# RESEARCH, CHANDIGARH v. FACULTY ASSOCIATION AND ORS

- **Citation:** [1998] 2 S.C.R. 845
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1998-04-17
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 3175 of 1997
- **Bench:** S.C. Agrwal, G.N. Ray, Dr. A.S. Anand, S.P. Bharucha Ands. Rajendra Babu
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/research-chandigarh-v-faculty-association-and-ors-16431
- **Pages:** 25

## Headnote

Service Law :
Reservation-SC, ST and OBC-Single post cadre-RosterApplicability-Held: There cannot be any reservation in a single post cadre
either directly or by device of rotation of roster-Contrary decision in some
previous cases, overruled-Plurality of posts essential for reservation.
Constitution of India, 1950 :
B
c
D
Articles 16(4) and 16(4A)-Reservation-Backward Classes-Special
provisions for-Held: There must be a balance in the matter of appointments
between reserved and general classes-In making reservations for bakward
classes, the State cannot ignore the fundamental rights of the general
candidates-Therefore, special provision under Art. 16(4) must strike a E
balance between several relevant considerations and proceed objectively--
Hence, reservations cannot exceed 50%- Articles 16(1), (2) & (4)-Scope
of -Held: Art. 16(4) is not an exception to Arts. 16(1) and 16(2) but an
instance of classification permitted by Art. 16(1)-Equality of opportunity
under Art. 16(1) is to be reconciled with concessions in favour of backwara·
classes under Art. 16(4) in such a manner that the latter while serving the F
cause of backward classes, do not unreasonably encroach upon the field of
equality.
Article 13 7-Supreme Court judgment-Review of-Decision rendered
on incorrect appreciation of law-Review allowed by a larger BenchSupreme Court Rules, 1966-Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, 0.47 R.1- G
Practice and Procedure.
The appellants have filed the present review petition against the decision
rendered by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Post Graduate Institute
of Medical Education and Research v. K.L Narashimhan, CA No. 3175 of
1977 decided on 2-5-1997.
H
845
846
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1998] 2 S.C.R.
A
The question before this Contitution Bench was "Whether in a single
B
cadre post, reservation for the backward classes, namely, Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes can be made either directly
or by applying rotation of roster point".
Allowing the appeal, this Court.
HELD : 1.1. In a single post cadre reservation at any point of time 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 classes and in total exclusion of the general members of the
public. Such total exclusion of the general members of the public and cent
C percent reservation for the backward classes is not permissible within the
constitutional framework. 1868-F-G)
1.2. 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 the device of rotation of roster in a single post cadre
D 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
E 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. [868-H; 869-A-B)
1.3. The view taken in Chakrdhar's that there cannot be any reservation
in a single post cadre is approved. The decisions in Madhav's case, Brij Lal
F Thakur's case and Bageswari Prasad's case, upholding reservation in a
single post cadre either directly or by the device of rotation of roster point
are not approved. Accordingly, the impugned decision in Post Graduate
Institute of Medical Education and Research v. K.L. Narashimhan, CA No.
3175 decided on 2-5-1997 cannot also be sustained. It is, therefore, set aside.
1869-D-E]
G
1.4. There is need for reservation for the members of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes and Other Backwa

## Text

_Characters 0–39,859 of 65,323. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39859 for what follows._

...
POSTGRADUATE INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION AND
A
RESEARCH, CHANDIGARH
v.
FACULTY ASSOCIATION AND ORS.
APRIL 17, 1998
[S.C. AGRWAL, G.N. RAY, DR. A.S. ANAND, S.P. BHARUCHA
ANDS. RAJENDRA BABU, JJ.]
Service Law :
Reservation-SC, ST and OBC-Single post cadre-RosterApplicability-Held: There cannot be any reservation in a single post cadre
either directly or by device of rotation of roster-Contrary decision in some
previous cases, overruled-Plurality of posts essential for reservation.
Constitution of India, 1950 :
B
c
D
Articles 16(4) and 16(4A)-Reservation-Backward Classes-Special
provisions for-Held: There must be a balance in the matter of appointments
between reserved and general classes-In making reservations for bakward
classes, the State cannot ignore the fundamental rights of the general
candidates-Therefore, special provision under Art. 16(4) must strike a E
balance between several relevant considerations and proceed objectively--
Hence, reservations cannot exceed 50%- Articles 16(1), (2) & (4)-Scope
of -Held: Art. 16(4) is not an exception to Arts. 16(1) and 16(2) but an
instance of classification permitted by Art. 16(1)-Equality of opportunity
under Art. 16(1) is to be reconciled with concessions in favour of backwara·
classes under Art. 16(4) in such a manner that the latter while serving the F
cause of backward classes, do not unreasonably encroach upon the field of
equality.
Article 13 7-Supreme Court judgment-Review of-Decision rendered
on incorrect appreciation of law-Review allowed by a larger BenchSupreme Court Rules, 1966-Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, 0.47 R.1- G
Practice and Procedure.
The appellants have filed the present review petition against the decision
rendered by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Post Graduate Institute
of Medical Education and Research v. K.L Narashimhan, CA No. 3175 of
1977 decided on 2-5-1997.
H
845
846
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1998] 2 S.C.R.
A
The question before this Contitution Bench was "Whether in a single
B
cadre post, reservation for the backward classes, namely, Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes can be made either directly
or by applying rotation of roster point".
Allowing the appeal, this Court.
HELD : 1.1. In a single post cadre reservation at any point of time 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 classes and in total exclusion of the general members of the
public. Such total exclusion of the general members of the public and cent
C percent reservation for the backward classes is not permissible within the
constitutional framework. 1868-F-G)
1.2. 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 the device of rotation of roster in a single post cadre
D 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
E 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. [868-H; 869-A-B)
1.3. The view taken in Chakrdhar's that there cannot be any reservation
in a single post cadre is approved. The decisions in Madhav's case, Brij Lal
F Thakur's case and Bageswari Prasad's case, upholding reservation in a
single post cadre either directly or by the device of rotation of roster point
are not approved. Accordingly, the impugned decision in Post Graduate
Institute of Medical Education and Research v. K.L. Narashimhan, CA No.
3175 decided on 2-5-1997 cannot also be sustained. It is, therefore, set aside.
1869-D-E]
G
1.4. There is need for reservation for the members of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes and such
reservation is not confined to the initial appointment in a cadre but also to
the appointment in promotional post. It cannot however be lost sight of that
in the anxiety for such reservation for the backward classes, a situation
H should not be brought by which the chance of appointment is completely
....
P.G.I. CHANDIGARH v. FACULTY ASSOC[ATJON
847
taken away so fa1· as the members of other segments of the society are A
concerned b)· making such single post cent percent reserved for the reserved
\
categories to the exclusion of other members of the community even when
such member is senior in service and is otherwise more meritorious.
[867-E-F)
Arati Ray Chaudhry v. Union of India, [1974] l SCC 87 and Chetna B
Di lip Motghare v. Bhide Girls' Education Society, [1995) Supp. 1 SCC 157,
relied on.
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India [1992) Supp. 3 SCC 217 and Vidulata
Arvind Kakade v. Digambar Gyanba Surwase, referred to.
Dr. Chakradhar Paswan v. State of Bihar, [1988) 2 SCC 214, affirmed.
Union of India v. Madhav, [1997] 2 SCC 332; State of Bihar v.
Bageshwari Prasad, [1995) Supp. 1 SCC 432; Union of India v. Brij Lal
Thakur JT (1997) 4 SC 195 and Shri Suresh Chandra v. Shri J.B. Agrawal
c
JT (1997) 4 SC 72, over111led.
D
(
..-
Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research v. K.L.
Narashimhan, CA No. 3175 of 1977 decided on 2-5-1997, reversed.
2. Articles 14, 15 and 16 including Articles 16(4) and 16(4A) must be
applied in such a manner so that the balance is st111ck in the matter of E
appointments by creating reasonable opportunities for the reserved classes
and also for the other members of the community who do not belong to
reserved classes. Such a view has been indicated in the Constitution Bench
decisions of this Court in Balaji '.s case, Devadasan '.s case and Sabhanval '.s
case. Even in Indra Sawhny :~ case, the same view has been taken by indicating
that only a limited resen·ation not exceeding 50% is permissible. Article F
15(4) is an enabling provision like Article 16(4) and the reservation under
either provision should not exceed legitimate limits. In making resen•ations
for the backward classes, the State cannot ignore the fundamental rights of
rest of the citizens. The special provision under Article 15( 4) must, therefore,
strike a balance between several relevant considerations and proceed
objectively. It has been indicated in Indra Sawhney s case that Article 16(4) G
is not in the nature of an exce11tion to Articles 16(1) and 16(2) but an
instance of classification permitted by Article 16(1). It has also been indicated
in that decision that Article 16(4) does not cover the entire field covered by
A11icles 16(1) and 16(2). Indra Sawhney's case, this Court has also indicated
that in the interests of the backward classes of citizens, the State cannot H
848
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1998] 2 S.C.R.
A reserve all the appointment under the State or even a majority of them. The
doctrine of equality of opportunity in Article 16(1) is to be reconciled in
favour of backward classes under Article 16(4) in such a manner that the
latter while se1i'ing the cause of backward classes shall not unreasonably
encroach upon the field do equality. [867-G-H; 868-A-EJ
B
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, [1992] Supp. 3 SCC 217, followed.
M.R. Balaji v. State of Jvfysore, [1963) Supp. 1SCC439; TDevadasan
v. Union of India [1964) 4 SCR 680; R.K. Sabhanval v. State of Punjab
[1995) 2 SCC 745; State of Bihar v. Bageshwari Prasad, [1995] Supp. lSCC
432; C.A. Rajendran v. Union of India, AIR (1968) SC 507; State ofA.P. v.
C USV Balaram, AIR (1972) SC 1375 and Trilokinath v. State of J. & K., AIR
(1967) SC 1283, relied on.
D
E
General Manager SE Railway v. Rangachari, [1962) 2 SCR 586,
referrld to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: R. P. (C) No. 1749of1997
in Civil Appeal No. 3175 of 1997 Etc. Etc.
From the Judgment and Order dated 3.9.92 of the Punjab & Haryana
High Court in LP.A. No. 954/92 in C.W.P. No. 15313of1990.
T.R. Andhyarujina, Solicitor General, U.S. Usgaonkar, Additional Solicitor
General, D.S. Nehra, N.N. Goswami, R.K. Jain, H.K. Puri, R.S. Sodhi, E.C.
Agrawala, Atul Sharma, Mahesh Agarwal, S.K. Mehta, Ranbir Yadav, Ms.
Ranjana Narayan, Subrat Birla, Wasim A. Qadri, Ms. Niranjana Singh, Anil
Katiyar, P. Parmeswaran, S.K. Verma, Suresh Ch. Gupta, S.C. Paul, Jitendra
l
' ..
F Chaudhry, Ms. Rekha Pandey and L.K. Pandey for the appearing parties.
f-.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G.N. RAY, J. In all these matters a common question arises for decision
G as to whether in a single cadre post reservation for the backward classes,
namely, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other backward classes can
be made either directly or by applying rotation of roster point. There are
conflicting decisions of this Court on the question of such reservation in a
single cadre post.
H
The learned counsel for tile parties in all tllese matters have agreed tllat
)..
'
j
r
P.G.L CHANDIGARH v. FACULTY ASSOCIATION [G.N. RAY, J.] 849
the question of law as to the constitutional validity of reservation in a single A
cadre post is to be decided by the Constitution Bench and thereafter the
cases will be placed before the appropriate Bench for disposal on merits in
accordance with decision rendered by this Bench. Therefore, the question of
constitutional validity of reservation in a single cadre post either directly or
by rotation of roster point has been considered by us and we have not taken
into consideration other contentions raised in these matters.
In support of the contention that reservation can be made not only in
respect of the promotional post but also in respect of a single post in a cadre,
B
Mr. E.C. Agrawala, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in CA No.
2346/81, Mr. Puri, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in CA No. 2345 C
of 1981, Mr. R.K. Jain, learned senior counsel appearing for the Intervenor in
the review petition filed in CA No. 317 5 of 1997 on behalf of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes Employees Welfare Association, Post Graduate
Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, and Mr.
Andhyarujina, learned Solicitor General appearing for the appellant in SLP (C) D
No. 13148 of 1997 for the petitioner Union of India have made elaborate
submissions. Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel appearing in support of
the review petition in CA No. 3175 of 1997 has opposed the contention that
a reservation can be made in respect of a single post cadre. Other learned
counsel appearing in these matters have adopted the rival contentions, without E
advancing any separate argument.
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 of roster.
Mr. Sibal has contended that the very concept of carry forward or the principle F
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) G
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.
H
850
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1998] 2 S.C.R.
A
Mr. SilJal has contended that the impugned judgment cannot be
supported because (a) reservation of super speciality is against the decision
of a Nine Judges· Bench decision of this Court in Indra SmFlmey etc. v.
Union of India and Ors., (1992) Supp. 3 SC 217. and (b) no reservation in a
single cadre post is permissible in law. Mr. Sibal has submitted that both in
the impugned judgment and also in the judgment of Union of India and Anr.
B v. Madin\' and Anr., [1997] 2 sec 332, on which reliance has been made in
the impugned judgment, the ratio in the decision of Ara ti Ray Choudhury v.
Union of India and Ors., [1974] l SCC 87, was wrongly appreciated and the
ratio was wrongly stated. Mr. Sibal has drawn the attention of the Court to
the observations of Justice Reddy speaking for majority decision on Article
C 335 of the Constitution as contained in paragraph 112 of the decision in Indra
Sawhney :1· case which are as follows:-
D
E
F
G
H
"While ou Article 335, we are of the opinion that there are certain
services and positions where either on account of the nature of duties
attached to them or the level (in the hierarchy) at which they obtain,
merit as explained hereinabove, alone counts. In such situations it
may not be advisable to provide for reservations.
For example,
technical posts in research and development organisations/
departments/institutions, in specialities and super-specialities in
medicine, engineering and other such courses in physical sciences
and mathematics, in defence services and in the establishments
connected therewith. Similarly, in the case of posts at the higher
echelons e.g. Professors (in Education), Pilots in Indian Airlines and
Air India, Scientists and Technicians in nuclear and space application,
provision for reservation would not be advisable.
xxx
xxx
xxx
Be that as it may we are of the opinion that in certain sen·ices and
in respect of certain posts. application of the rule of rescn'ation may
not be advisable for the reason indicated hereinbefore. Some of them
are : (1) Defence Services including all technical posts therein ·but
excluding civil posts. (2) All technical posts in establishments engaged
in production of defence equipment. (3) Teaching posts of Professors
-above if any, ( 4) Posts in super specialities in Medicine, engineering
and other scientific and technical subjects. (5) Posts of pilots (and copilots) in Indian Airlines and air India. The lisi given above is merely
illustrative and not exhaustive. It is for the Government of India to
,..
P.G.J. CHANDWARH v. FACULTY ASSOCIATION [G.N. RAY, J.] 851
consider and specify the service and .posts to which the Rule of A
reservation shall not apply but on that account the implementation of
impugned office Memorandum dated 13th August, 1990 cannot be
stayed or withheld.
We may point out that the services posts enumerated above, on
account of their nature and duties attached, are such as call for B
highest level of intelligence, skill and excellence. Some of them are
second level and third level posts in the ascending order. J-lence, they
form a catego1y apart. Reservation therein may noi be consistent with
"efficiency of administration" contemplated by Art. 3 35.
We may add that we see no particular relevance of Article 38(2) c
in this context. Article 16(4) is also a measure to ensure equality of
status besides equality of opportunity."
Mr. Sibal has also submitted that the reservation for the socially,
economically and educationally backward classes is made so that the members D
of such backward classes do not fail to get adequate representation in public
employment on account of facing open competition. But such reservation
cannot be and should not be made for posts in higher echelons where merit
and expertise are essential and also necessary for discharging the duties and
responsibilities of such positions in higher echelons of service. Mr. Justice
Reddy in the majority decision, which was also concurred by Justice Pandian, E
has pointed out that there are some services and positions where either on
account of the nature of duties attached to them or the level in the hierarchy
at which they obtain, merit alone counts. Jn such situations, it may not be
advisable to provide for reservation and in that context, by way of illustration,
enumerated certain positions including the technical posts in the Establishment F
engaged in Research and Development, the teaching posts of Professors and
above, the posts of super-specialities in Medicine, Engineering and other
Scientific and Technology subjects, and also posts of pilots and co-pilots in
Indian Airlines and Air India. Mr. Sibal has submitted that by and large, in
the higher echelons of service, there is a single post cadre. The appointment
to the posts of Professors or Readers in the super-speciality of Medicine in G
an advanced institution like the Post Graduate lnsfrtute of Medical Research
~
& Education in Chandigarh, appointments must be made strictly on the basis
of selection,on merits and any attempt of reservation by whatever method will
not only be against law laid down by this court but also against the larger
interests of the country.
H
852
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1998) 2 S.C.R
A
Mr. Sibal has contended that in M.R. Bnlaji & Ors. v. State of Mysore,
B
[1963] Supp. I SCR 439, this Court struck down the order by which 68'% of
seats in educational institutions were reserved for the members of Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes and other educationally backward classes. This
Court did not suggest any percentage which should be reserved for such
backward classes but indicated that the reservation has to be made keeping
in mind the interests of the community as a whole and such percentage of
reservation would be less than 50%. How much less of 50% is to be reserved,
would however depend on the facts and circumstances of a given case.
Mr. Sibal has also submitted that in the Constitution Bench decision of
C this Court in T. Devadasan v. The Union of India & A111:, [ 1964] 4 SCR 680,
the majority view is that in order to effectuate the guarantee contained in
Article 16(1), each year of recruitment is to be considered separately by itself
for the reservation for backward classes. In Ara ti Ray Choudhury s case
(supra) a Constitution Bench of this Court has clearly held that the reservation
for backward community should not be so excessive as to create a monopoly
D or to disturb unduly the legitimate claim of other communities. It has also
been specifically indicated in the said decision that if there are two vacancies
to be filled up in a particular year, not more than one vacancy can be treated
as reserved. In th(; decision in Arati Ray Choudhury 's case, the earlier decision
in M.R. Balaji's case was noticed and followed and no departure from the
E decision in Devadasan's case was made.
Mr. Sibal has submitted that in D1: Chakradhar PaSlVan v. State of
Bihar & Ors., [1988] 2 SCC 14, after relying on the decisions inArati Roy
Choudhury, M.R. Balaji and Devadasan :~. cases, it has been held that for
implementing 50-point roster, isolated and separate posts in different specialities
F cannot be clubbed together. It has also been held that 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 thereby violating Article 16(1) and 16(4)
of the Constitution.
G
Mr. Sibal has submitted that the three-Judges' Bench decision in
A fadhav :5, case (supra) is the principal judgment which has taken a contrary
view by holding that even in case of a single post cadre, reservation can be
made by applying the principle of rotation and by that process can avoid the
bar of reservation of 100%. Such decision is based on a wrong reading of the
H decision in Arati Roy Choudhury 's, case and on an erroneous appreciation of
...--
'
•
-
~
P.G.l. CHANDIGARH v. FACULTY ASSOCIATION [G.N. RAY. J.] 853
Articles 16(1). 16(4) and 16(4-A) of the Constitution. The impugned decision A
in the case of Post-Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research has
been made by relying on the decision in Madhav's case and following the
reasonings contained in the said decision. Therefore, the said decision cannot
be sustained and the impugned judgment should be set aside by allowing the
review petition.
B
Mr. E:C. Agrawala, learned counsel for the appellant in C.A. No. 2346/
1981, has however submitted that the principle of carry forward in a single
post cadre is a device which serves the purpose of reservation for the
backward classes, consistent with the Directive Principles of the Constitution
and the policy of reservation enshrined in the constitution. Such principle of C
carrying forward in a single post by applying the rotation of roster. affords
opportunities for getting appointment of the members of backward classes on
some occasions but throwing such appointment for open competition on
othe,· occasions by de-reserving the vacancy on such occasions. If such
principle of rotation of roster is not applied in the case of single post cadre, D
the very purpose of reservation under Article 16( 4) will be made nugatory. Mr.
Agrawala has submitted that since some observation was made against
reservation to a promotional post in the decision in Indra Sawhney's case,
sub Article 4 A of Article 16 has been incorporated by the 77th Amendment
of the Constitution. Such amendment clearly reflects the anxiety of the
Legislature to ensure reservation at all stages of public employment including E
promotional posts. Mr. Agrawala has submitted that in Arati Roy Choudhury's
case, the Constitution Bench upheld the appointment of a member of the
Scheduled Caste Scheduled Tribe which was reserved for such category even
though at the relevant year, there was only one vacancy to be filled up in
respect of the post of Head Mistress. Therefore, it will not be correct to
contend that the Constitution Bench in Arati Ray Choudhury's case has not F
upheld reservation of a single vacancy in the cadre in a particular year by
applying the principle of roster. Mr. Puri, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant in CA 2345 of 1981 has also made similar submissions.
Mr. RK Jain, learned senior counsel appearing for the intervenors in the G
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 is to be excluded. If, therefore. there
is no prohibition under any kw 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 H
854
SUPREME cf>oRT REPORTS
[1998] 2 S.C.R.
A 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 e\'en when the post is a
single post cadre. Mr. Jain has submitted that in the matter of implementation
B of rotation of roster in a single post cadre, c\·en 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
C 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.
D
Mr. Jain has also submitted that in Chakradhar Paswan's case (supra),
the ratio in Arati Ray Choudhury's case was not appreciated and followed.
Referring to the decision in Indra Sawhney 's case. Mr. Jain has submitted that
in Indra Sawhney's case the ratio in Arati Ray Choudhury's case or in
Paswan 's case was not considered. Therefore, the decision in Indira Sawhney's
E case is not an authority for the issues involved in the case under consideration.
Mr. Jain has submitted that the mechanism of roster has been evolved to
balance justice for all segments of the society so that in the higher echelons
of service, a single post is also made available to the backward classes by
reserving such post only periodically on the basis of rotation of the roster
point. Such mechanism does not offend any provision of the Constitution. He
F has ~ubmitted that the three Judges' Bench in Madhav's case has analysed
all the decisions having relevance on the question of reservation of a single
post cadre, and has upheld such reservation in a single post cadre by
applying the roster. Therefore, the impugned decision in the Post Graduate
Institute· of Medical Education and Research Chandigarh, does not warrant
G any interference by this Court.
Mr. Andhyamjina, the learned Solicitor General has also supported the
reservation of a single post cadre with the aid of rotation of roster. He has
invited in attention of the Court to Office Memorandum No. 36012/2/96-Estt.
(Res) issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions
H (Department of Personnel and Training) of the Government of India in respect
I
-
.,
...
-
P.G.l. CHANDIGARH v. FACULTY ASSOCIATION [G.N. RAY, J] 855
of reservation roster for implementation of the Supreme Court judgment in A
R.K. Sahhamal and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors., [1995) 2 SCC 745. After
indicating in short, the purport of the decision of this Court in the said case,
it has been indicated in the said Office Memorandum that .. \\·ith a view to
bringing the policy of reservation in line with the law laid down by the
Supreme Court. it has been decided that the existing 200 point, 40 point and B
120 point vacancy-based rosters shall be replaced by post based rosters. All
the Ministries/Departments and concerned authorities are requested to prepare
the respective rosters based on the principles elaborated in the Explanatory
Notes given in Annexure - I to this O.M. and illustrated in the Model Rosters
annexed to this O.M. as Annexure-II, Ill and IV Similarly. the concerned C
authorities may prepare rosters to replace the existing 100 point rosters in
respect of local recruitment to Group C and D posts on the basis of the same
principles."
Paragraph 4 of the said O.M. contains the principles for preparing the
rosters elaborated in the Explanatory Notes. Clause (e) of the said paragraph D
4 indicating the principles for preparing the rosters is relevant for consideration
in this case and the same is to the following effect:
"In smal! cadres of upto 13 posts, the method prescribed for
preparation of rosters does not permit reservation to be made for all E
the three categories. In such cases, the administrative Ministries/
Departments may consider grouping of posts in different cadres as
prescribed in this Department's O.M. No. 42/21/49-NGS dated 28.1.1952
and subsequent orders reproduced at pages 70 and 7 4 of the Brochure
on Reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Eighth F
Edition) and prepare common rosters for such groups. In the event it
is not possible to resort to such grouping the enclosed rosters
(Appendices to Annexures-11, III and IV) for cadre strength upto 13
posts may be followed. The principles of operating these rosters are
explained in the explanatory notes.
Appendix to AnneJ\ure Ill contains t11e model roster for promotion in the
cadre strength up to 13 posts; whereas Appendix to Annexure IV contains
the roster for direct recruitment otherwise than through open competition for
cadre strength upto 13 posts. Charts indicating the Appendix to Annexure III
and the Appendix to Annexure IV are set out as hereunder:
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
856
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1998] 2 S. C.R.
Cadre Initial lst 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th I !th 12th 13th
I.
UR UR UR UR UR SC UR UR UR UR
UR
UR
ST
2.
UR UR UR UR UR SC UR UR UR UR UR UR ST
1
UR UR
UR UR SC UR UR UR UR UR UR
ST
4.
UR UR UR SC UR UR UR UR UR UR ST
5.
UR UR
SC UR UR UR UR UR UR ST
6.
UR SC
UR UR UR UR UR UR ST
7.
SC UR
UR UR UR UR UR ST
8.
UR UR UR UR UR UR ST
9.
UR UR
UR UR UR ST
10.
UR UR UR UR ST
11.
UR UR UR ST
12.
UR UR
ST
13.
UR ST
Note : For cadres of 2 to I 3 posts the roster is to be read from entry
I under column Cadre Strength till the last post and then horizontally till the
last entry in the horizontal row i.e. "L""
'r
~
"""-=
r
"
)' .,.
2.
All the posts of a cadre are to be earmarked or the categories
,,_
G
shown under column initial appointment while initial filling up
\\ill be by the earmarked category, the replacement against any
of the post in the cadre shall be by rotation as shown horizontally
ag3inst the last post of the cadre.
3.
The relevant rotation by the indicated reserved category could
be skipped over if it leads to more than 50% representation of
reserved category.
Roster for direct recruitment otherwise than through open competition
H for cadre strength upto 13 posts.
--
-
PG.I CHANDIGARH v. FACULTY ASSOCIATION [G.N. RAY, J.] 857
Cadre Initial 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 1 lth 12th 13th
L
UR UR UR OBC UR UR SC OBC UR UR UR OBC SC ST
2.
UR UR OBC UR UR SC OBC UR UR UR OBC SC ST
3.
UR OBC UR UR SC OBC UR UR UR OBC SC ST
4.
OBC UR UR SC OBC UR UR UR OBC SC ST
5.
UR UR SC OBC UR UR UR OBC SC ST
6.
UR SC OBC UR UR UR OBC SC ST
7.
SC OBC UR UR UR OBC SC ST
8.
OBC UR UR UR OBC SC ST
9.
UR UR UR OBC SC ST
10.
UR UR OBC SC ST
11.
UROBC SC ST
12.
OBC SC ST
13.
SCST
Note l. For cadres of 2 to 13 posts the roster is to be read from entry
l under column cadre strength till the last post and then
horizontally till the last entry in the horizontal tow i.e. like "L"
2.
All the posts of a cadre are to be earmarked for the categories
shown under column initial appointment. While initial filling up
will be by the earmarked category, the replacement against any
of the post in the cadre shall be by rotation as shown horizontally
against the last post of the cadre.
3.
The relevant rotation by the indicated reserved category could
be skipped over it leads to more than 50% representation of
reserved category.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
Referring to such model roster. the learned Solicitor General has
submitted that in case of promotion in a single post cadre, for the initial H
858
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1998] 2 S.~.R.
A recruitment, tJ1e post will remain 'unresen·ed« Similarly, for the !st 2nd 3rd 4ili
5th subsequent vacancies in such single cadre post, such posts shall be
treated as unreserved but for the 6th subsequent vacancy, the post will be
resef\'ed for scheduled castes. Again from 7th to 12th subsequent vacancies
will be treated as unreserved but the ! 3th vacancy will be treated as reserved
for Scheduled Tribes. So far as the roster for direct recruitment, othenvise
B than through open competition. the Appendix to Annexure IV indicates that
if the cadre strength is only one then the initial recrnitment and the first and
second successive recruitment will be made on the basis of open competition
but the tlurd successive vacancy will be resef\'ed for members of the backward
classes. The fqurth successive vacancies will be treated as unreserved: sixth
C successive vacancy will be resen ed for the members of Scheduled Castes:
7th successive vacancy shall be reserved for members of other backward
classes: 8th, 9th and I 0th successive vacancies will be filled up by open
competition but the 11th successive vacancy shall be reserved for OBCs', the
12th for scheduled castes and 13th for scheduled tribes.
D
The learned Solicitor General has further submitted with reference to the
aforesaid Charts, that the Charts have been prepared for balancing the felt
need for reservation of single cadre post, usually in the higher echelons of
sen•ice in such a manner that the opportunities for employment are shared
by the members belonging to the reserved categories and also by the other
E members i.e. members not belonging to reserved categories. According to
him, if the vacancies are filled up in respect of single post cadre by following
the afores:iid Charts, the interests of socially and economically backward
classes and also other members of the community at large "~ll be met without
seriously affecting the interests of either the members belonging to reserved
classes or the members not belonging to any of the reserved categories.
F Under such mechanism, only of certain occasions the vacancies are to be
filled up by treating such vacancies 'reserved' for members of a particular
class of reserved categories, namely, scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and
other backward classes but on other occasions the post in the single cadre
\\'ill not be treated as reserved_
G
..
- The learned Solicitor has submitted tliat the constitutional validity of
resenation for socially and economically backward classes has been upheld
by this Court. The learned Solicitor has also submitted that after the judgment
of this Court in R.K. Sabharwal 's case suitable directions have been issued
relating to rotation of roster m conformity wiili the law laid down by this
H Court. He has submitted if a reference is made to the Chart containing the
\ -,.
l-
P.G.I. CHANDIGARH v. FACULTY ASSOCIATION [G.N. RAY, J.] 859
model roster for appointment by promotion for a single cadre post, it will be A
-
crystal clear that the initial recruitment is unreserved and out of subsequent
~ "
13 vacancies. only 7th and 13th vacancies are meant for members of scheduled
.........
castes and scheduled tribes. Similarly the roster for direct recruitment othenvise
than by promotion it is indicated that if it is a single post cadre then not only
the initial recruitmem but the first and second successive recruitment will be B
treated as unreserved. Similarly, the 4th, 5th, 8th, 9th and 10th successive
'
vacancies will also be treated as 'unreserved' but the 3rd, 6th, 7th, 11th, 12th,
/
and 13th will be kept reserved for members of other backward classes,
scheduled castes and scheduled tribes respectively. The learned Solicitor has
submitted that such device of appointment by rotating the roster fulfils the
felt need of reservation and also eschews the vice of reservation beyond 50% c
for the members of the reserved classes. Since the post is a single post in
the cadre, unless such device is adopted there will be no occasion for
resen,ation of such post at any point to time.
The learned Solicitor has also submitted that in Arati Roy Choudhry's D
,,,
case, the Constitution Bench has approved the action taken in filling up of
..
a single vacancy which occurred in a particular year for the post of Head
Mistress by applying the rotation of roster, because such rotation of roster
served the avowed purpose of reservation by delicately balancing the interests
of the members of the reserved classes and other members of the community
not belonging to any reserved class. The learned Solicitor has further urged E
that the decision of the three Judges' Bench in Madhav's case has indicated
the correct principle by giving very cogent reasons and such decision does
not offend any of the provisions of the Constitution and does not come in
conflict with the decisions of the larger Bench of this Court. Therefore, no
interference is called for against the decision in Madhav's case and the other
F
decisions rendered by following the decision in Madhav's case.
In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, it would be
appropriate to refer to the Constitution Bench decisions of this Court made
in M.R. Balaji, T. Devadasan and Arati Ray Choudhary's cases (supra). In
Arati Ray Choudhury's case, decision in Balaji and Devadasan were referred
to and followed. Since both the sides have relied on the decisions in Arati G
---
Ray Choudhury's case, it will also be appropriate to consider the decision in
Arati Ray Choudhury's case·in some detail.
In Balaji's case, the Constitution Bench has held that the reservation
should and must be allowed to advance the prospects of weaker sections of H
860
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1998] 2 S.C.R.
A the society, but while doing so, care should be taken not to exclude admission
to higher educational standmJs of deserving and qualified conditions of
other commumties. It has also been indicated that reservation under Arts.
~
15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution must be within a reasonable limit. The
interests of the weaker sections of the so1;1ety, which are a first charge on the
B
States and the Centre, have to be adjusted with the interests of the community
as a whole. The objective of Art. 15(4) is to advance the inten:sts of the
weaker clements in society. If a provision under Art. 15(4) ignores the interesb
of the society, that is clearly outside the purview of Art. 15(4). It is therefore,
""
quite evident that the Constitution Bench in Balaji 's case has clearly indicated
that in giving effect to reservations for the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled
c Tribes and other backward classes. a balance is to be struck so that the
interests of the backward classes and the members of the scheduled castes
and scheduled tribes are properly balanced with the interests of the other
segments of the society, and in order to safeguard the interests of the
reserved classes the interest of the community as a whole can not be ignored.
In Devadasan's case (supra), the majority decision of four Judges (Justice
D Subba Rao dissenting) was to the effect that the carry-forward rule as a result
of which the applicants belonging to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes
could get more than 50% of the vacancies to be filled up in a particular year,
is unconstitutional. It has also been indicated that Art 14 will not be infringed
if certain proportion of appointments of the State_ in order to provide the
E
backward classes an opportunity equal to that of the members of more
advanced classes is made, provided that the reservation is not so exercised
which would amount to practically deny a reasonable opportunity of
employment to the members of the other communities. It was indicated that
under Art. 16 (4) of the Constitution, reservation ofa reasonable percentage
for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes is valid and within the
F competence of the States or the Centre. But it is necessary that a reasonable
balance between backward classes and other members of the society is to be
.>C
struck and maintained. In the decision of Devadasan's case (supra) reliance
J
was also placed on the decision in Balaji' s case and another Constitution
Bench decision of this court in General Manager S.E.Railway v. Rangachari,
[1962] 2 SCR 586. In the majority decision in Rangachari's case, it has been
G held that Arts. 16(1) and 16(2) are intended to give effect to Arts. 14 and 15
of the constitution and these Articles form parts of the same Constitutional
code of guarantees and supplement each other. Art. 16(1) should, therefore,
ibe construed i~-a broad and gen~ral way, and n~t in pedantic and technical
way. When so construed, matters relating to employment cannot mean merely
H matters prior to the act of appointment nor can 'appointment to any office'
PG I CHANDIGARH v. FACULTY ASSOCIATION [G.N. RAY, J.] 861
mean merely the initial appointment but must include all matters relating to A
employment, whether prior or subsequent to the employment.