IMPORTANT POINT
Strict adherence to the 13 Point Model Roster and the fundamental right of consideration for promotion for candidates belonging to reserved categories.

JUDGMENT :

AJAY MOHAN GOEL, J.

1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter-alia, prayed for the following reliefs:

“(i) That the impugned order dated 28.2.2022 contained in Annexure P-7 may kindly be quashed and set-aside and respondents may kindly be directed to promote the petitioner against the post of Research Officer from the due date i.e. year 2015 with all consequential benefits.

(ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion against the post of Research Officer from Senior Assistant from reserve category i.e. SC category by implementing the reservation roster which has not been implanted since 1999, whereas in other category same has been implemented.”

2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a Clerk in the respondent-Department on 05.02.2000. Thereafter, he was promoted against the post Senior Assistant on 06.08.2010. The post of Senior Assistant is the feeder category post for promotion to the post of Research Officer. In terms of the Recruitment & Promotion Rules of the post of Research Officer appended with the petition as Annexure P-1, the post of Research Officer is a Class-III Gazetted selection post, which is to be filled in 100% by way of promotion, failing which by direct recruitment. By promotion, the same is to be filled in from amongst Technical Assistants of the Tribal Department having three years regular or ad-hoc service or both in the Grade of Statistical Assistants and Assistants having five year regular or ad-hoc service or both in the Grade, who have done their graduation from a recognized university with Economics/Mathematics and Commerce as one of the subjects. Though in terms of the Recruitment & Promotion Rules appended with the petition, the number of posts of Research Officer mentioned therein is one, but the Court stands apprised that subsequently the number of the posts was increased to three.

3. The contention of the petitioner is that he belongs to a Scheduled Caste Category. Because the cadre strength of the post of Research Officer is less than thirteen, therefore, the promotions were to be effected by applying the 13 Point Model Roster, introduced by the respondent-State vide notification dated 20.08.1988 and the 4th replacement point therein which falls to the share of Scheduled Caste category has erroneously filled in by promoting one Shri Jagdish Thakur. who belongs to the Unreserved Category and as a result thereof, grave injustice has been caused to the petitioner, as upon gaining eligibility for promotion to the post of Research Officer, till date, his candidature is being ignored on the ground that there is no vacancy as of now available to be filed in from amongst Scheduled Caste Category candidates.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as it is not in dispute that the 4th replacement point which as per the 13 Point Model Reservation Roster belongs to the category of Scheduled Caste, was not filled by promotion of a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste Category, which act of the Department is arbitrary and in violation of the instructions issued in this regard by the respondent-State itself, as it has taken away a valuable right of consideration for promotion of the petitioner against said post, who belongs to the Scheduled Caste Category, which right of his, in terms of the law declared by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajit Singh-II vs. State of Punjab, (1997) 7 SCC 209, is a fundamental right. Accordingly, he has prayed that the present petition be allowed by holding the act of the respondent of promoting an Unreserved Category candidate to the post of Research Officer against the roster point of Scheduled category Caste to be bad in a law, with a further direction to the respondents to consider and promote the petitioner to the said post from the date when he gained eligibility.

5. Learned Deputy Advocate General has submitted that the case of the petitioner has no merit, for