SURESH CHANDRA Vs. J B AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

(2.) 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.

(3.) The admitted position is that to the post of the Assistant Manager (Electrical) carrying the pay scale of Rs. 1,000-1,600/-, the next channel of promotion is Senior Manager (Electrical) carrying the pay scale of Rs. 3,000-4,500/-. 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 v. State of Bihar, (1988) 2 SCC 214 had held that 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 v. Union of India, (1974) 2 SCR 1 , a Constitution Bench 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 v. 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 Castes 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: