Replacing the small-cadre roster with a 50-point promotional roster is legally valid.

The petitioner, a Scheduled Caste employee serving as Superintending Engineer, was appointed as an Assistant Engineer in 1995, promoted as Executive Engineer in 2022, and thereafter as Superintending Engineer in 2024. He claimed eligibility for promotion to Chief Engineer

The State’s Resolution No. 1072 dated 17 February 2009 prescribed, inter alia, a five-point roster for small cadres under Appendix IV and a 1–50 point model roster under Appendix III

By Resolution No. 1977 dated 12 March 2024, the State annulled the five-point roster and substituted the 1–50 point roster for promotional posts in cadres having fewer than 50 sanctioned posts

The cadre of Chief Engineers comprised 14 sanctioned posts. Three posts were already occupied by Scheduled Tribe officers, while 11 posts were vacant. The State proposed to fill the vacancies by continuing the roster from the point already reached, i.e. from points 11 to 21, rather than recalculating the roster afresh on the basis of the existing cadre strength

The petitioner challenged Resolution No. 1977, contending that its operation would result in three additional Scheduled Tribe promotions, producing six Scheduled Tribe officers out of 14 posts and thereby causing excessive reservation and over-representation

The State defended the resolution on the ground that the earlier five-point roster produced a shortfall in Scheduled Tribe representation and excess Scheduled Caste representation when applied over a 50-post cycle

Whether Resolution No. 1977 dated 12 March 2024, replacing the five-point roster with the 1–50 point roster for promotional posts in small cadres, was arbitrary, unconstitutional, or violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Whether the roster for the 14-post cadre of Chief Engineers was required to be recalculated with reference to the existing cadre strength, or could validly continue from the roster point already reached for filling future vacancies.

Whether the proposed operation of the roster would result in impermissible excessive reservation or over-representation of Scheduled Tribe candidates.

The Court applied Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, together with the Jharkhand Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services (SC/ST and BC) Act, 2001, under which 26% reservation is prescribed for Scheduled Tribes and 10% for Scheduled Castes in promotion

It relied principally on R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab, (1995) 2 SCC 745, which holds that reservation is to be calculated with reference to cadre strength, that a roster operates as a running account until the prescribed representation is achieved, and that subsequent vacancies must be filled according to the category attached to the relevant roster point

The Court also relied on Federation Haj PTOs of India v. Union of India, (2020) 18 SCC 527, and Small-Scale Industrial Manufacturers Association (Regd.) v. Union of India, (2021) 8 SCC 511, for the principle that judicial review examines the legality, and not the wisdom or comparative soundness, of executive policy

It further relied on P.U. Joshi v. Accountant General, Ahmedabad, (2003) 2 SCC 632, recognising the State’s authority to amend service conditions, promotional avenues, and roster policies, subject to constitutional limitations

The Court accepted the State’s justification for replacing the five-point roster. It noted that, over a 50-post cycle, the earlier Appendix IV roster resulted in only nine Scheduled Tribe posts and eight Scheduled Caste posts, whereas the statutory percentages required 13 Scheduled Tribe posts and five Scheduled Caste posts; the earlier system therefore caused a shortfall of four Scheduled Tribe posts and an excess of three Scheduled Caste posts

The substituted 1–50 point roster corresponded to the statutory allocation by providing 13 Scheduled Tribe posts and five Scheduled Caste posts in every 50-post cycle

Applying the principle in R.K. Sabharwal, the Court held that the roster had to operate as a running account until the prescribed roster points were reached, and that future vacancies were to be filled according to the category attached to the relevant roster point

Since the 14-post Chief Engineer cadre had already progressed up to roster point 10, the 11 vacancies could validly be filled from roster points 11 to 21

The Court also considered the change to be a policy decision within the State’s administrative competence and found no constitutional or legal perversity warranting judicial interference

It upheld the replacement of the five-point roster by the 1–50 point roster and approved its continued operation from the roster point already reached for filling vacancies in the Chief Engineer cadre

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed, and all pending interlocutory applications were closed