Promotions must comply with statutory reservation rosters and consider eligible Scheduled Caste candidates.

The petitioner, a Scheduled Caste candidate, was initially appointed as a Grade-IV Peon in the establishment of the Deputy Commissioner, Nalbari, under the Assam Public Services (Appointment of Family Members of Persons Killed by Extremists/Terrorists) Rules, 1992, and was subsequently appointed to the Grade-III post of Junior Assistant, redesignated as Junior District Administrative Assistant (“Jr.DAA”), on 21.07.2018; he joined on 01.08.2018 pursuant to earlier orders of the High Court.

A gradation list of Grade-III employees was published, and the petitioner’s name appeared at Serial No. 59. The cadre strength of Senior District Administrative Assistant (“Sr.DAA”) was stated to be 41 in the petitioner’s case, while the Court found the relevant roster to reflect a cadre strength of 42 posts.

Under the Assam Ministerial District Establishment Service Rules, 1967, as amended, Jr.DAAs having four years’ continuous service were eligible for promotion to Sr.DAA on the basis of seniority-cum-merit.

By order dated 09.06.2025, six Jr.DAAs were promoted to Sr.DAA under Rule 6(3)(5) of the 1967 Rules.

The petitioner challenged the promotion order, contending that the statutory Scheduled Caste reservation and roster had not been followed.

Section 4 of the Assam Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of Vacancies in Services and Posts) Act, 1978 provides reservation of 7% of posts for Scheduled Castes, while Section 5 requires establishments to implement reservation in promotions by maintaining the prescribed roster.

The applicable roster earmarked roster points 8, 22 and 36 for Scheduled Caste candidates in the relevant cadre.

Under the Assam Ministerial District Establishment Service Rules, 1967, a Jr.DAA with four years’ continuous service is eligible for promotion to Sr.DAA on the basis of seniority-cum-merit.

The Court noted the principles discussed in R.S. Garg v. State of U.P., (2006) 6 SCC 430, concerning the relationship between reservation percentages and roster operation, and Rajesh Kumar Daria v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, (2007) 8 SCC 785, concerning migration of reserved-category candidates selected on their own merit; however, it held that those authorities were not materially relevant to the facts of the present case.

The Court found that the relevant cadre consisted of 42 posts and that three roster points—8, 22 and 36—were reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates.

Although six promotions had been made, only one Scheduled Caste Jr.DAA had been promoted, leaving the statutory roster requirement unfulfilled.

The Court rejected the argument that respondent No. 6 occupied a Scheduled Caste-reserved post merely because the vacancy had previously been held by a Scheduled Caste employee.

Since the predecessor, Shri Homeswar Deka, had not been appointed against a Scheduled Caste-reserved post and had occupied an unreserved post on his own merit, the vacancy fell at roster point 21, not within the Scheduled Caste quota.

Consequently, the authorities had failed to apply the statutory reservation policy and roster while considering promotions, and the petitioner’s case required consideration as the senior-most eligible Scheduled Caste candidate in the Jr.DAA grade.

If found entitled, the petitioner was to receive consequential benefits in accordance with law.

The exercise was directed to be completed within three months from the date of the judgment.