Reservation in promotion is not permissible under law, but if there was reservation in promotion in the service in question, same is liable to continue for a period of five years, which is to be counted from 16-11-1992 unless the Government withdraws/cancels such a reservation earlier.

Petitioner is holding the post of Chief Veterinary Officer, which is a Class II post and the next post to which he could look for ward is Class I post, which includes the post of Deputy Director. The strength of Class I service, according to the petitioner, is 61, whereas according to some of the respondents, it is 62. The quota reserved for Scheduled Castes for promotion is 18% and for Scheduled Tribes, it is 2%. It is admitted case of both the parties that 12 Scheduled Castes candidates have already been promo ted to Class I posts from the quota reserved for them. In this manner the Scheduled Caste candidates are already having 18% posts of Class I. In this cadre 22 posts are vacant on account of which respondents have constituted a Departmental Promotion Committee (hereinafter referred to as the D. P. C.) for selecting the candidates for promotion. The D. P. C. has ear-marked 4 out of 22 vacancies for Scheduled Castes candidates and the remaining 18 vacancies are to be filled by the candidates of general category. It also appears that the D. P. C. has already made selection of 4 Scheduled Castes candidates, who have been arrayed as respondents to this writ petition. Petitioner has filed this writ petition for writ of madamus directing the respondents not to implement the recommendation of the D. P. C. held on 17- 5*1994, so far as it relates to the selection of 4 Scheduled Caste candidates for promotion to 4 Class I posts. Prayer for quashing the Government Order dated 30-11-1991, which provided for roster system, has also been made. This Court has granted interim order in this petition.

2. Respondents have filed counter-affidavits and the petitioner has filed rejoinder affidavit in reply thereto. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised four contentions, namely, (i) there cannot be any reservation in promotion ; (ii) in any case there cannot be reservation in promotion when promotion is to be made on the basis of seniority subject to rejection of unfit ; (iii) no appointment/promo tion of Scheduled Caste candidates can be made in excess of 18% of the total strength of the cadre unit; and (iv) the Government Order dated 30-11-1991, providing for continuance of roster even after the quota of 18% for Scheduled Caste is complete, is illegal.

4. Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 477, has laid down that reservation in promotion is not permissible under law. However, his Lordship Honble B. P. Jeevan Reddy, J. has further laid down that wherever reservations are provided in the matter of promotion, such re servation will continue in operation for a period of five years from the date of the judgment. Relevant extract from his Lordships judgment is as under :

"however, taking into consideration all the circumstances, we direct that our decision on this question shall operate only prospectively and shall not affect the promotions already made, whether on temporary, officiating or regular/permanent basis. It is further directed that wherever reservations are already provided in the matter of promotion be it Central services or State services or for that matter services under any corporation, authority or body falling under the definition of "state" in Article 12- such reser vations shall continue in operation for a period of five years from this date. Within this period, it would be open to the appropriate authorities to revise, modify or re-issue to relevant Rules to ensure the achievement of the objective of Article 16 (4 ). "

Although Honble B. P. Jeevan Reddy, J. has given the judgment foe himself and on behalf of Honble M. H. Kania, CJ. Honble M. N. Venkatachaliah, J. and Honble A. M. Ahmadi, J. but on the question of reservation in promotion Honble A. M. Ahmadi, J. (as his Lordship then was) was of the opinion that this question did not arise for consideration in that case and hence need not be answered. As such the judgment of Honb