The promotion process in a single post cadre must adhere to merit, and reservation under roster systems is only applicable once the cadre is pluralized, not retroactively from inception.

ORDER :

(Order of the Court was made by Mr.K.KUMARESH BABU., J.)

This writ petition has been filed to quash the order of the Tribunal made in O.A.No.231 of 2016, dated 19.01.2022 and consequently, direct the respondents 2 to 4 to promote the petitioner as ADFO, in the vacancy falling in the 7^th reserved point in the roster.

2. Heard Mr.P.S.Raman learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.J.Srinivasa Mohan learned counsel appearing for petitioner, Mr.Syed Mustafa, learned Special Government Pleader (Puducherry) appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 and Mr.N.Balamurali Krishna learned counsel appearing for Mr.R.Nandha Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 5^th and 6^th respondents.

3. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner, who is a Scheduled Caste candidate belongs to a reserved category and that he is working as a Station Officer in the Fire Department and his avenue of promotion is the Additional Divisional Fire Officer (hereinafter referred to as “ADFO”). He would submit that the roster is being maintained by the respondents 1 to 4 with regard to the Officer who held the post of ADFO right from the date of inception of such cadre and that the next vacancy that fell in the said post had to be filled up in point No.7, which had been reserved for a Scheduled caste. However he had not been given the said promotion and the promotion had been given to an unreserved category. Hence, he had made a representation indicating that he had completed eight years of service as required for the post of ADFO. The learned Senior counsel by referring to an Office Memorandum that had been issued on 02.07.1997, would submit that the earlier policy of 200-point, 40- point, 120-point vacancy based rosters were replaced by post-based rosters. Referring to clause 5 of the said Memorandum, he would submit that during the initial operation of such roster the earlier appointments made at the inception of the cadre have to be considered and adjustments have to be made towards 13 point reservation as annexed in the Annexure-III to the said Office Memorandum, which is the model roster of reservation.

4. He would further submit that the first six vacancies that were filled up, were through unreserved candidates and the 7^th point falls under SC category. He would submit that of all the eligible candidates for being promoted in the year 2015, the petitioner is the only SC candidate and he ought to have been promoted to the said post. Without considering the same, the respondents 1 to 4 have promoted the respondents 5 & 6. It had come to the knowledge that the respondents 1 to 4 had operated the roster only from the year 1997, when the post had become plural. He would submit that such operation of roster from the year 1997, when the post had become plural is contrary to the Office Memorandum of the year 1997 which mandates that such operation of roster should be from the date of inception of the cadre. Hence, he would submit that the claim made by the respondents 1 to 4 that the roster would operate from serial no.5 is wholly a fallacy, as admittedly there are 6 persons who had been appointed to the said post from the date of inception of the post and therefore, seventh vacancy would have to necessarily go to a Scheduled Caste candidate as per the Official Memorandum.

5. He would also draw our attention to the Minutes of the Selection Committees of various years to claim that the post of ADFO had been filled up only by following the roster system and not based upon the merits in