IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 138 of 2005 Decided on: December 24, 2008. Rajesh Kumar Petitioner Vs. State of H.P. & Ors. Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Surender Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. A.G. with No. 1 and 2. Mr. P.M. Negi, Dy. A.G. For the Respondent : Mr. D.K. Khanna, Advocate. No. 3. For the Respondent : Mr. Ajay Mohan Goel, Advocate. No. 4. Per Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) Petitioner has sought judicial review of order dated 13th December 2004, whereby his O.A. No. 328 of 2002, seeking promotion, as Labour Officer, on the ground of reservation, he being member of a scheduled caste, has been dismissed, with the observation that the cadre of Labour Officers consists of only five posts and, therefore, the principle of replacement, as propounded in R.K. Sabhrwal v. State of Punjab, 1995 (2) SCC 745 is not applicable and instead 13 point ‘ ‘L shaped roster devised by the State Government is applicable. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… 2. Admitted facts are that the petitioner and respondent No. 4 R.P. Rana were initially appointed as Labour Inspectors, in the department of Labour & Employment, Himachal Pradesh. R.P. Rana belongs to general category, while petitioner belongs to a schedule caste. R.P. Rana is senior to the petitioner, in the cadre of Labour Inspectors. Labour Inspectors form feeder cadre for the cadre of Labour Officers. The cadre, as already noticed, consists of only five officers. Benefit of reservation is available to schedule caste and schedule tribe personnel in the matter of promotion from the post of Labour Inspector to the post of Labour Officer. Reservation is 15% for the schedule caste and 7.5% for the schedule tribes. Since the cadre of Labour Officers consists of only five posts, SCs and STs, if accommodated by promotion, in the said cadre simultaneously, would be getting reservation, in excess of the aforesaid prescribed percentage. 3. Even though no vacancy in the cadre of Labour Officers was available, when the original application was filed, the petitioner apprehended that the next future vacancy was not going to be filled from amongst schedule caste Labour Inspectors. He pleaded that the next vacancy was required to be filled from amongst schedule caste Labour Inspectors, because one schedule caste Labour Officer Shri Sandhu had had vacated the post and that the post vacated by him was required to be filled by promoting a candidate of scheduled caste category by following of the rule of the replacement propounded in the Sabharwal’s case. …3… 4. As already noticed, the Tribunal did not accept the plea of the petitioner holding that in a cadre of up to 13 posts, principle of replacement is not applicable, as it may lead to over- representation of reserved categories. Our Division Bench in Dharam Pal vs. State of H.P. and another, CWP No. 550 of 2003, decided on November 5, 2008 has dealt with a similar matter. In that case cadre consisted of three posts. It has been held that with a view to obviating reservation, in excess of the prescribed percentage, the Government of Himachal Pradesh has devised 13 point model roster and such roster is required to be followed, where the strength of a cadre is up to 13. 5. According to the roster being maintained by the respondent No. 1, so far only seven persons have been promoted and out of them, two belong to scheduled castes and one to a Schedule tribe. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner that the next vacancy should be filled by promoting a scheduled caste candidate, cannot be upheld. Scheduled caste candidates have already been given representation in excess of their quota, as per roster, maintained by the respondents. 6. In view of the above stated position, we find no merit in the present writ petition. Consequently, it is dismissed. ( R.B. Misra ), J. December 24, 2008(vs) ( Surjit Singh ), J.