IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWPT No.10009 of 2008 Date of Decision: October 14, 2011 Raj Kumar Jaryal ..Petitioner Versus HRTC through MD .. Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate. __________________________________________ Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) Petitioner joined as Foreman with Himachal Road Transport Corporation (HRTC) on 1.7.1991. He was promoted as Works Manager on adhoc basis on 13.12.1994. His adhoc promotion was regularized from the date of his adhoc promotion, in the year 2001. Persons, manning the cadre of Works Manager, are eligible for promotion to the post of Manager (Technical), as per rules. Criteria prescribed for promotion to the post of Manager (Technical) says that Works Manager, with three years service, is Whet her report ers of t he l ocal papers may be al l owed t o see t he j udgment ? É2É eligible for promotion. Petitioner belongs to ST category. His plea is that in the year 1990, one post of Manager (Technical), against which a Scheduled Tribe Officer was working, fell vacant, on account of the said officer having been further promoted and that that post remained vacant till the year 1997, when petitioner on having completed three years as Works Manager, became eligible for promotion to the post of Manager (Technical) and he ought to have been promoted against that reserved post of ST. 2. Respondent’s plea is that the post, which was earlier occupied by an ST person, was required to be filled from the category of SC officers, because in the cadre of seven posts of Manager (Technical), only one post could have been reserved. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 4. It is not in dispute that the cadre of Manager (Technical) consists of seven posts. Respondents have placed on record Model Roster, according to which when a cadre consists of seven posts, only one post is reserved and the remaining six are unreserved. This reserved post is rotated between SC and ST categories. Keeping in view the fact that reservation for SC category is 15% and for ST É3É category it is 7½%, the reserved post has to be filled twice by appointing SC persons and once by appointing ST persons. This would be the position, irrespective of the fact whether Model Roster, placed on record by the respondent, is followed or not, because even in the absence of this roster, in a cadre of seven posts, only one post would be reserved for both the categories of SC and ST, combined reservation for both the categories being to the extent of 22½%. 5. When post of Manager (Technical), occupied by an ST Officer was vacated in the year 1990, it was required to be filled from the category of SC officers and even on vacation of the post by Scheduled caste candidate, it was required to be filled again by SC candidate. Therefore, petitioner’s claim that the post was reserved for ST candidates and he being a candidate from that category, ought to have been considered against the reserved post, cannot be sustained. 6. Learned counsel, representing the petitioner, submits that no candidate, even from SC category had been appointed against the post vacated by ST candidate, in the year 1990. Whether a candidate from SC category was appointed against that post or not has got no relevance for É4É deciding the present petition, because petitioner, who belongs to ST category and the post being not available to the candidates of such category, has no locus-standi to raise the plea. It is only SC candidates, who can raise such a plea. This apart, I find on record an order of promotion dated 10.2.1994, by which one Shri B.S. Dogra, belonging to SC category had been promoted as Manager (Technical). 7. No doubt in the seniority list, copy Annexure-9, it is stated that said B.S. Dogra belongs to general category, but that by itself would not mean that he does not belong to SC category, when the order dated 10.2.1994, copy Annexure A-11, specifically says that he belongs to such a category and the order is based on the recommendation of DPC, which must have looked into the issue as to which category the candidates, recommended for promotion, belong. For the foregoing reasons, petition is dismissed. October 14, 2011 (ss) (Surjit Singh), J.