Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

In the aforementioned judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the "carry forward" rule and the same "carry forward" rule was the subject-matter for adjudication in the suit, which rule was set aside by the trial court and upheld by the first appellate Court, curiously enough on the reasoning's of Akhil Bharatiya (supra).

3. The fifty per cent vacancy was meant for vacancies in a particular year and not the promotion that is to be made in a year. It may also be stated that the fifty per cent rule is confined only to the case of initial appointments. The learned Courts below sought to bend the law to fill-up the vacancy against reserved posts by unreserved category of candidates. The percentage of reservation is fixed by the State by consciously taking into consideration the totality of the employment position vis-a-vis its obligation to avoid discrimination by a process of reverse discrimination. The percentage of reservation is fixed and the roster contains the running account to ensure that the ST and SC candidates and other backward classes/unprivileged classes, etc. get their percentage of reserved posts. In a cadre of 100 posts, when, posts are reserved in a roster for reserved categories, the post are filled by percentage provided for the reserved categories. The roster is to operate till the quota provided for in the roster is filled-up or reached. Once the prescribed percentage of posts is filled up as per the roster is satisfied, the roster and the numerical strength prescribed as per the roaster will not survive thereafter. The reservation is made taking into account the demographic estimates/constituents based calculations worked-out in relation to the population, to assure/ensure equality of opportunity to the backward classes and the general category of candidates/people is to permit the roster to operate till the time the respective appointees permitted occupy the posts meant for them in the roster. In RKSabharwal and other v. State of Punjab and others, reported in (1995) 2 SCC 745, the Supreme Court observed :