- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
State Of Bihar And Others v. Bageshwari Prasad And Another
Factual and Procedural Background
This appeal by special leave challenged a judgment of the High Court of Patna in CWJC No. 4220 of 1990 dated 5-3-1992. The controversy concerned promotion to the post of Office Superintendent (in a supertime scale) and, specifically, whether Sita Ram Prasad (Respondent 2) could be promoted on the footing that he was a reserved-category candidate in the 6th vacancy as per an applicable reservation roster.
The High Court, relying on Chakradhar Paswan (Dr) v. State of Bihar, held that since the post of Superintendent was a single post, it could not be reserved for reserved candidates. It therefore treated the appointment to the reserved vacancy as illegal and directed the Government to consider the 1st respondent for promotion to the post of Office Superintendent as a general candidate. The State appealed against that order.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether Respondent 2 (Sita Ram Prasad) was entitled to promotion as Office Superintendent in a supertime scale by treating the 6th vacancy as a reserved vacancy under the roster, notwithstanding that the post was described as a single post.
- Whether the High Court erred in applying the ratio of Chakradhar Paswan (Dr) v. State of Bihar to invalidate such a promotion on the ground that a single post cannot be reserved.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Chakradhar Paswan (Dr) v. State of Bihar (1988) 2 SCC 214, (1988) 7 ATC 104, AIR 1988 SC 959 | Cited by the High Court for the proposition that where the post is a single post, it cannot be reserved for reserved candidates. | The Supreme Court distinguished the precedent on the facts and context described in the opinion, holding that the High Court was in error in relying on it because it dealt with a different situation (involving attempted fusion of posts of different pay scales). The Supreme Court held it did not preclude applying reservation to successive vacancies under a roster. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court examined the Government circular (Annexure R-1, Letter No. 21-AG-I-125-KG-20165) by which the Government decided to provide for reservation and prepared a roster for vacancies in the cadre. The circular stated that a modified roster for 50 vacancies would be applicable to recruitment and promotion going forward.
The sample roster described in the opinion indicated, inter alia, that the second vacancy was reserved for Scheduled Castes and the fourth vacancy for Scheduled Tribes, while the first, third, sixth and seventh vacancies were unreserved for general candidates. The Court then emphasized a key conceptual distinction: the roster operates with reference to vacancies arising successively, not with reference to the post as such. It noted the clarification in the circular that in reservation matters, even if there is only one vacancy, the subsequent turn in the roster for that same post would be filled by persons from reserved castes. Accordingly, the roster is “not concerned with the post but with vacancy arising according to the roster” and continues to apply on each successive occasion.
Addressing the High Court’s reliance on Paswan, the Court noted that in that case one post of Director and other posts of Deputy Director were sought to be fused for the purpose of treating posts as available for reservation, even though their pay scales were different. On the Supreme Court’s reading in this opinion, the ratio of that case did not bar (i) the Government’s power to fuse all posts of equal pay scale for applying reservation under Articles 16(1) and 16(4), or (ii) the application of reservation to successive vacancies arising in a single post through a vacancy-based roster.
Applying these principles, the Court observed that when general candidates were promoted to the post of Office Superintendent, the second vacancy (which ought to have been reserved for Scheduled Castes) and the fourth vacancy (which ought to have been reserved for Scheduled Tribes) had been filled by general candidates because suitable Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates were not then available. When the sixth vacancy arose, however, a reserved-category candidate’s claim was available, and the authorities were required to consider that claim under the roster. Therefore, the High Court erred in concluding that the post could not be reserved and in invalidating Respondent 2’s promotion on the basis of Paswan.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL ALLOWED; HIGH COURT ORDER SET ASIDE; WRIT PETITION DISMISSED.
The Supreme Court held that Respondent 2 was rightly considered for promotion and was legally promoted as Superintendent (Office Superintendent). The direct effect was that the High Court’s direction to consider the 1st respondent for promotion as a general candidate was nullified, and the writ petition stood dismissed. The Court made no order as to costs. The opinion applies the vacancy-based operation of a reservation roster on successive occasions as described, and does not state that it is laying down any broader new precedent beyond the reasoning recorded.
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Patna in CWJC No. 4220 of 1990 dated 5-3-1992. The only question that arises for consideration is whether Sita Ram Prasad, Respondent 2 was entitled to be promoted as Office Superintendent in a supertime scale on the basis that he was a reserved candidate in the 6th vacancy. The High Court in the impugned judgment relying on the judgment of this Court in Chakradhar Paswan (Dr) v. State of Bihar (1988) 2 SCC 214, (1988) 7 ATC 104, AIR 1988 SC 959 held that since the post of Superintendent is a single post, it cannot be reserved for the reserved candidates. Accordingly, the order of appointment to the reserved vacancy was held to be illegal, a direction was issued to the Government to consider the case of the 1st respondent for promotion to the post of OS as a general candidate. The State has impugned that order in this appeal.
3. In the Government circular, Annexure R-1 bearing Letter No. 21-AG-I-125-KG-20165, the Government have decided in providing for reservation and prepared the roster to the posts in the cadre. In para 2, it is stated thus:
“Therefore, the State Government has taken decision that for the removal of these criticisms and doubts there should be modification in roster for 50 vacancies in the form of sample by those letters. Sample of modified roster is given below, this will be applicable for the recruitment and promotion from now onwards.”
4. Sample roster for all categories of first, second, third and fourth divisions of service have been given. Second vacancy is reserved for Scheduled Castes, fourth vacancy for Scheduled Tribes and first, third, sixth and seventh vacancies are unreserved for general candidates. In para 3, it was stated that it has to be made clear that in the matter of reservation, if there is only one vacancy, the second turn of the vacancy of the same post would be filled by the appointment of persons from reserved castes. The roster is not concerned with the post but with vacancy arising according to the roster and will go on implementing the vacancy arising on each successive occasion. Thus in considering the question whether a person can be considered for a promotion from the reserved category on the basis of the roster, it is not the post that is material but it is the vacancy which is material. In Paswan case (1988) 2 SCC 214, (1988) 7 ATC 104, AIR 1988 SC 959 one post of Director and other posts of Deputy Director was sought to be fused for purpose of treating the posts available for reservation. The pay scales of the posts of Director and Deputy Director are different. The ratio does not preclude the power of the Government to fuse all posts of equal scale of pay for applying rule of reservation under Articles 16(1) and 16(4) or successive vacancies arising in single post. Therefore, the general candidates, when were promoted to the post of Office Superintendent, the second vacancy which ought to have been reserved for Scheduled Castes and fourth for Scheduled Tribes, have been filled by the general candidates since Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes were not, then available. When sixth vacancy had arisen, the claim of the reserved candidate was available and the authorities are enjoined to consider the claim of the reserved candidate. The High Court was clearly in error in relying the ratio in Paswan case (1988) 2 SCC 214, (1988) 7 ATC 104, AIR 1988 SC 959 which stood entirely on a different situation to hold that the post cannot be reserved. Under these circumstances, the order of the High Court is set aside and the second respondent was rightly considered for promotion and was legally promoted as Superintendent. The writ petition stands dismissed. The appeal is allowed. But in the circumstances without costs.
Alert