Supreme Court: In a case where the Court was called upon to decide the question relating to reservation for a single post, the bench of Dipak Misra and P.C. Pant, JJ held that reservation for a single post in a cadre will keep the general members of the public in total exclusion and would amount to 100% reservation which would violate Arts.16(1); and 16(4) of the Constitution. Hence, it was held that the question of reservation will arise only when there is plurality of post in the cadre.
Rejecting the argument made by the appellant that if a post is meant to be filled up by promotion from amongst the employees working in the feeder cadre, it would tantamount to reservation, the Court held that the concept of reservation which finds place in Art. 16(1); of the Constitution is only restricted to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes. It does not relate to the persons serving in the feeder cadre.
Explaining the “Note” to Regulation 2 framed under U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, which was in question in the present case, the Court held that the Regulation provides for 50% of the total number of posts to be promoted through promotion and the “Note” appended is an inseparable part of the Regulation and it lays down that in calculation of the 50% of the post less than half would be left and half or more than half post would be deemed as one. The Court, hence, held that if a singular post in the clerical cadre is there, it would be filled up by promotion from amongst the eligible candidates from the feeder cadre. Akhilesh Kumar Singh v. Ram Dawan, 2015 SCC OnLine SC 840, Decided on 23.09.2015
