ORDER :

Whether post of Superintendent Grade-II against which respondent No. 4 (Neelam Patial) was promoted on 31.10.2014 fell at roster point No. 5 or 7 of the 13 point roster followed by the respondents, is the question to be determined in these two petitions. In case the post in question fell at roster point No. 7, then it was to be filled up by promotion from an eligible person belonging to scheduled caste category. In that eventuality, the petitioner in CWPOA No. 6450 of 2019 (Man Singh) would succeed. However, if it was roster point No. 5, then promotion of respondent No. 4 (petitioner in CWPOA No. 5342 of 2019) as Superintendent Grade-II on 31.10.2014 belonging to general category would be saved. Both these writ petitions involve overlapping facts and common issues, hence, are taken up together for decision. For convenience, facts and documents from CWPOA No. 6450 of 2019 are being referred hereinafter.

2. Facts

2(i) The petitioner (Man Singh) was promoted to the post of Senior Assistant in the year 1999. The next promotional post from the post of Senior Assistant is that of Superintendent Grade-II.

2(ii) Admittedly, the respondents are following 13 point roster for filling up the posts of Superintendent Grade-II, which is a cadre consisting of total two posts. It is not in dispute that 5th post as per 13 point roster is to go to an eligible person belonging to general category, whereas the 7th post as per the roster has to go to an eligible person belonging to scheduled caste category.

2(iii) A post of Superintendent Grade-II became available in the respondent department on 11.9.2014. The respondents treated this post at roster point No. 5. The Departmental Promotion Committee (in short ‘DPC’) was convened on 17.9.2014 for filling up this vacancy. The DPC recommended name of respondent No. 4 belonging to general category for promotion to the post of Superintendent Grade-II. The recommendations were implemented by the respondents. Respondent No. 4 was accordingly promoted as Superintendent Grade-II on 31.10.2014.

2(iv) Aggrieved against the promotion of respondent No. 4 as Superintendent Grade-II, the petitioner preferred this petition on 23.4.2015 for the following substantive reliefs:-

“i) That the Office Order dated 31.10.2014 (Annexure A-5) whereby the private respondent has been promoted to the post of Supdtt. Grade-II may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(ii) That the respondents may further be directed to consider the case of applicant for promotion to the post of Supdtt. Grade-II and promote him to the post of Supdtt. Grade-II.”

The case put up by the petitioner is that the vacancy which became available on 11.9.2014 fell at roster point No. 7 and was thus reserved for candidate belonging to scheduled caste category. That the petitioner was an eligible feeder cadre personnel belonging to scheduled caste category and was required to be considered for promotion to the post of Superintendent Grade-II.

2(v) In reply filed to the petition, respondent-State conceded its mistake in having wrongly treated the vacancy in question at roster point No. 5. It was submitted that the vacant post in question actually fell at roster point No. 7 and therefore, eligible person belonging to scheduled caste category was required to be considered for promotion against the said roster point. During pendency of the petition, the respondents convened review meeting of the DPC on 16.6.2015. The review DPC concluded that the post in question actually fell at roster point No. 7 and not at roster point No. 5. Petitioner Man Singh belonging to scheduled caste cateory was recommended for promotion against this roster point No. 7. The DPC also recommended that “the DPC held in 2014 in which the name of Km. Neelam Patial is recommended against point No. 5 erroneously is set aside after reviewing the DPC and her demotion to her substantive post of Sr. Assistant be done as point No. 7 is meant Schedules Caste as per 13 point roster of reservation. Before i