1999 INSC 0615
                                        SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                                                     S.R. Murthy

                                                           Vs.

                                                 State of Karnataka

                              (S V Manohar, K Venkataswami and M J Rao JJ.)

                                                      19.08.1999

                                                       ORDER
1. This appeal deals with the promotion given by the first respondent to the respondent No. 3 to the
post of Head of Section, Ceramics in a Government 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 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 who belonged to the
Scheduled Caste category was appointed since on the roster point, the vacancy was reserved for a
Scheduled Caste candidate.
2. The Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in the impugned judgment 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.
3. The Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Post-Graduate Institute of Medical Education
and Research, Chandigarh v. Faculty Association , 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 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 per cent reservation for the background
(backward) classes is not permitted within the constitutional framework.
4. 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.

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