# IJ ARATI RAY CHOUDHURY v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS - **Citation:** [1974] 2 S.C.R. 1 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1973-10-11 - **Case number:** Writ petition No. 459 of 1972 - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/ij-arati-ray-choudhury-v-union-of-india-ors-6130 - **Pages:** 11 ## Headnote A B c 0 E F (i IJ ARATI RAY CHOUDHURY v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. October 11, 1973 LA· N. RAY, C.J., D. G. PALEKAR, Y. v. CHANDRACHUD, P. :N. BHAGWATI AND V. R. KRISHNA IYER, JJ.J 1 c_orkflilll:ion ot, India, A~t. 1~(,1)-Resenation of posts for Scheduled CaJte nuulldates m Rt~~.way Scn•1ce-Carry forward Rule-Application of where there is only one post-Railway Doarcfs administrative Instructions 1964 1971-..:. /lome Ministry Memorandum, 1963. ' After .the decision of the S.upreme Court in Devadasan's case [1964] 4 S.C.R. 680 holdmg that the reservation for the backward communities should not be so excessive ~ .~o create ~ .monopoly or distur.b ~nduly the legitimate claims of ?!her c~mmumllcs, t~c Mtmstry of .Home A!Ia_s~ tssued ~ ~emorandu~ mOllifyIng the carry foward Rule so as to comply wtth the dectstoo. The s:ud memorandum was suitably modified by the Railway Board in its application to Railway sc~·ices by their .!et~cr .da_tcd 6th October, 1964. The Railway Board prepared a Modd Roster stgmfymg the turns of reserved and unreserved vacancies. The note <~ppendcd to the Roster provided "if there are only two vacancies to be ftllcd on a particular occasion, not more than one may be treated as reserved and if there be only one vacancy, it should be treated as unreserved. If on this <~ccount, a rescr1cd post is treated as unre.served, the reservation may be carried forward in the subsequent two re<:ruitment years", In order to minimise the chances of reserved posts being converted into unreserved posts, the Railway Uoard modified the Reservation Rule in 1971 by adding the followins words "if there is one post to be filled, selection should invariably be held for two posts, i.e. one actual and the other to cover unforeseen ci rcum~tances". The SouthEastern Railway, a Go\·ernment of India Undertaking, runs two higher secon- . Jary schools for girls, one at Adra nnd the other at Kb.;lragpur. A vacancy in the po~t of H.cadmit vacancy, it should have been treated as a reserved post. Hut since there wa5 only one post, the same w-.13 treated as an unreserved post and the appointment WiL' made on that footing. In Decemb-!r 1968, the Rail· way admini~tr<~tioo was to hold interviews for the post of Headmistress at the Kharagnur ~chool as the incumbent Headmistress was to retire with efiect from 1·1-1 '.169. The sekction was stayed by the Calcutta High Court on a writ petition filed hv Resporulent No. 8. a Scheduled Casto candidate, for readjustment of her seniority. R.ospondent No. 8 filed another writ petition under Civil Rule No. 499 (W) of 1969 in the Calcutta High Court calling upon the court to tlcdare that the Kharal(pur post ~hould bo treated as a .re!lerved p06t. The M'CQOu «Hcm;>t at holding the interview by the Railway Administration was thwarted by an injunction is~ucd by Cnlcutta High Court at th~· imtance of Re~ ponJcnt No. 8. In Civil Rule No. 4ti9(W) of 1969, a learned sinl:le Jud~te of the Calcutta High Court unc.l then, on appeal (No. 454 of 1971) thl!" Division fitnch of tile High Court held that the Kharagour post wa~ a reserved post. Through the impugned letter of 6th November 1971 the Railway Administration made ytt another :.ttempt to fill the vacancy in tertll.!l of the modification of the .Knle i.n 1971. The same was obstructed by nn injunction issued by the sin!!le J ud~,;e of the High Court in n writ petition ftled by the pe1itioncr (Ci\·il Rule No. 1395 (W) of 1972). However. at the time of final hearing, the learned ~ingle Jud~:e recullct vacancy, it should have been treated as a reserved post. Hut since there wa5 only one post, the same w-.13 treated as an unreserved post and the appointment WiL' made on that footing. In Decemb-!r 1968, the Rail· way admini~tr<~tioo was to hold interviews for the post of Headmistress at the Kharagnur ~chool as the incumbent Headmistress was to retire with efiect from 1·1-1 '.169. The sekction was stayed by the Calcutta High Court on a writ petition filed hv Resporulent No. 8. a Scheduled Casto candidate, for readjustment of her seniority. R.ospondent No. 8 filed another writ petition under Civil Rule No. 499 (W) of 1969 in the Calcutta High Court calling upon the court to tlcdare that the Kharal(pur post ~hould bo treated as a .re!lerved p06t. The M'CQOu «Hcm;>t at holding the interview by the Railway Administration was thwarted by an injunction is~ucd by Cnlcutta High Court at th~· imtance of Re~ ponJcnt No. 8. In Civil Rule No. 4ti9(W) of 1969, a learned sinl:le Jud~te of the Calcutta High Court unc.l then, on appeal (No. 454 of 1971) thl!" Division fitnch of tile High Court held that the Kharagour post wa~ a reserved post. Through the impugned letter of 6th November 1971 the Railway Administration made ytt another :.ttempt to fill the vacancy in tertll.!l of the modification of the .Knle i.n 1971. The same was obstructed by nn injunction issued by the sin!!le J ud~,;e of the High Court in n writ petition ftled by the pe1itioncr (Ci\·il Rule No. 1395 (W) of 1972). However. at the time of final hearing, the learned ~ingle Jud~:e recullc-67 when a reserved vacancv at Adra was treated as unreserved by the appointment of an open candidate, Smt. Gita Biswu. If the carry forward rule is to be given any meaning the vacancv shall have to be carried forward for the benefit of Scheduled Castes and Schedule,\ Tribe!! until the close of the financial year 1968-69. The Kharagpur vacancy Wlls to be filled in on January 1, 1969 and hence it cannot go to the petitioner wbo, allmittedly, docs not belong to the reserved class. The comtruction &ought to be put on the rule by tho petitioner would perpetuate a social lnjnsrice whicb has clouded tbe lives of a large section of humanitY wbich is struggling to linll it! feet. SUch a construction is contrary to the plain language of the fett~r of the Railway Board, the intendment of the rule and il!llegislativ,. btstory. [~OD-tlCJ T. Del'rulosorz v. Union of ln'iia anr. [19641 4 S.C.R. 680 explaineu. M. R. Balaji & ors. v. State of Mysore [1963) SUpp 1. S.C.R. 439 referred to. (3) As the petition No. 139.5 of 1971 filed by the petitioner in tho High Court was not dismissed on merits, the present petition cannot be barred by ru /fldlcata or by the application of any principle analogous to ft.. 1be petitioner was not n party to the writ petition filed by respondent No. 8 in the Hlab Court and me had not sought any relief, directly or indirectly, apinst the HiJh Court judgment in the said petition but had independently cbaJlenged the leBality of the carry foTW'ard rule. The maintainability of the petitioner under Art. 32 is therefore not open to challenge. £6F-H]. lJarvao and Ors. v. 7'M Sratl' of U.P. & Ors .. [1962] 1 S.C.R. 474 ami Tilokchand Moticlumd 4: Ors. \'. II. 8. Murulzi & A nr., f19691 2 S.C. R. 824. relied on. M. K .. Cjopalon and Anr. v. Tire State of Madhya Pradesh, [1955} 1 S.C.R. 168 ana Tllokclland Mot/efland's v. H. 8. Munrhi, [1969] 2 S.C.R. ll24 ami Miraikar's casr. [1966] 3 S.C.R. 744, distinguished. · ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ petition No. 459 of 1972. Under article 32 of the Constitution of India for the enforcement of fundam~ntal rights. Purshotham Chatterjee and Rathin Das, for the petitioner. A 8 c D E F G H A ARATI RAY V, UNION (Chandrachud,J.) 3 F. S. Nariman, Additional Solicitor Ge11eral and M. N. Shroff, for respondents Nos. 1-5. A. N. Sinha, Dilip Sinha and G. S. Chatterjee, for respondent No. 9. Respondent No. 8 appeared in person. \ H The Judgment of the Court wM delivered by c D E H CHANDRACHUD, J.-The petitioner, Shrimati .. Arati Ray Chou· dhury, is a permanent employee in the South .Eastern Railway-a Government of India Undertaking-which runs two Higher Secondary Schools for girls one at Adra and other at Kharagpur. Broadly stated, the question which we have to dedde in this petition under article 32 of the Constitution is whether the vacancy in the PQSt of the Headmistress of the Kharagpur sclrool can be treated as 'beiDJ. reserved for a Scheduled Caste candidate, a question which depeilds fc>r its decision both on the interpretation and the validity of the 'Carry forward' rule. The petitioner assails that rule and contends that the vacancy is open to all candidates while respondent No. 8, who belongs to Scheduled Caste, contends for a contrary position. In Allgust 1966, a vacancy arose in the post of the Headmistress of the Adra school and was filled up on the footing that it was unreserved. The Headmistress of the Kharngpur school w:1s due t0 retire with effect froth January 1, 1969 and ther¢fore on December 5. 1968 the Railway administration formed a. pao~l:<>f candidates for selection to that post and fixed December 18, 1968 as the date for holding interviews. The !lames of four Assistant:~istrcsses called for selection, . were arranged in the panel seniority~wise; the petitioner occupying the top place and respondent No. 8 the third place. The meeting of the 18th was st~yed by the Calcutta 1:liih Court in a Writ Petition (Civil Rule No. 2117W of 1968) brd~nt by respondent No. 8 for readjustment of her seniority. On De~ber 28, 1969 the petitioner was asked to take over charge of the pdf( a.Q.d· on January 4. 1969 she was promoted to officiate as a Headmistress, ·~purely on local stop-gap basis", and on the express condition that the promotion will not-confer upon her any right or title to the post. : . . Respondent No. 8 then filed another Writ :pe~ltlhn in tlJe· CaJcutta High Court (Civil Rule No. 499(W) of 1969) ·wang that the notice of December 5, 1968 be quashed as the vacancy m·the post of the Headmistress of the Kharagpur school ought, under the relevant rules; to be treated as being reserved for a: Schedule Caste caq.didate. In the meanwhile, the stay order issued in Writ Petition 2117 of 1968 was vacated by the High Court' and therefore on April 15, 1969 the Railway administration issued a fresh notice fixing the interviews of the four c~ndidates on April 29. This attempt al~o proved abortive as respondent No. 8 obtained in Writ Petition 499 of 1969 an injunction r~training the authorities from holding the interviews. On December 24, 1970 a learned single Judge of the Calcutta High Court allowed Writ Petition 499 of 1969, holding that the post 4 SUP.REME COURT REPORTS ( 1974] 2 ·S.C.Jt, in question must be treated as beina reserved, for a Scheduled Ca1te candidate and that therefore respondent No. 8 was alone entitled to appear before the selection Board for her appointment as Hetldmistress of the said Girls' school!' Neither the petitioner nor the two other candidntca were impleaded to this petition. The Union of India was the first respondent and the Chief Personnel Officer of the s. E. Rail· way, the second respondent to the. petition. These respondents carried an appeal (No. 454 of 1971) from the judgment of the lcnrncd single Judge but it was dismissed by u Division Bench on September 14, 1971. I Respondent No. 8 filed three contempt petitions, one ~tfter another against the Railway administration for their failur~ to comply with the directions issued by th~ Calcutta High Court in Writ Petition No. 499 of 1969. In the first of these petitions (Civil Rule No. 4014 W of 1971)~ a Division Bench of. t~e High Court, by its judsmcnt of June 71 1972, asked th~ Railway administration to comply within a period of three months with the directionl issued earlier by the High C'ourt by asking the petitioner to appear before the Selection Board. The learned Judge however made it clear that the Selection Board would be at liberty to consider the suitability of the petitioner. Whether such u clarification could be made in the contempt petition filed by responJent No. 8 is open to doubt, but nothing really turns on it. The course which the other two contempt rctitions took is also not relevant for the purpose of the present petition. On November 6, 1~7 . 1 the Chief · Pcrsonnd Officer of the S. E. Railway issued a Memorandum stating that it was "decided to hold a selection to draw up a panel of 2 aoproved.eandidates to fill the post of Headmistress", one post bein~ reserved for the scheduled caste ngainst the existing vacancy nnd another "to cover unforeseen requirement-unreserved". The petitioner filed a writ petition (Civil Rule No. 1395W of 1972) in the Calcutta Higlt Court to challenge the memot'andum and in the fashion of coMectcd proceedinas, sl1e impleaded to her petition the Railway administrat~n and the Union of fndia but none of her three competitors who would be directly affected by any . order passed in her favour. On Ftbrunr.v 11, 1972, a teamed sin~le Judge granted an injunction in that writ petition restrainintJ: the Railway ndministrat.ion from making any aopointment on the basis of the memorandum of November 6. 1971. L::~ter in Au2U~t 1972. the three other Assistant Mistresses, including respondent No. 8, were impleaded to the writ petition. Despite the order of iniunction, the Railway administration issued a letter on Au~st 19, 1972 asking respondent No. 8 to nppear before a Selection Board on August 30. It is patent that in doing this the Railway administration acted contrary to the terms of the injunction dnted Febmary 11, 1972. But, they were truly between Scylla and Charvbdis. On the one hand, they had to comply with the orders . passed in Writ Petition No. 499 of 1969 under which they were · directed to treat the vacancy as being reserved for the scheduled caste nnd to interview respondent No. 8 only for the post. On the other u c D E F G H A D c : i . 0 .. ' t l } ~ I E· t \ F G II ARATI RAY V, UNION (Chandraclwd, J.) 5 h~d, they wer~ faced_ with the inju~ction of February 11, 1972 b whtch they were restramcd from makmg any appointment to the PJ on the basis that the vacancy was reserved for the scheduled caste We ~uppose that they escaped th~·ough the horns of the dilemma J>Y m~ki.ng a breach o~ the. or?er whtch wus later in point of time. But tlus ts npt all. Shnmatt Ltla Bhattacharyya, respondent No. 9 before us, who was ?nc of th.e .four. con~enders .for th~ Headmistresses' ·post had also obtamed an InJunctiOn m a wnt petitiOn filed by her in the Calcutta High Court (Civil Rule No. 5680\V of 1970) restraining the A~ministration from making appointment to the post' of the Head· IUlstress of the Kharagpur school, without considering her claim to the post. Finally, the petitioner approached the High Court once again tmd on September 18, 1972 obtained an injunction once again in terrn.s ~of t~e earlier injunction. of February 11, .1972. The Railway admmtstratJOn had to fend thctr way through thts network of injunctions. Writ Petition No. 1395 of 1972 filed by the petitioner carne Cor hearing before a learned single Judge on October 3, 1972 when he felt· "no rule should have been issued and in any case, no interim orde.r should have been granted contrary to the direction of the Appeal Court by me. and I did so only because I was entirely kept in the dark regarding the earlier proceeding", namely Writ Petition 499 of 1969, filed by respondent No. 8 in wbich the Railway administration was asked to treut the vacancy as a reserved vacancy.. The learned Judge therefore recalled the Rule and dismissed the petition. Tite petitioner did not appeal from this judgment but on October fl. 1972 she filed the present petition under artilce 32 of the Constitution impleading thereto, fortunately, all the necessary parties. Respondent 1 to petition is the Union of India, resp.xlncnts 2 to 5 are officers of · the Railway administration, respondent 6 is the Union Public Service Commission while respondent'> 7 to 9 arc the 3 rival claimants to the post of the Headmistress. The petitioner prays for a mandamus ask.inJ respondents 1 to 5 (i) not to give effect to the rules relating to reservation of posts for candidates belonging to schcduh: castes and scheduled tribes, particularly the "Carry forward' rule; (ii) to withdraw the order dated November 6, 1971; (iii) to allow her, the petitioner to continue 5n her post as a Headmistress of the Kharagpur school :1-nd , (iv) to :11low her to continue in the revised scale of pay: Rs. 700-1100. Rule Nisi was isl>ucd on this petition on October 23, 1972 and it was, dircctl!d that Jf. The Chief Personnel Ofliccr, thcreafkr, passed all order on Mrach 21, 1973 that respondent No. 8 ~ posted immediately as the Headmistress of the Kharagpur school, subject to certain conditions. • The karned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Union of J ndia and respondent No. 8 aooearine: in person have raised a preliminary objection to the m:tintainability of this petition. They cont~nd that th.: petitioner ought to have pursued her remedies against 6 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1974] 2 S.C.R. the judgment dlted October 3, 1972 dismissing her writ petition (1395W of 1972) and since she has acquiesced in that judgment.it is not open to her to bring this petJ.tion under article 32 of the Con· stJ.tution, for the same rellefs. We are not disposed to accept this objection and would prefer to deal with the petition on its merits. It is true that long back in 1955 this Court had held in M. K. Gopalan and Anr, v. 1he State of Madhya Prade.sh(l} that, except for good reason& tl!e practice _of approaching the Supreme Court drrectly under article 32 .in matters which have been taken to the High Cow·t and found against, without obtaining leave to appeal therefrom, is not to be encouraged. Recently in Tilokchand Motichand & Ors. v. H. B. Mu11sl!i & Anr.(2) it was observed that this Court refrains from acting under article 32 _if the petitioner had already moved the High Court under article 226. In the words of Hidayatullah CJ. "this con· · stitutcs a comitY between the Supreme Court and the High Court!' and since the motivating factor is the existence of a parallel jurisdiction in another court, if that court has been moved this Court insists on bringing the decision of that court before it for review. llut the dis· tinguishing feature of the instant case is that the High Court dismiss,s!d the writ· petition not on rol?rits, though by a speaking order. The learned JudJe thought that it was not just and proper" for him to entertain. the petition under article 226 because if he were to grant any relief thereia~''it would clash with the judgment rendered by the Divisi011..Bench orirSeptember 14, 1971 in appeal No. 455 of 1971 confirmina the judgment of the single Judge dated December 24, 1970, holding that the vacancy must be treated as a reserved vacancy for the schedule caste and that respondent No. 8 was alone entitled to be considered for the .post from amongst the 4 candidates. The learned Judge therefore "recalled" the Rule and dismissed the petition without considering the merits of the contentions raised before him by the petitioner. As the petition filed in the High Court under article 226 was not dismissed on merits, the present petition cannot be barred by res judicata or by the application of any principle analogous to it. (See Daryo and Ors. v .. The State of U.P. and Ors. and its true application as explained in the judgments of Sikri J., Bachawat J., Mitter J. and Hegde J. in Tilok Chand's case at pp. 833, 839, 855 and 856 of the Report.) Nor do we see any substance in the other preliminary . objection that as in Mirajkar's case ('), the r of form, against the judgment rendered by the High Court in the writ petition filed by respondent No. 8. (1) [1955]1 S.C. R. 168, 174. 2. [1969] 2 S.C. R. 824. (3) [1966) 3 S. C. R. 744. A B c D L F G H ,\ 8 c 0 E G ARATI RAY V, UNION (Chandr~chud, J.) 7 That takes ·us to the merits of the challenge made by the petitioner lo the Rules providing for reservati<>n of posts for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. . The contention is that on a true interpretation of the Rules, the vacancy in the post of the Headmistress of the Kharagpur school ought to be treated as an unreserved vacancy and secondly that the Carry forward provision of the rules is violative of articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. In M. R. Balaji and Ors. v. State~~ My.rare.h) -this Court struck down as uncontitutional .. an order by which 68 pet cent . Qf the Seats in educational institutions were reserved for scheduled> castes,· scheduled tribes and the other educationally and socially··backward classes. The court was· reluctant to ·suggest a proper percentage of reservation but b~aring in mirid that ''the interests of weaker sections d society wbich are a first charge on the states and the Centre have to be ad· justed with the interests of the community as a whole .. , it observed tlaat ''speaking generally and in a broad way, a special provision should be less than 50%; how much less than 50% would depend upon the r~Jevant prevailing circumstances in each case". Following this. decision, the majority observed in Devadasan's (•) case that in order to effectuate the guarantee contained lin article 16( 1), each year of recruitment has ta be considered separately by itself for, "the reservation for backward communities sbould not be so excessive as. to create a monopoly or to disturb unduly the legitimate claims of other communities". Then rule which lell for consideration in that case was contained in a Memorandum dated January 28, 1952 of the Ministry of Mome Affairs, as modified by the Memorandum.ofMay 7, 1955, The Memorandum provided : "If a sufficient number of candidates considered suitable by the recruiting authorities; are not available. from the communities for whom reservations are made in a particular year, the unfilled vacan:ies s~ould be· treated as unreserved and filled by the best available candidates. The number of reserved vacancies thus treated as unreserved will be added as an additional quota to the number that would be reserved in the following year in the normal cowse; and to the. extent to which approved candidates are not available in that year against this additional quota, a corresponding addition should be made to the number of ·reserved vacancies in the second following. year". However, the unutilised quota was not to be carried forward for more than two years. As a result of the Carry forward rule, 29 out of 4S vacancies were fi11ed from.amongst the members of schedtJled castes and scheduled tribe!~. the percentage of reservation coming to 64.4. The rule was struck down ail reservation of vacancies in excess of 50 ·per- cent was deemed unc_9nstitutional. The decision in Devadasan's case was rended on Augusl 29, 1963 and on December 4, 1963 the Ministry of Home Affairs issued a memorandum· modifying the Carry forward ru1e" so as to comply with th~ decision. Bv Para 2 of the Memorandum (as amended by the Memorandum of September 2, 1964), the Carry forward rule was - (I) [1963] Supp, I S.C.R. 439. (2) [1964] 4 S.C.R 680 .. =:;T' sUPRi!JviE coVRT REPORTS [ 1974] 2 S.C.R. 8 ... an recruitment year, the number of amended by providing .that dilie xcarricd forward' rcscrv.:d vacancies nonnal reserved vacancres an r cent of the total number of vacancies". together shall ?,~t exceet:5 ~ two vacancies one of them may be Nevertheless, 1f there 0 . But if there be only one vacancy. it · treated as a reserved vacancy. The surplus above 45% shall be shall be treated as unreserved. ~t · ~ar of recruitment, subject however carried forW~:d to~he ~~bse~t~cul~ vacancies carried .forward do not to the c~nditJon ;~ et% their becoming more than two years old." become u.me barre ue Rule defines a 'Recruitment year' as a The Nate apP_Cndt ~ 0 sththat for purpo5CS of the two year limit for ~e:~ ~~~a~ 0 / !eserved v~cancies. recruitment year shall mean the year in which recruitment IS actually made. . By a letter dated Oetobe~ 6,. 1964 of the. R:1ilway .Board, this Note was modified in its apphcatJOn to the Ratlway. Serv1ces to the extent that 'Recruitment year' was to bo tbe fi.nancral year and not the calendar year. Acting in pursuance of the Home Ministry's Memorandum dated December 4, 1963 as modified from time to time, the Railway Board by its letter of January 16, 1964 prepared a new "Model Roster" signifying the turns of reserved and unreserved vacancies. Under this Roster 12.5 per cent of the vacancies were reserved for scheduled castes and 5 per cent for the scheduled tribes. The Roster runs thus: Point on the Roster Whether Unreserved or Resen·ed for 1l c D l3 Scheduled Castes E 4 Unreserved 5-8 Scheduled Tribe 9 Unreserved 10-16 Scheduled Castes 17 lJnreserved 18-20 Scheduled Castes 22·24 Unreserved f 22-24 Scheduled Tribes 25 l Jnreserved 26-32 Scheduled Castes 33 Unreserved 34-40 SchedUled Castes The Note appended t h R · Unreserved "If ther 0 t c ostcr conta · • G not mo:C ~a only two vacancies to be ru~:d an unporta.nt explanation: one vacancy \ onh may be treated as resc 0 .~ a par~1cular occasion, a rcscrv.:d 'i~t .5 ould be treated as unre rvc and 1f there b~ ouly forwilrd in ~e 5~t;reatl!d as unreserved, th:c~d. ~f on this account a still survivin r· equcnt two recruitment r.ese:,vatJon may be carried that in spire of 1i lcva;e of the scheduled yce~~~s. In order to remove evl-r there was a sln~. t:! roster they were dc~.c~ and s~hcdulcd tribes II as unreserved irrcspc~tivacancy, such vacancies~~ .. npJ?Omtx_ncnts whcnVe of th~ point of t1l cmg mvanably treatl!d e roster at. which they J 1 i ! ! ' l \ ( A B c () f II ·. ·~· ~-- -- ._ ARATI RAY v. UNION (Chandrachud, J.) 9 occur, the Railway Board by their Jetter of August 23, 1971 "desired'' that "if there i~ one post to be filled, selection should invariably be held for two posts, t.c., one actual and the other to cover unforeseen circumstances." It was in pursuance of these instructions that on November 6, 1971 the Chief Personnel Officer of the S.E. Railway issued the impugned order stating that it was "decided to hold a selection to draw up a panel of 2 approved candidates to fill the post of Headmistress .... (i) One post (Reserved for Scheduled Caste) against an existing vacancy. (ii) One post to cover unforeseen requirement-unreserved''. We have set out the rules leading to the final order in some fulness with a view to showing how, from time to time, the rules were adapted to meet the rccquirements of the law declared by this Court. The vice of rules impugned in Devadasan's case wns that though the unutilised reserved quota could not be carried forward for more than 2 years, the carry forward mechanism envisaged by the rules could almost completely swamp recruitment to open, general seats. The cow:t illustrated the ''startling effect of the carry forward rule" contained in the Memoradum of January 28, 1952 as modified in 1955 by taking a hypothetical example: If in each of the first 2 years of recruitment, the total number of seats to be filled in was 100, 18 vacancies would have to be treated as reserved in each year. [( suitable candidates wet~! not available to fill these reserved vacancies, the reservation would have to carried forward to the third year, though not beyond it. If the total number of seats for recruitment in the third year was 50. the backlog of 36 scats with the addition of 9 reserved seats for the current year would cover 45 out of 50 vacancies, leaving only 5 vacancies for op.:n recruitment. This vice was eliectively rectified soon after the judgement in Devadasan's case by the issuance of the Memorandum of December 4, 1963 as amended on September 2, 1964. It was specifically directed by these curative prescriptions that "in any recruitment year, the number of normal reserved vac:mcies and the 'carried forward' reserved vacancies together shall not exceed 45 per cent of the total number of vacancies". The rules thus are no longer open to the objection that the reservation is so excessive as to create in Government employment a monopoly in favour of backward classes or to di-;turb unduly the legitimate claims of other communities. ·!be model roster accompanying the ldtcr of the Railway Board dated January 16, 1964 is designed to rn1..'Ct the requirements o[ the new r.ituation arising out of the ruks framed in deference to the jud~:mcnt in Devadasan'J' ca~e. Both the letter and the Note appcn· dcd to the roster state expressly that if "there are only two vacancks t-> be flllcd on a particular occasion, not more than one may be treated as reserved and if there be only one vacancy, it should b~ treated ~ unreserved''. The word$ "on a particular occasion" were substituted on September 2, 1964 by the words "year of recruitment". Thus, in the first place each year of recruitment is directed to be considered separately and by itself as laid down in Devadasarz's(') case so that ii lh.:re are only two vacancies to be f.tlled in a particular year of recruitment, not more than one vacancy can be treated ·as reserved. Secondly. (I} [I'.IM) 4 S.C'.R. f,KO. 6'.1H,