AKHILESH KUMAR SINGH versus RAM DAWAN & ORS.
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 467, Supreme Court of India, 2015
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Ratio
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 467 
AKHILESH KUMAR SINGH 
v. 
RAM DAWAN & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No.1931 of 2010) 
SEPTEMBER 23, 2015 
[DIPAK MISRA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Service law - Reservation - Singular post in a cadre -
Promotion to the post of clerk - Claim of - Single Judge 
holding that the claim was untenable as there was singular C 
post in the cadre of clerk duly sanctioned and created in the 
institution and thus, the said post could not be reserved for 
promotion from amongst the class IV employees - Division 
Bench of the High Coqrt holding that a single post of Class 0 
Ill available in intermediate college governed by the Act can 
be filled up by promotion - On appeal, held: Reservation for 
a single post in a cadre would keep the general members of 
the publicin total exclusion - Reservation would arise when 
there is plurality of post in the cadre - Reservation is only E 
restricted to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and 
Other Backward Classes - It does not relate to the persons 
serving in the feeder cadre - In the instant case, Regulation 
provides for 50% of the total number of posts to be promoted 
through promotion - Note appended lays down that in F 
calculation of the 50% of the post less than half would be left 
and half or more than half post would be deemed as one -
Thus, if a singular post in the clerical cadre is there, it would 
be filled up by promotion from amongst the eligible 
candidates from the feeder cadre - Order passed by the G
Division Bench was correct - U P. Intermediate Education 
Act, 1921- Constitution oflndia, 1950-Arts 16(1), (4). 
467 
H

468 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
Jai Bhagwan Singh v District Inspector of Schools, 
Gautambudh Nagar & Ors. 2006 3 UPLBEC 2391; Palak 
Dhari Yadav 1999 3 UPLBEC 2315; Post Graduate Institute 
of Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh v. Ff!CU/ty 
Association and others (1998) 4 SCC 1 :1998 (2) SCR 845; 
B Union of India v. Madhav (1997) 2 SCC 332: 1996 (6) Suppl. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
SCR 503; State of Punjab and others v. R.N. Bhatnagar and 
Anr. (1999) 2 SCC 330: 1998 (3) Suppl. SCR 693; Ku/deep 
Kumar Gupta and others v. H.P State Electricity Board and 
Ors. (2001) 1 SCC475: 2000 (5) Suppl. SCR 572- referred 
to. 
Case Law Reference 
2006 3 UPLBEC 2391 
Referred to. 
Para 4 
1999 3 UPLBEC 2315 
Referred to. 
Para 4 
1998 (2) SCR 845 
Referred to. 
Para 7 
1996 (6) Suppl. SCR 503 
Referred to. 
Para 7 
1998 (3) Suppl. SCR 693 
Referred to. 
Para 9 
2000 (5) Suppl. SCR 572 
Referred to. 
Para 10 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 
1931 of2010. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.07.2007 of the 
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Special Appeal No. 
1191 of2006. 
Pramanand Gaur, S.C. Singhal for the Appellant. 
Hariom Yaduvanshi, Geeta Singh, Dr. Monika Gusain, 
Gagan Gupta, Vivek Vishnoi, M. R. Shamshad, Shashank 
H Singh for the Respondents.
AKHILESH KUMAR SINGH v. RAM DAWAN & ORS. 
469 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
A 
DIPAK MISRA, J. 1. A deep rooted desire strongly planted 
in unsatisfied ambition has compelled tl:ie appellant to paint a 
picture with the colour of 'reservation' on a constitutional 
foundation eventually with immense aspiration that he can 
B 
achieve it by sheer assertion and repeated asseveration of 
the proposition that a singular post in a cadre cannot be 
reserved, totally ostracizing the contrary perception that the 
principle of reservation, as is understood in the constitutional 
bedrock, is absolutely foreign to the concept. 
C 
2. Presently to the factual expose. The first respondent 
was appointed as Daftari on 1. 7 .1975 in Kisan Uchchatar 
Madhyamic Vidyalaya, Hidra, Kanwar, Basti, a recognised 
Intermediate College governed by the U.P. Intermediate o 
Education Act, 1921 (for short, "the 1921 Act") and he became 
a permanent employee with effect from 13.10.1981. 
He 
passed the High School education in the year 1997 and 
thereafter the intermediate examination in the year 2000 as a 
consequence of which he became eligible for consideration 
E 
of promotion for the post of Clerk. On 30.6.2003, Roop Narain 
Singh who was working as a Clerk, on attaining the age of 
superannuation stood superannuated and one Assistant 
Teacher remained incharge. After retirement of Roop Narain 
Singh, the first respondent submitted an application to the F 
District Inspector of
Schools, through the Principal for his 
promotion to the post of Clerk. The concerned Principal 
forwarded the said application on 14.7.2003 to the District 
Inspector of Schools along with the seniority list. As no 
response was received from the District Inspector of Schools G 
. relating to the promotion of the first respondent, the Principal 
sent a reminder. It needs to be stated that as there was no 
Committee of Management in the Institute, the Assistant District 
Inspector of Schools was functioning as the Management H 
Controller and despite his best efforts he could not hold the
470 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
elections. The authorities advertised in a newspaper for filling 
·up of the post of Clerk and because of the said advertisement, 
the approval for the post of promotion as far as first respondent 
is concerned was not given and he felt grieved thereby. 
B 
3. As the factual narration would unveil, the first respondent 
submitted a representation to the Joint Director of Education 
on 22.6.2006, but nothing affirmative ensued and in the 
meantime the present appellantAkhilesh Kumar Singh was 
appointed. Being dissatisfied with the same, the first 
C respondent invoked the jurisdiction of High Court in Writ 
Petition No. 39738 of 2006. The learned Single Judge taking 
note of the fact that the claim of the writ petitioner seeking 
promotion to the post of Clerk was untenable inasmuch as 
there was a singular post in the cadre of Clerk duly sanctioned 
D and created in the institution and in such circumstances the 
said post could not be reserved for promotion from amongst 
the Class IV employees. However, the learned single Judge 
observed that if the writ petitioner felt that the appointment of 
the selected candidate by direct recruitment was patently illegal 
E and de hors the rules, he could submit a representation to the 
District Inspector of Schools and, in that event, the authority 
concerned shall pass a reasoned and speaking order keeping · 
in view the various provisions of the 1921 Act. 
F 
4. Being dissatisfied with
the said order, the 1st respondent 
herein preferred Special Appeal No. 648 of2006. The Division 
Bench encapsuled the controversy in a short compass, that is, 
whether a single post of Class Ill available in an intermediate 
college governed by the Act could be filled up only by promotion 
G or by direct recruitment. The Division Bench referred to an 
earlier Division Bench judgment in Jai Bhagwan Singh v. 
District Inspector of Schools, Gautambudh Nagar & Ors. 1 · 
and came to hold that a single post of Class Ill available in 
H 
1 2006 3 UPLBEC 2391
AKHILESH KUMAR SINGH v. RAM DAWAN & ORS. 
471 
. [DIPAK MISRA, J.] 
intermediate college governed by the 1921 Act can be filled 
A 
up by promotion and the earlier decision in Pa/ak Dhari Yadav2 
was not legally sound. On the base of the said reasoning, the 
Division Bench annulled the decision rendered by the learned 
Single Judge. The said judgment and order passed by the 
Division Bench is under assail in this appeal by special leave. 
B 
5. We have heard Mr. Parmanand Gaur, learned counsel 
for the appellant and Mr. Hariom Yaduvanshi, Mr. Gagan Gupta 
and Mr. Vivek Vishnoi, learned counsel for the respondents. 
c 
6. It is imperative to note at the outset that there is no 
dispute with regard to the factual score. The institution is 
covered by the 1921 Act. A set of Regulations has been framed 
under the said Act providing for promotion from Class IV to 
Class Ill. Regulation 2 which is relevant for the present purpose o 
is reproduced below:-
"2. (1) For the purpose of appointments of clerks and 
Fourth class employees the minimum educational 
qualification would be the same as has been fixed from 
E 
time to time for the equivalent employees of Government 
Higher Secondary Schools. 
(2) Fifty percent of the total number of sanctioned posts of 
head clerk and clerks shall be filled among the serving 
F 
clerks and employees through promotion. If employee 
possesses prescribed eligibility and he has served 
continuously for 5 years on his substantive post and his
service record is good, then promotion shall be made on 
the basis of seniority, subject to rejection of the unfit. If any G 
employee is aggrieved by any decision or order of the 
management committee in this respect then he can make 
representation against it to the Inspector within two weeks 
2 1999 3 UPLBEC 2315 
H
472 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
from the date of such decision or order. Inspector on such 
representation can make such orders as he thinks fit. 
Decision of the Inspector would be final and promptly 
executed by the management. 
B 
Note:- In calculating fifty percent of posts parts less than 
half would be left and half or more that half post would be 
deemed as one." 
7. On a plain reading of the aforesaid Regulation, it is quite 
c luminous that the "Note" appended to it makes it abundantly 
clear that there is a singular post. The Regulation lays down 
the postulates for filling up of the post. The crux of the matter 
is whether in the instant case a cadre that constitutes of a single 
post has been reserved. In Post Graduate Institute of 
o Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh v. Faculty 
Association and others3, the Constitution Bench was 
considering the correctness of the decision rendered in Union 
of India v. Madhav4. Apart from many a contention, it was 
also submitted before this Court that for implementing 50-point 
E roster, isolated and separate posts in different specialities 
cannot be clubbed together and reservation of posts by 
applying the roster can be made only where there are more 
than one post and reservation of only one post cannot be made 
because such reservation would amount to 100% reservation 
F which would violate Article 16(1) and Article 16(4) of the 
Constitution. The Constitution Bench after discussing the law 
at
length has held:-
"34. In a single post cadre, reservation at any point of time 
G 
on account of rotation of roster is bound to bring about a 
situation where such a single post in the cadre will be kept 
reserved exclusively for the members of the backward 
'(1998) 4 sec 1 
H • (1997) 2 sec 332
AKHILESH KUMAR SINGH v. RAM DAWAN & ORS. 
473 
[DIPAK MISRA, J.] 
classes and in total exclusion of the general members of A 
the public. Such total exclusion of general members of 
the public and cent per cent reservation for the backward 
classes is not. permissible within the constitutional 
framework. The decisions of this Court to this effect over 
the decades have been consistent. 
35. Hence, until there is plurality of posts in a cadre, the 
question of reservation will not arise because any attempt 
B 
of reservation by whatever means and even with the 
device of rotation of roster in a single post cadre is bound C 
to create 100% reservation of such post whenever such 
reservation is to be implemented. The device of rotation 
of roster in respect of single post cadre will only mean 
that on some occasions there will be complete reservation 
and the appointment to such post is kept out of bounds to 
D 
the members of a large segment of the community who 
do not belong to any reserved class, but on some other 
occasions the post will be available for open competition 
when in fact on all such occasions, a single post cadre 
should have been filled only by open competition amongst E 
all segments of the society." 
8. From the aforesaid enunciation of law, it is eminently 
explicit that reservation for a single post in a cadre will keep 
the general members of the public in total exclusion and the 
F 
question of reservation will arise when there is plurality of post
in the cadre. Needless to say that the Constitution Bench has 
been stating about the reservation with regard to the Scheduled 
Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes. It 
does not lay down that if a post is meant to be filled up by G 
promotion from amongst the employees working in the feeder 
cadre, it would tantamount to reservation. Reservation is only 
restricted to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and 
Other Backward Classes. It does not relate to the persons 
H 
serving in the feeder cadre.
474 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
9. In State of Punjab and others v. R.N. Bhatnagar and 
Another6, it has been laid down that when posts in a cadre 
are to be filled in from two sources, whether the candidate 
comes from the source of departmental promotees or by way 
of direct recruitment, once both of them enter a common cadre, 
B their birthmarks disappear and they get completely integrated 
in the common cadre and it is in consonance with the thrust of 
Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India. The Court further 
observed that no question of exception to the said general 
thrust of the constitutional provision would survive as Article 
C 
16(4) would be out of the picture in such a case. 
10. In this context, a reference to a two-Judge Bench 
decision in Ku/deep Kumar Gupta and others v. H.P. State 
Electricity Board and others6 is apposite. In the said case, 
D a contention was advanced that providing a quota tantamounts 
E 
F 
G 
to reservation. Repelling the said submission, it was ruled:-
"Article 16 deals with equality of opportunity in matters of 
public employment and Article 16(4) enables the State in 
making any provision for reservation of appointments or 
posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which in 
the opinion of the State is not adequately represented in 
the services under the State. This Court in Indra Sawhney7 
case has held that no such reservation is permissible in 
the promotional posts and to get over the said decision
Article 16(4-A) has been inserted by the Constitution 
(Seventy-seventh Amendment) Act. But we fail to 
understand as to how providing a quota for a specified 
category of personnel in the promotional post can be held 
to be a reservation within the ambit of Article 16(4). 
Providing a quota is not new in the service jurisprudence 
s (1999) 2 sec 330 
6 {2001) 1 SCC475 
H 
1 1992 Supp (3) sec 211
AKHILESH KUMAR SINGH v. RAM DAWAN & ORS. 
475 
[DIPAK MISRA, J.] 
and whenever the feeder category itself consists of A 
different category of persons and when they are considered 
for any promotion, the employer fixes a quota for each 
category so that the promotional cadre would be 
equibalanced and at the same time each category of 
persons in the feeder category would get the opportunity B 
. of being considered for promotion. This is also in a sense 
in the larger interest of the administration when it is the 
employer, who is best suited to decide the percentage of 
posts in the promotional cadre, which can be earmarked 
for different category of persons. In other words this C 
provision actually effectuates the constitutional mandate 
engrafted in Article 16(1), as it would offer equality of 
opportunity in the matters relating to employment and it 
would not be the monop.oly of a specified category of 0 
persons in the feeder category to get promotions. We, 
therefore, do not find any infraction of the constitutional 
provision engrafted in Article 16(4) while providing a quota 
in the promotional cadre, as in our view it does not 
tantamount to reservation". 
E 
11. The purpose of referring to the aforesaid decisions is 
that the concept of reservation finds place in Article 16( 4) and 
does not apply to the concept of quota from the feeder cad re. 
In the instant case, the Regulation provides for 50% of the total 
F 
number of posts to be promoted through
promotion. The "Note" 
appended is an inseparable part of the Regulation and it lays 
down that in calculation of the 50% of the post less than half 
would be left and half or more than half post would be deemed 
as one. Therefore, if a singular post in the clerical cadre is G 
there, it would be filled up by promotion from amongst the 
eligible candidates from the feeder cadre. Adopting such a 
method or taking such route does not remotely touch the idea 
of reservation. Hence, the submission put forth by the learned 
counsel for the appellant sans substance. 
H

476 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015) 9 S.C.R. 
I\ 
12. In view of the aforesaid premises, we do not perceive 
B 
any merit in this appeal and accordingly, the same stands 
dismissed without any order as to costs. 
N1dhi Jain 
Appeal dismissed.