earlier to Mr. Yad Ram would be affected and they are not party in this petition. This submission of Mr. Saini needs to be rejected.

7. That apart, insofar as the submission that the vacancy could not have been carried forward beyond three years is concerned, such is not the case of the petitioner in the writ peti