Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Mr. Kapil Sibal has submitted that there cannot be any reservation either for initial appointment or for an appointment on promotion in respect of a single post cadre either directly or by the device of rotation or roster. Mr. Sibal has contended that the very concept of carry forward or the principle of roster is alien to a single post cadre. he has also contended that the principle of carry forward meaning thereby carrying forward reservation presupposes existence of multi posts cadre. If there is only one post in a cadre, the vacancy for such single post being filled up, there will be no occasion for carrying forward reservation for filling up such vacancy. Mr. Sibal has also contended that the rationale of reservation under Article 16(4) of the constitution is founded on the inadequacy of representation of a class in the service under the state. The question of adequacy of representation does not and cannot arise in a single post cadre because only one person can be accommodated against the single post, leaving no scope for adequate representation of any particular class in such single post.

Mr. RK Jain, learned senior counsel appearing for the intervenors in the review petition in the case of Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research has submitted that there is no Government order to the effect that reservation in a single cadre post to be excluded. If, therefore, there is no prohibition under any law for reservation of a single post and if the Government gives effect to Article 16(4) of the Constitution in a single post cadre which helps the case of social justice, consistent with the Directive Principles of the Constitution, this Court should be slow to react against such reservation. He has also supported the contention of Mr. Agrawala that by rotation of roster, the device of 100% reservation is avoided. At the same time, such rotation gives opportunity for appointment of members of socially backward classes in the higher echelons of service even when the post is a single post cadre. Mr. Jain has submitted that in the matter of implementation of rotation of roster in a single post cadre, even if the other view against such rotation is a possible view, such view should not be accepted because in the matter of a course of action which advances the cause of social justice, the view in favour of furtherence of social justice is to be preferred. Mr. Jain has also submitted that reservation is not to the post or the vacancy but reservation must be viewed as a measure of giving adequate opportunity in public employment to the socially and economically backward classes, consistent with Article 16(4) and 16(4)(A) of the Constitution and the Directive Principles. Mr. Jain has submitted that Article 16 does not speak of any post or vacancy but speaks of equality of opportunity in public employment.

In Madhav's case, in support of the view that even in respect of single post cadre, reservation can be made for the backward classes by rotation of roster, the Constitution Bench decision in Arati Ray Choudhury's case has been relied on. We have already indicated that in Arati's case, the Constitution Bench did not lay down that in single post cadre, reservation is possible with the aid of roster point. The court in Arati's case considered the applicability of roster point in the context of plurality of posts and in that context the rotation of roster was upheld by the Constitution Bench. The Constitution Bench in Arati's case has made it quite clear by relying on the earlier decisions of the Constitution Bench in Balaji's case and Devadasan's case that 100% reservation was not permissible and in no case reservation beyond 50% could be made. Even the circular on the basis of which appointment was made in Arati Ray Choudhury's case was amended in accordance with the decision in Devadasan's case. Therefore, the very premises that Constitution Bench in Arati's case has upheld reservation in a single post cadre is erroneous and such erroneous assumption in Madhav's case has been on account of misreading of the ratio in Arati Ray Choudhury's case. It may be indicated that the later decision of the Constitution Bench in R.K. Sabharwal's case (1995(2) SCC 745) has also proceeded on the footing that reservation in roster can operate provided in the cadre there is plurality of post. It has also been indicated in Sabharwal's decision that the post in a cadre different from vacancies.

Hence, until there is plurality of posts in a cadre the question of reservation will not arise because any attempt of reservation by whatever means and even with device of rotation of roster in a single post cadre is bound 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 bound to 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 all segments of the society.