Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: roster points in Nancy Shubham vs The State Of Bihar on 7 February, 2025Matching Fragments
ii) Schedule Cast Roster Point- 10,24,40,62,78,98= 6 posts
iii) Schedule Tribe Roster Point- 0 posts
iv) Extremely Backward Class Roster Point-8,26,42,60,70,94,100= 7 posts
v) Backward Class Roster Point- 12,38,64,90= 4 posts Total - 34 posts
28. For the matter relating to 35% horizontal reservation of women, state contends that it may be saturated only in the situation, when roster clearance falls under roster point 1 to roster point 100. In case of such roster clearance not falling under roster point 1 to roster point 100, it may be less than 35%, more than 35%, 0% and 100%.
65. In case of horizontal vacancy there cannot be any roster point. Roster point refers to vertical vacancy in respect of separate class of people on the basis of their backwardness on the ground of caste, religion, extremely economic backwardness. Therefore, it is submitted by Mr. Rajendra Narain, learned Senior Counsel that if horizontal reservation would have been filled up without leaving the percentage of their quota, all the petitioners would have been appointed to the post of Assistant Engineer.
76. It is further contended on behalf of the State that if 35% of posts in horizontal vacancy is attempted to be filled up, this will violate the equilibrium of horizontal reservation. For example, when roster point 8, 9 and 10 are used, in such situation, all the three roster points go to women for different categories. Because of the fact, roster point 8 is earmarked for E.B.C. (female), roster point 9 is earmarked for U.R. (Female) and roster point 10 is earmarked for S.C. (Female). Again where roster point between 8 to 12 are used, reservation for women is 80% on the other hand when roster point 50 to 54 are used, there is no post earmarked for women, i.e. no post falls under horizontal reservation among the said roster points. In support of such contention, the learned Advocate General refers to Annexure-D of the counter affidavit.
101. The respondents, tried to explain the shortfall, by relying on Model Roster Point for each department. The argument is flawed on two counts: Firstly, there is no pleading or documentary basis for implementation of given roster points. Secondly, it does not stand to reason that 35% horizontal reservation, under a given policy, can never be achieved due to given roster points.
102. The learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the B.P.S.C. has adopted the submission made by the learned Advocate General, for the State.