- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
S.R Murthy v. State Of Karnataka And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The appeal concerns the promotion to the single post of Head of Section, Ceramics, in a government polytechnic. Although the appellant was the seniormost eligible candidate, the first respondent applied the reservation roster and promoted Respondent 3, a Scheduled Caste candidate. The Karnataka Administrative Tribunal upheld this action, reasoning that all promotional vacancies must follow the roster. The appellant challenged the Tribunal’s decision before the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the reservation roster can be applied to a single-post cadre when making a promotion.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research v. Faculty Assn., (1998) 4 SCC 1; JT (1998) 3 SC 223 | In a single-post cadre, applying the reservation roster would result in 100% reservation at different points in time, which is constitutionally impermissible. | The Court relied on this authority to hold that applying the roster to the single post of Head of Section, Ceramics, was invalid. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court noted that the promotional post at issue constituted a single-post cadre. Citing the Constitution Bench ruling in PGI of Medical Education and Research, the Court observed that any attempt to apply rotation of the roster to such a cadre would effectively reserve the post exclusively for reserved-category candidates at different points in time, amounting to a de facto 100% reservation. Such an outcome violates the constitutional framework prohibiting total exclusion of general category candidates. Consequently, the Tribunal’s reliance on roster rotation for a single-post cadre was legally unsustainable.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The appeal is allowed; the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal’s order and the promotion of Respondent 3 based on the roster are set aside. Respondent 3 will retain the salary already received in the promotional post, but the promotion itself stands annulled.
Implications: The decision reaffirms that roster-based reservations cannot be applied to single-post cadres, directly affecting the parties without setting new precedent beyond endorsing the existing constitutional principle.
1. This appeal deals with the promotion given by the first respondent to Respondent 3 to the post of Head of Section, Ceramics in a government polytechnic. There is no dispute that this is a single post. The first respondent, however, applied the roster relating to reservations to this post. Hence although the appellant was the seniormost person eligible for promotion to that post, he was not appointed. Instead, Respondent 3, who was junior to him, but who belonged to the Scheduled Caste category was appointed since on the roster point, the vacancy was reserved for a Scheduled Caste candidate.
2. The Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in the impugned judgment proceeded on the basis that since this was a promotional post, all promotional vacancies would have to be rotated in accordance with the roster. Hence the promotion of Respondent 3 to the post of Head of Section, Ceramics, was a valid appointment.
3. The Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research v. Faculty Assn. (1998) 4 SCC 1, JT (1998) 3 SC 223 has held, after discussing all decisions on this question, that:
“34. In a single post cadre, reservation at any point of time on account of rotation of roster is bound to bring about a situation where such a single post in the cadre will be kept reserved exclusively for the members of the backward classes and in total exclusion of the general members of the public. Such total exclusion of general members of the public and cent per cent reservation for the backward classes is not permitted within the constitutional framework.”
4. In the light of this ratio since the post in question was a single post, the application of the roster for the purpose of promotion was not permissible.
5. The appeal is allowed and the impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside. The promotion of Respondent 3 on the basis of the roster is set aside. However, the salary already received by the third respondent in the promotional post shall not be recovered.
Alert