JUDGMENT
Verma, J.
1. The petitioner who is Scheduled Caste is also B.E. in Electrical was selected by the Public Service Commission as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) in July 1991 vide Annexure-1. He is confirmed Assistant Engineer. As per the seniority of the Assistant Engineers (Electrical) as published on 1.4.1999, his seniority No. was 17. On the recommendations made by the DPC held on 7.3.2000 in terms of Rule 24 (A) of the Rajasthan Service of Engineers (B & R Branch) Rules, 1954 (here-in-after called the Rules), the petitioner was promoted against the quota of 1999-2000 on the basis of seniority cum merit on 30.3.2000 vide Annexure-3, ever since he was working continuously as Executive Engineer (Electrical) in Public Works Department. He was reverted vide order dated 10.7.2000 to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) on the ground that no post of Executive Engineer (Electrical) was available and being the junior most, he could not be retained. A copy of the reversion order is attached as Annexure-4.
2. The petitioner submits that the order of reversion is illegal and challenges on the ground; (1) that there were 10 vacancies of the Executive Engineer available and as per roster for the category of Scheduled caste, he was entitled to be retained in service on the roster point either at roster point 1 or at roster point 7 as there was no other Scheduled Caste available for holding the post; (2) that having been regularly promoted by the DPC, no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before reverting him; (3) that generally once the Executive Engineer is promoted by the DPC, he is never reverted and such officer is adjusted against the un-categorised vacancy and he had given number of examples and precedents of such action.
3. II is also the case of the petitioner that there were originally 12 vacancies in the category of Executive Engineer but on account of reduction of two vacancies, 10 vacancies were still available. The petitioner made representations to this fact which have been placed on record.
4. Per contra, as per reply filed by the respondents, it is the case of the respondent that the petitioner was promoted when two vacancies were made available for deputation in the department of Rajaslhan Energy Development Agency (REDA) and on abolition of said two posts in REDA, the petitioner who was adjusted in REDA as one of the Executive Engineer was sent back and for the reason that all the 10 vacancies in me department stood already filled up, the petitioner had to be reverted. It has been contravened that not the first but the 7th vacancy of the roster was available for Scheduled Caste within 100 point roster for the purpose of promotion. According to the respondent the first reservation point for Scheduled Caste comes at point No.7 and second at 13 and, therefore, out of first 10 point of the roster 7th point was reserved for Scheduled Caste but of the time it became ripe for the DPC, no Scheduled Caste was available for the promotion on the post of Executive Engineer (Electrical) and it was carried forward. It is Stated that the petitioner was confirmed as Assistant Engineer on 15.12.1999 and he became eligible only on 15.12.1999 and he became eligible only on 15.12.1999. The respondent relies on the instructions in this regard which have been attached as Schedule I, II and III along with the circular which has been marked as Annexure R/1. According to the respondent it was the 7th vacancy which was to be ear-marked for the Scheduled Caste candidate 7th vacancy is said to have come up for consideration for promotion sometime in the year 1997-98.
5. Reliance is also placed oh the instructions dated 9.10.2000 attached as Annexure-A to the rejoinder to the effect that the reserved vacancy for SC/ST in all cases of direct recruitment and promotion, wherever applicable, which have remained unfilled in the earlier years i.e. backlog and/or carried forward vacancies would be treated as a separate and distinct group and will not be considered together with the reserved vacancies of the year in which they are being filled up for determining the ceiling of 50% reservation on total number of vacancies of that year. Meaning thereby that 50% of filling up the reserved vacancies would only apply on the reserved vacancies which arise in the current year and the backlog/carried forward reserved vacancies for SCs/STs of earlier year would be treated as a separate and distinct group and would not be subject to any ceiling.
6. As per Schedule I of the Rules under Item No. 7 in regard to recruitment of Executive Engineer (Electrical), it is provided that the post of Executive Engineer shall be filled up 100% by-promotion from amongsts the Assistant Engineer (Electrical) who possess B.E. (Electrical) or qualification declared equivalent by Government with 5 years experience as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) or if Diploma Holder from recognised institution 15 years service as Assistant Engineer (Electrical). The petitioner is B.E. (Electrical) and was recruited in the year 1991.
7. At the time of promotion on 30.3.2000, he was duly qualified and eligible.
8. The respondent has produced the record and also proceedings of the DPC held on 7.3.2000 for the post of Executive Engineer (Electrical). The number of vacancies to be filled up by the DPC were three i.e. two belonging to the general and one belonging to Scheduled Caste. The selection was made on seniority-cum-merit. Shri Pradeep Soni and Shri S.V. Saxena were selected from general quota whereas the petitioner Birdhi Chand was selected from amongst the reserved quota. The proceedings of the earlier DPC meeting before 1999-2000 have not been produced in the court.
9. From the above narration of facts it is clear that the department had 10 vacancies in the cadre apart from two vacancies meant for REDA. It is immaterial whether the petitioner or any the Executive Engineer is sent on deputation to REDA. The right of the petitioner is to be determined on the basis of reserved vacancies on
resler point out of 10 vacancies. It is admitted fact that the roster point at No.7 even it be assumed that this is first vacancy meant for SC at 100 roster point, is to be filled from amongst the SC candidate if they were so available and eligible. The petitioner was B.E. He had more than five years of service in the year 1997 and under the rules was eligible on roster point to be considered immediately for the year 1997-98. His name was not considered. It is misconception on the part of the respondent to say that no SC candidate was available and, therefore, the vacancy was carried forwarded. Even it be so carried forwarded, still the vacancy was to be filled up out of SC candidate as backlog. It cannot be said that the petitioner was not available in the year 1997-98 as per the qualifications laid down for the promotion to the post of Executive Engineer but in any case the petitioner was considered in the DPC for 1999- 2000 and was promoted from amongsts the SC quota and even if some vacancy is reduced because of deputation to REDA, the petitioner could not have been reverted back to the post of Assistant Engineer as he was to be offered the vacancy of Executive Engineer at roster point No.7. The exercise of the respondent in reverting the petitioner in the circumstances, is not correct, resultantiy out of ten vacancies in the cadre, there is none from SC, even though roster point No.7 as admitted by the respondent is to be filled up from amongsts the SC candidate.
10. The contention of the respondent that the petitioner was only promoted because of two deputation vacancies having been made available for REDA has no bearing or relevancy in the present case. The petitioner having been so selected by the DPC, he might have been posted as Executive Engineer in REDA on deputation or otherwise anywhere also but on reversion from REDA, he cannot be asked to revert back to the post of Assistant Engineer when SC roster vacancy No.7 was available for the him for which post as a matter of fact he should have been considered much earlier than the year of 1999-2000.
11. Under Rule 24(A)(3), the petitioner had become eligible as he was confirmed in the lower post from where he was to be promoted in the year 1999 at the time of holding of DPC in the year 1999-2000, the petitioner was fully qualified to hold the post.
12. For the above-said reasons and discussions, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and is allowed with costs of Rs. 2000/-. The order of reversion of the petitioner is setaside.