The main legal point established in the judgment is that the promotions made by the Board against the vacancies reserved for SC/ST candidates were in compliance with the reservation mandate, and the findings and conclusions of the learned Single Judge were erroneous.

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

1. These appeals impugn the common judgment and order of a learned Single Judge delivered on 21.12.2012, allowing the writ petition of the Respondent Nos. 2-6 (hereafter called "the writ petitioners" or "contesting respondents").

2. The writ petitioners had impleaded the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and the official head of the Slum Wing of the DDA in the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It had, however, not impleaded the present appellants in LPA 266/2013. In the proceeding, they sought declaration that they ought to be considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) under the DDA Slum Wing subsequently transferred to the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board, i.e. the first respondent in the present appeal (and hereafter referred to as "the Board"). It was contended that the omission to promote the writ petitioners and the proposal to de-reserve 14 posts of Assistant Engineers (AE) in the Civil Department of the Board, was contrary to the Constitution.

3. The petitioners argued that even though the post of AE could be filled through two distinct channels - i.e. 50% by direct recruitment or deputation and 50% from amongst promotions of eligible Junior Engineers, the Board abandoned the direct recruitment route and had been filling up the post through promotion exclusively. It was contended that the Board had promoted 68 Junior Engineers (Civil) [hereafter "JE(C)"] as Assistant Engineers (Civil) [hereafter "AE(C)"] as against 68 sanctioned posts. The contesting respondents/writ petitioners stated that as against the clear quota of 16 posts out of 68 posts for SC/ST candidates, only 7 were promoted. Therefore, directions in the writ petition were sought specifically on the ground that the Board failed to implement the policies of reservation mandated by the Constitution and the Central Government and that 9 posts of AE(C) were available for SC/ST candidates. It was stated that 18 posts of AE(C) were vacant in the Board and in conformity with the 40-point roster policy, 5 of those should have gone to the SC/ST categories amongst JE(C) incumbents. It was, therefore, stated that if the model roster were operated efficiently and correctly, the writ petitioners/contesting respondents herein would have secured promotion. It was also stated that they were working as AE(C) and discharging their duties satisfactorily since 05.02.1991. The petitioners relied upon representations to the official respondent/Board from time to time.

4. The Board, in its reply, had stated that several JEs(C) were promoted as AEs. It also stated that 2 ST candidates were directly recruited. In all, 15 roster points which were to be filled by SC/ST candidates during the period between 1974 and 1987 could be filled- up to 66 roster points. 5 roster points were filled up by promotion of 5 diploma holder JEs belonging to SC categories. It is also stated that Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) meetings were convened on 22.10.1990, 01.05.1991, 05.07.1991 and 08.10.1992 to fill up the vacant posts by promotion of JEs and that the candidates of reserved category officials too were considered. However, none materialized.

5. After hearing the contesting respondents and the Board, and considering the records available, the learned Single Judge found that the writ petitioners/contesting respondents joined as JEs on 10.08.1981, 20.04.1983 and 20.03.1983 and became eligible for promotion as AEs on 10.08.1989, 20.04.1991 and 20.03.1991. One of the petitioners was a degree holder and joined service as JE and became eligible to be promoted as AE on 04.06.1987. It was held that the Board did not follow the procedure prescribed by the Department of Personal and Training ("DOPT") dated 10.07.1990 which had stated that where recruitment to a grade is made both by promotion and direct recruitment, i.e. where separate quotas for promotion and direct recruitment are prescribed in the recruitment rules,