1992 Supreme(Guj) 81

Gujarat High Court
Judgename :N.J.Pandya, S.B.MAJMUDAR
R.K.PRAJAPATI - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
S.C.A. 5134 of 1990
Decided On : 03/24/1992

Headnote:

Constitution of India – Article 16 (1) and 16 (4) – Petitions, a common question has been raised for our consideration and the question is as to the effect that when promotions of Scheduled scheduled Castes employees are effected from the cadre of clerks, clerk-typists. and typists in the Revenue Department of the State of Gujarat working in different collectorates to the higher posts of Deputy Mamlatdars on application of roster system and when contingency arises for effecting reversions from the promotional posts of Deputy Mamlatdars on account of cancellation of posts on any administrative ground –Whether these ST/ SC promotees can legitimately contend that till percentage of reservation of the post for them in the promotional cadre is not exceeded, they cannot be reverted and instead, promotees from the general category should be reverted irrespective of their inter se seniority in the promotional cadre of Deputy Mamlatdars petitioners in this group of petitions represent general category of employees who contend that their colleagues who belong to ST/sc and who are also promoted as Deputy Mamlatdars, should not get benefit of such percentage of reservation at the time when reversions arc to be effected even though they might have been promoted as per roster for maintaining percentage of deserved categoiies of employees in the promotional cadre contesting respondents belonging to reserved category of employees naturally oppose this contention court proceed to deal with this controversy, in greater details, it will be necessary to note a few introductory facts leading to these proceedings. Special Civil Application are concerned with employees working as Deputy Mamlatdars in Baroda Collectorate. Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 in Special Civil Application were promoted as Deputy Mamlatdar on the basis of roster and roster points as they belonged to ST/sc communities while the petitioners in Special Civil application represent general category of candidates who are promoted as deputy Mamlatdars and working as such –Held, In the light of our decisions on these points, it Las to be held that the petitioners in these petitions are not justified in contending that while effecting reversion from the promotional posts, reserved category of candidates if junior to them in the promotional cadre should be reverted first ipso facto without considering whether they are entitled to retain these received posts against the quota or percentage of reserved post in the light of available promotional posts even after such reduction of posts. Prayer (A) in Special Civil Application question is being examined separately by this very Bench in another group of petitions where the learned Advocate of the petitioners has raised this contention and hence so far as this question is concerned, it is kept open and will abide by the result in other group of petitions where the question of proviso to Rule 5 is being considered far as Special Civil Application is concerned, prayer 21 (1) cannot be granted as it proceeded on the basis that while effecting reversion junior persons must be reverted first even though they may be belonging to SC/st category and may be occupying the posts against their reserved quota. Similar, prayer 21 (11) also cannot be granted on this very ground. So far as prayer 21 (111) is concerned, it raises the question of vires of proviso to Rule 5 of the Rules. That question is kept open for decision and will abide by the result in other group of petitions wherein this question is on the anvil. So far as prayer 21 (IV) is concerned, it will stand rejected so far as challenge to seniority list is concerned centering round the question whether SC/st candidates must he reverted first, irrespective of quota of reservation posts guaranteed to them. So far as other challenge to the seniority list is concerned, it will abide by the result of companion petitions wherein vires to proviso to Rule 5 of the Rules is on the anvil far as Special Civil Application is concerned, prayer 20 (1) cannot be granted as it is based on the premise that respondent-Authorities should be directed to revert respondents and 10 on the principle of last come first go as these respondents are found to be occupying posts against reserved percentage of posts