ISHWAR LAL NEGI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant, a member of Scheduled Tribe category, is working as Section Engineer in the Northern Railway, to which post he was promoted on 13.10.2000. THE next promotional post for him is that of Senior Section Engineer ('SSE' for short) and a Section Engineer having two years' service in the grade is eligible to be promoted to the same. Applicant completed the required eligibility service in October 2002, but has not been promoted. THEre is a sanctioned strength of 33 posts of A.O., out of which 5 are reserved for SC and 2 for ST categories. Claims that members of SC categories are manning as many as 8 vacancies, which is far more than the number reserved for them and only one ST category candidate has been promoted. His representation, claiming promotion to the second reserved post for ST category has been rejected by the respondents. Applicant has, therefore, sought the following reliefs:

(2.) From the oral submissions and pleadings of the parties it is satisfactorily shown to us that Respondents 4 and 5 were senior to the applicant and were entitled to be considered for promotion prior to him even as per seniority. It is admitted case of respondents that Shri D.K. Chaudhary is junior to the applicant but he has been promoted against a reserved point meant for S.C. category, thus, superseding the applicant. It is the case of the respondents themselves that two posts out of the total sanctioned strength are reserved for S.T. category. The S.T. category reserved point had become available in the past for three consecutive recruitment years. Since at that time no eligible person from S.T. category was available, after carrying forward S.T. reserved point for three years, it was given to S.C. category under the policy of exchange between S.C. and S.T. which was done in the year 2001-2002 by order dated 31.11.2001. Respondents claim that by such exchange with S.C. Category and giving it to S.C. candidate, the point for S.T. category is not available. Yet, they have given promotions to persons from S.C. category which are under challenge in this case. It is again the common case of the parties that normally representation of either S.C. or S.T. categories is intended not to exceed 15% and 7 1/2% with reservation meant for them when benefit of reservation is given. In our opinion, however, the interpretation to this part of policy decision of Govt. of India is being made wrongly. The orders of promotion under challenge in this case are of 1.12.2003, 11.2.2003 and 3.3.2004 vide which promotion to the private respondents has been given. Reference is being made to Annexure R-l, a letter dated 14.10.1997, circulated on the point of reservation rosters for implementing the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab. Respondents are referring to Para 9 for denying the claim of the applicant, which is being reproduced below for proper appreciation:

(3.) IN cadres having more than 13 posts, number of posts filled by reservation by any category at any point of time should ideally be equal to the quota determined as per percentage of reservation prescribed for that category. Whenever the posts are filled, efforts have to be made to complete reservation quota for SCs/STs/OBCs in case of direct recruitment and for SCs/STs in case of promotion so that the number of posts filled by reservation by SCs, STs and OBCs, as the cases may be, in the cadre is equal to the number of posts earmarked for them. It means that if reservation quota is not complete, efforts would be made to complete the reservation quota whenever the recruitments are made in the cadre. Thus, reservation would not lapse in case of post based reservation for the reason that reserved posts could not be filled for a specified number of years.