J U D G M E N T

YASHWANT VARMA, J. (Oral)

1. This Letters Patent Appeal calls in question the judgment dated 14 March 2017 rendered by the learned Single Judge dismissing a writ petition preferred by the appellant seeking promotion to the post of Senior Technical Assistant. The principal submission appears to have revolved around three posts forming part of the cadre of Senior Technical Assistants and which carried a separate qualification. It appears to have been contended that since those three posts in the cadre of Senior Technical Assistants required special qualifications, they were liable to be treated as “ex cadre” posts.

2. According to the appellant, the earmarking of the posts to be filled in the cadre of Senior Technical Assistant by way of promotion LPA 323/2017 Page 1 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed or direct recruitment as well as the implementation of the roster system would have thus been liable to be implemented after excluding these three posts. Another submission which was addressed before us was based on what according to the appellant was the vacillating position which the University of Delhi took and stood reflected in a series of communications addressed by it. According to learned counsel for the appellant, those communications would indicate that the respondent-University had itself understood and recognized these three posts carrying special qualifications as being ex-cadre.

3. Reliance was then placed on the Office Memorandum1 dated 02 July 1997 and which enunciates the procedure liable to be followed for the purposes of implementation of the roster system. Learned counsel had laid special emphasis on paras 1 to 5 which are reproduced hereinbelow: -

“1. As hitherto, these rosters are only an aid to determine the entitlement of different categories with regard to the quota reserved for them. They are not to determine seniority.

2. The model rosters have been drawn up keeping in mind two fundamental principles – the reservation for the entitled categories is to be kept within the prescribed percentage of reservation and the total reservation should in no case exceed 50% of the cadre.

3. There should be separate rosters for direct recruitment and for promotions where reservation in promotion applies.

4. The number of points in each roster shall be equal to the number of posts in a cadre.

5. While cadre is generally to be construed as the number of posts in a particular grade, for the purpose of preparation of roster, it shall comprise posts required to be filled by a particular mode of recruitment in terms of the applicable recruitment rules. To illustrate, in a cadre: comprising 200 posts, where the recruitment rules prescribe a ratio of 50:50 for direct recruitment and promotions, the roster for direct recruitment shall have 100 points

1 OM LPA 323/2017 Page 2 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed and that for promotion shall have 100 points – thus making a total of 200.”

4. Our attention was also drawn to Clause 4(C) of that OM which too is extracted hereunder:

“4. The principles for preparing the rosters elaborated upon in the Explanatory Notes are briefly recapitulated below:

c) Cadre, for the purpose of a roster, shall mean a particular grade and shall comprise the number of posts to be filled by a particular mode of recruitment in terms of the applicable recruitment rules. Thus, in a cadre of, say, 200 posts, where the recruitment rules prescribe a ratio of 50:50 for direct recruitment and promotion, two rosters - one for direct recruitment and one for promotion (when reservation in promotion applies) -- each comprising 100 points shall be drawn up on the lines of the respective model rosters;”

5. Taking us through the manner in which the said OM defines the word ‘cadre’, learned counsel submitted that for the purposes of implementing the roster, a cadre would have to be viewed as comprising of posts in a particular grade to be filled by a particular mode of recruitment in accordance with