Q)£3 HIGH COURT QF GHHATT!SGARH AT BILASPUR DB: Hen’ble $hri Dhirendra Mishra & Han’bie Shri R.L. Jhanwar JJ. Writ Appeal N0.63 £201. 0 Shri BP. Sharma, counsel for the appellant. Shri Sumesh Bajaj, Govt. i ndvocate i\ t Stor Hm me S ate. i QRDER (Passed on 1i February, 291.1.) Per Dhirendra. Mishra, J 1.. The appeltant’s case, in nutsheii, before teamed $ingie Judge was that he was appointed as Forest Guard in the year 1.973 and he was po-ted in $outh Surguia Forest Division vide order dated 27.04.1974 (Annexure—AM). A number of Forest Guards were promoted to the post of Foresters on '1s.03.1995 vide Annexure—Afz However, number of Fores. Guards, who were iunior to him, belonging to Agge!!ant (Peiitioner) Ramiaa Mute, San 6f Shri Bechan Ram Khuie, aged about 43 years, resident of Gram & Post Tara, Tahs.! Surguja, District Ambikapur. Vs Resgondenm 1 . State cf Chhattisgarh, (erstwhiie State oi iviF‘) through t .e $ecretary, Department of Forest. DKS Bhavan, Raipur Chief Censervator of Forest, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (erstwhiie Chief Conservator of Forest, Satpura Bhawan, \Jatlabh Bhawan, Bhopa!) 3. Conservator of Forest, Ambikapur District Surguja. Schedubd Tribes, were promoted in vi0!ation 0f prescribed 4- Point m ester, as given in Genera! Roster (Annexure-Al5), by il!ega!!y fo!!ewing Rovter prescribed for direct recruitment providing 50% for Genera! candidate, 45% for Scheduled Tribe and 5% for $cheduied Caste, whereas, as per Genera! Rocter of Annxure~A15, which is app!!cab!e in the matter of promotion, respondents ought to have reserved 20% vacancy for Scheduied Tribe and 1.8% for Scheduted Caste, teaving 64% for Genera! Category. Respondents contested the appe!!ant’s case by submitting that Genera! Roster of Annxure-A/5 ’for promotion is not'appticabie in respect of District Surguia, which is having higher percentage of popuiation of Gcheduied Tribe candidates and a different 40 Point Roste. has been made appiicabie vide Annexure-Rft for Surguja, Mandaia and Shadoi. Annexure-R/1 4Q point roster prescribes 6% f.r Scheduied Caste, 44% for Scheduied Tribe. Promotions have been made strictiy in accordance with Roster No.6 (Annexure—R/1). The State Government vide Memo .4 uateu r- .4 17 Eh May, 1975 ciarified that for the purpose of promotion, the same Roster and criteria as iaid down for direct recruitment shaii be foiiowed (Annexure-R!2). The appeiiant by way of reioinder to the return, referring to the circuiar dated 21.11.1977 (Annxure-AIQ), has co.te.ded that Roster i\ 0.! not applicabie in the matter of promotion as the same was oniy meant for direct recruitment. Shri B.P. Sharma, iearned counse! for the appellant vehemently argued that indisputably, the appeiiant was aggrieved by the promotion order dated 15.93.1995, i.e. prior to the constitutional I 3)( (0 15Gb amendment, by which Article 4(A) has been added in Article 1.6 of the CdneJtLtion 0f lndia, which enables the State to make provision for reservation in the matter of promotion in class or classes of posts in the service under the State in favour of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. 4. Reiying upon the decision of the Hon’hie Supreme Court in the matter of indra Sawhney and Others \Js. Union of lndia and others reported in 1392 Supp m sec 21?, it was argued that at the relevant time, i.e. 1E 03.1995, reservation for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe was permissible only at the stage of initial appointment and could not extend to provide reservation in the matters of promotion. This aspect has not been considered by teamed Single Judge. it was further argued that circular dated 21 .1 1. .1977 has also not been interpreted in its true perspective and it has been erroneously held that the word ”H113“ (selection) occurring ‘ in Circular dated 21 .11 .1977, Roster 6 has been made applicable in the matter of selection by way of directdrecruitment or by way of promotion. Further relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Swati (Smt.) and Others \Is. Damcdar Anant Karandikar and others reported in (1936} 9 SCC 2?1, it was argued that the learned Single Judge has erred in holding that the percentage of reservation applicable for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe at the time of initial appointment applies to “N. \ promotion also. 5ft Q On the ether'hand, Shri Sumesh 834a}, !earned Gevt. Advocate wou!d argue that from bare perusal of griginal appHcation med byvthe appe!!ant before Tribuna!, it weu!d be evident that the petitiener daimed promotion on the basis of reservation as per Roster of AnneXure-A/5, which prescribes 1.6% reservation for scheduied Caste, 20% for Seheduied Tribe and remaining for the Genera! Category. The provision of reservation for Schedu!ed Caste and Seheciuied Tribe in the matter of promotion was never questioned on the ground that the same was in breach of the constitutionai provision. Therefore, the appeliant cannot be permitted to raise this ground for the first time at the stage of writ appeal. Learned Singie Judge, after referring to Government Circuiars dated 02.05.1975 and 17.055.197.5, has rightiy held that circular dated 21.11.19??, of which Roster No.6 is a part, was generally made applicable in the matter of selection by way of direct recruitment or by way of promotio.. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the pleadings of the respective parties and documents appended therewith. Shri B.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the iearned Single Judge has erred in holding‘that the percentage of reservation for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled TribD( applicable at the time of initial appointment is also applicable to promotion as it is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Swati (supra) and lndra Sawhney (supra); After going through the averments in the writ petition as also the reioi.der filed by the appellant/petitioner, we nnd that there is no uak R averment in the writ petition that the provisions for reservation oouid not be made in State Government Services in the matter of promotion. On the contrary, grievance of the appeilant is that the respondents foiicvveci a wrong Roster for promoting Forest Guards on the post of Forester, and the actuai ratio ought to havebeen foitovved tor promoting Forest Guard to the post oi-Forester is 64% for General category, 20% for Scheduled Tribe and 16% for scheduted Caste category, as has been provided in Genera! Circuiar of Annexure-A/5. Since the above issue was not raised by the appettant in the writ petitio., the same has not been considered by learned Single Judge in the impugned order. Therefore, the appeiiant cannot be permitted to raise this ground for the first time in the writ appeai without there being any Corresponding pleadings in the writ petition and we deciine to examine the above question at this stage. Learned Single Judge, after referring to the circulars of Annexures- A/5, RM, R/2 and AJQ, heL. that 40 Points Roster under Roster No.6 as prescribed in Annxure-Rlt was applicable in District Surguja and Circular dated 02.05.1975 (Annxure-Alto) filed by the appellant ciearly stipulates that benefit of reservation wouid also extend in the matter of promotion in the same manner as prescribed in the matter of direct recruitment. The Circular dated 17.05.1975 (Annecure-R/2) also provides that to ensure the proper reservation in the matter of promotion, the same 40 Point Roster as prescribed in the direct recruitment shall be maintained and impiemented. Interpreting the word W. . (selec.ion) occurring in Circuiar dated 2?.11.197?, it has go .uu v-.. \ _‘ _, , k \ k\ been observed that the same cannot be narrow!y interpreted to refer direct recruitment as submitted by learned ceunsei for the appellant, premotion. 1.0. Thus, after carefully examining the abeve referred circulars issued by the State Government from time to time, we are of the opinion that learned Single Judge has rightly held that there is no ground available to the petitioner to assail the legality and yalidity of the order of promotion date“ 15031995. We find no good ground in the writ appeal to interfere with the aforesaid findings of the learned Single Judge. The appeal being devoid of sub-tance deserves to be and is, 1 accordingly, dismissed. \% Sd/— l Bini ’ ‘ Judge . Dhirendra Mishra Al’s/X \