SH. S.R. MURTHYversusTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

                                 SH. S.R. MURTHY                                         A
                                           v.
                   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

                                 AUGUST 19, 1999

         [MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR, K. VENKATASWAMI AND                                    B
                     M. JAGANNADHA RAO, JJ.)


         Service law:

          Promotion-Reservation for scheduled caste candidates-Government                C
    Polytechnic-Head of Ceramics Section-Appointment of the Scheduled caste


-   candidate on the post on the basis of roster, and person, senior to him
    belonging to general category ignored-Held, since the post was a single
    post, application of roster for purpose of promotion was not permissible-
    Promotion made on the basis of roster set aside.
                                                                                         D
          Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh
    v. Faculty Association and Ors., JT (1998) 3 SC 223- followed •

•         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4480 of 1990.

        From the Judgment and Order dated 3.5.89 of the Karnataka                        E
    Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore, in Application No. 2297 of 1988.

          Abhay N. Dass, for M.M. Kashyap for the Appellant.

          KH Nobin Singh, for M. Veerappa for the Respondents.

          The· following Order of the Court was delivered:                               F
          This appeal deals with the promotion given by the first respondent to
    the respondent No. 3 to the post of Head of Section, Ceramic in a Govermnent
    Polytechnic. There is no dispute that this is a single post. The first respondent,
    however, applied the roster relating to reservations to this post. Hence although    G
    the appellant was the senior-most person eligible for promotion to that post,
    he was not appointed. Instead, respondent No.3, who was junior to him, but
    belonged to the Scheduled Caste category was appointed since on the roster


.
    point, the vacancy was reserved for a Scheduled Caste candidate.

          The Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in the impugned judgment                 H
                                           639
    640                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A proceeded on the basis that since this was a promotional post, all promotional.
    vacancies would have to be rotated in accordance with the roster. Hence the
    promotion of respondent No.3 to the post of Head of Section, Ceramics, was
    a valid appointment.

          The Constitution Bench of this Court in the case. of Post Graduate
B Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh v. Faculty
    Association and Ors., JT (1998) 3 SC 223 has held, after discussing all
    decisions on this question, that:

                "In a single post cadre, reservation at any point of time on
            account of rotation or roster is bound to bring about a situation where
c           such 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 general members of the
            public and cent percent reservation for the background classes is not
            permitted within the constitutional frame work".
D         In the light of this ratio since the post in question was a single post,
    the application of the roster for the purpose of promotion was not permissible.

          The appeal is allowed and the impugned order of the Tribunal is set

E
    aside. The promotion of respondent No.3 on the basis of the roster is set
    aside. However, the salary already received by the third respondent in the
                                                                                      ---
    promotional post shall not be recovered.

    RP.                                                           Appeal allowed.