http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: SHRI SURESH CHANDRA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SHRI J.B. AGARWAL & ORS

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       04/04/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.  We have  heard learned  counsel on both sides.      This appeal  by special  leave arises from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, made on April 18, 1995 in CWP No. 4254/94.      The admitted  position is  that  to  the  post  of  the Assistant Manager  (Electrical) carrying  the pay  scale  of Rs.1000-1600/-, the  next channel  of  promotion  is  Senior Manager (Electrical) carrying the pay scale of Rs.3000-4500- . When the case of the appellant was sought to be considered for the said post by applying rule of roster, the respondent filed a writ petition. The High Court following the judgment of this  Court in Dr. Chakradhar Paswan Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. [(1988)  2 SCC 214] had held that a rule of reservation could not  be applied  to the  single post cadre as it would amount to 100% reservation violating Article 16(1) read with Article 14  of the  Constitution. In Arati Ray Choudhury Vs. Union of  India &  Ors. [(1974)  2 SCR 1], a Constitution of this Court  had held  that the  reservation in  single  post applying the  rule of  the roster is constitutionally valid. This court  has considered  the entire  case law in Union of India &  Anr. Vs.  Madhav [JT 1996 (9) SC 320]. The bench of three judges, to which both of us were members, held that in case of  solitary isolated  post on the basis of the rule of rotation, the  benefits and facilities should be extended to the  reserved  candidates,  namely  ,  Scheduled  Casts  and Scheduled Tribes  for appointment by promotion to the single post and,  therefore, application of the rule of reservation is not unconstitutional. Accordingly, it was held thus:      "Even  though  there  is  a  single      post,  if   the   Government   have      applied the  rule of  rotation  and      the roster  point to  the vacancies      that had arisen in the single point      post and were sought to be filed up      by the  candidates belonging to the      reserved  categories  belonging  to      the  reserved   categories  at  the      point on which they are eligible to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

    be considered,  such a  rule is not      violative of  Article 16(1)  of the      Constitution."      This principle  was reiterated in state of U.P. Vs. Dr. Dina  Nath  Shukla  &  Anr.  [JT  1997  (2)  SC  467].  Shri Goburdhan, learned  counsel appearing  for the  respondents, has contended that this Court has considered the judgment in Chetana Dilip  Motghare vs. Bhide  Girls’ Education society, Nagpur & Ors. [1985 Supp.(1) SCc 157]. The said judgment was considered in  Madhav’s case  and it  was held therein, as a question fact, that since the material was not placed before the court, having noticed the Constitution Bench judgment in Arati Ray  Choudhury case, the Court limited the decision to the facts  of that  case and held that it is not possible to accede to  the contentions  raised by  the review petitioner therein. Therefore,  there is no question of reconsideration of the  position once  over. It is then contend that as held in S.  Vinod Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union Of India [JT 1996 (8) SC 643], the  basic  qualifications  cannot  be  relaxed  while applying the  rule of reservation under Article 16(4) of the Constitution. He  contends  that  respondent  is  a  degree- holder  while   the  appellant   is   only   diploma-holder. Therefore, his  case could  not be  considered. The question was considered  by the  Departmental promotion Committee and it held  that subject  to the  other  eligibility  criteria, educational qualification could be relaxed. If the appellant satisfies  other  qualifications  then  his  case  would  be considered.  He   then  contends   that  relaxation  of  the eligibility cannot  be granted.  He places reliance upon the rules  of   recruitment  in   that  behalf.   The  rules  of recruitment, as  placed before  us, do  indicate  the  basic qualification  for   initial  recruitment  which  cannot  be relaxed. But  in a case of promotion, the said rule does not apply. It is, therefore, not necessary for us to go into the question whether  the appellant is eligible to be considered on other  grounds. Whether  or not he would be eligible, his case would be considered in accordance with law.      It is  contended by  Shri Goburdhan that respondent has been working  as a  Manager for  the past three years in the post of  Senior Manager.  He is likely to retire after three years and,  therefore, he  will be deprived of the chance to remain  in   promotion  post.   We  cannot   accede  to  the contention. If  the rule  of roster  is applied  to a single post cadre and if the vacancy arises against a reserved post in accordance  with the rule of roster, necessarily, so long as the  reserved candidate  is found  for promotion,  one is required to  give place  to fill  up the  post in accordance with the  roster point.  Otherwise, the  roster point itself would be rendered illusory.      He contends that in paswan’s case; it was held that the reservation in  promotion to  the single post is contrary to the ratio  in the  Devadasan case  and violative  of Article 16(1) and  16(2) of  the Constitution. That principle is not correct principle  of law. it is contrary to the judgment of the nine  Judges Bench  of this court in Ahmedabad St.Xavier College vs.  State of  Gujarat[(1975) 1 SCR 173]; a judgment of Constitution  Bench in  Arati Ray  Choudhary’s case;  Dr. Pradeep Jain  & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. [(1984) 3 SCC 654]; Marri  Chandra Shekhar Rao vs. Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College &  ors. [(1990) 3 SCC 130] and Ashok Kumar Gupta vs. State of U.P. [(1997) 3  SCALE 289].      The appeal  is, accordingly, allowed. The writ petition stands dismissed but, in the circumstances, without costs.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3