Civil Writ Petition No16327-CAT of 2004 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.16327-CAT of 2004 Date of decision: January 20, 2011 Accountant General (A & E) Haryana, etc. .....Petitioners VERSUS Joginder Singh, etc. .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN PRESENT: Mr. Banni Thomas, Additional Central Govt. Standing Counsel for the petitioners. Mr. J.S.Sathi, Advocate for respondent No.1. ---- 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? T.P.S. MANN , J. The petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing order dated May 19, 2004 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Chandigarh Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal whereby O.A. No.644/CH/2003 filed by respondent No.1 was allowed and the petitioners were directed to accord promotion to him in the post of Accounts Officer w.e.f. 20/30.6.1997 when a general candidate was promoted against roster point No.22 (SC). Respondent No.1 was held entitled to all consequential benefits excepting that of arrears of pay and allowances. Civil Writ Petition No16327-CAT of 2004 -2- According to respondent No.1/original applicant, he joined service on 29.10.1974 as a Clerk. After his promotion as Section Officer and then as Assistant Accounts Officer, he was further promoted as Accounts Officer on 13.3.2002. As he was the senior-most eligible Scheduled Caste (SC) candidate, he became entitled for promotion to the post of Accounts Officer against roster point No.22 in the year 1997 when two vacancies fell against points No.22 and 23 in the seniority-cum-fitness quota. While point No.22 was reserved for SC category, the other one was the ST point carried forward. By applying 50% limit, the department treated one of the two non-selection vacancies as reserved for ST and point No.22 (SC) was carried forward to the subsequent year. As the carried forward point for ST was not exchangeable and there was no ST candidate available, the vacancy at point No.22 (SC) was got dereserved and a general category candidate was promoted as Accounts Officer w.e.f. 20/30.6.1997. Respondent No.1, accordingly, claimed promotion w.e.f. 20/30.6.1997 when instead of him, a general category candidate was promoted as Accounts Officer. The stand of the petitioners was that while preparing a two man panel of Accounts Officer in 1997 against roster points No.22 & 23 under seniority-cum-fitness mode two reserve points viz., point No.17 (ST point) of 1991 which was in the second year of carry forward in 1997 and, therefore, also not exchangeable with SC point and point No.22 (SC point) which had arisen fresh had become available. Out of the two reserve points only one point was treated as reserved after applying the criteria of 50% limit and that point was point No.17 (ST point) of 1991 being the oldest reserved point and point No.22 was treated as unreserved. Since no Civil Writ Petition No16327-CAT of 2004 -3- candidate belonging to ST category was available in the feeder cadre, point No.17 (ST point) of 1991 was got dereserved to avoid the same getting lapsed in view of the instructions contained in Department of Personnel & AR OM No.36012/3/78-Estt. (SCT) dated 9.2.1982. Point No.22 (SC point) which had arisen fresh and treated as unreserved was, therefore, carried forward. As a consequence thereof the two vacancies in the Accounts Officer cadre were got filled by candidates belonging to general category. Therefore, respondent No.1 had no claim, whatsoever, for promotion to the post of Accounts Officer w.e.f. 1997. The Tribunal had held that the department had not been able to meet the arguments of respondent No.1 as to how the petitioners could act in violation of the instructions contained in DOPT circular dated 9.2.1982 which mandated that no dereservation was necessary for further carrying forward of reservation which could not be accommodated in any recruitment year due to 50% limit. Though respondent No.1 was promoted as Accounts Officer w.e.f. 13.3.2002, he had been denied consideration for promotion against point No.22 in 1997 when he was entitled for such consideration. Accordingly, order dated 13.11.2002 was quashed and the petitioners were directed to accord promotion to respondent No.1 in the post of Accounts Officer w.e.f. 20/30.6.1997. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that respondent No.1 could not have been considered for promotion against roster point No.22 as this point was treated as unreserved under 50% limit and the said point was carried forward to the next year. The two vacancies arising in a year could not be reserved as that would amount to 100% reservation. Civil Writ Petition No16327-CAT of 2004 -4- In DOPT circular dated 9.2.1982, it was unambiguously stated that no de-reservation would be necessary for further carrying forward of reservation which could not be accommodated in any recruitment year due to the 50% limit. In view of the same, the petitioners could not promote the general category candidate as Accounts Officer against point No.22 in 1997 instead of considering the rightful claim of respondent No.1. Therefore, respondent No.1 was entitled for promotion from 20/30.6.1997 when the general category candidate was promoted by superseding his claim. As a natural corollary thereof, respondent No.1 was entitled to all consequential benefits excepting that of arrears of pay and allowances. Resultantly, we do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs. (M.M.KUMAR) (T.P.S.MANN) JUDGE JUDGE January 20, 2011 Pds.