The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of a Scheduled Caste employee to be considered for promotion as per the reservation policy, and the obligation of the respondents to adhere to the roster and consider the petitioner for the vacant post.

The petitioner questions the order of the second respondent appointing the fourth respondent as Office Manager Grade III and to direct the respondents to promote the petitioner to the said post.

2. According to the petitioner, he joined the services of the third respondent Panchayat on 15.6.1987 as Junior Assistant. He belongs to Scheduled Caste community and his services were regularised during 1989. The post of Officer Manager Grade III fell vacant during 1987 and the said vacancy was meant for S.C./S.T. in the Roster prescribed by the Central Government. The said post can be filled up by promotion failing which by direct recruitment. A Junior Assistant who had passed S.S.L.C. with five years of service in the Grade was eligible to be promoted. The last vacancy arose in the year 1987 and as there was no eligible S.C./S.T. candidate it was de-reserved and one Shanmugha Sundaram from the General category was appointed on 16.2.1987. He retired on 28.2.1993 and the post of Office Manager Grade III was lying vacant from 1.3.1993. By that time the petitioner who had completed five years of service, and was eligible to be promoted. In fact, the Under Secretary to the Government (Enforcement Cell) in a Circular dated 8.8.1994 has given instructions for strict observance of orders regarding reservation. As soon as Shanmuga Sundaram retired, the petitioner gave a representation requesting the respondents to give promotion to him. His representation dated 7.6.1993 and 28.3.1995 did not invoke any response. The petitioner would further submit that the Deputy Director, Local Administration has stated in his letter dated 29.10.1993 that the Special Officer was of the opinion that the present vacancy was a reserved one and has to be filled up by a reserved category candidate. But the respondents contrary to the policy of reservation, were now trying to appoint one Nathersa, namely, the fourth respondent who was working as Office Superintendent, drawing the same scale of pay as that of Office Manager Grade-III. The third respondent also appears to have approved the appointment of the fourth respondent. Even though the Special Officer had taken a decision not to abolish the post of Superintendent (Accounts), the third respondent had abolished the post and appointed the fourth respondent as Office Manager Grade III. The promotion and his action was in violation of Article 16(4) and 335 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner belongs to S.C. category and therefore, he was entitled to be appointed to the post and the second respondent was not justified in approving the promotion of the fourth respondent. Hence the writ petition.

3. In the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent, it is contended that Neravy Panchayat had two posts in the category of Managercarrying the same salary and as such equivalent. But there was no need to maintain the posts on account of non-availability of sufficient work. There was need to restrict structure of the establishment and to reduce the overhead charges. Therefore, the Special Officer recommended abolition of temporary post of Superintendent of Accounts retaining the post of Office Manager Grade-III since both the posts are identically carrying the same scale of pay. This fact was brought to the notice of the first respondent with a request to accord sanction to abolish temporary post of Superintendent of Accounts. In the meantime the post of Office Manager had become vacant as the incumbent retired on 28.2.1993. The fourth respondent was directed to hold full additional charge with effect from 1.3.1993. Ultimately, the Government had accepted the recommendation and consequently abolished the post of Superintendent of Accounts. Therefore, the fourth respondent was transferred to the permanent post. In the said circumstances, the contentions of the petitioner were not sustainable. The allegations made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition were denied. As regards represent