Roster points for reservation apply only from the date a cadre achieves plurality of posts.

The petitioner, a Station Officer belonging to the Scheduled Caste (SC) category, challenged an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) which dismissed his claim for promotion to the post of Additional Divisional Fire Officer (ADFO).

The petitioner contended that as per the post-based roster system introduced via Office Memorandum (OM) dated 02.07.1997, the 7th vacancy in the cadre was reserved for SC candidates.

He argued that the roster should be calculated from the date of the cadre's inception, including the period when it was a single-post cadre.

Conversely, the government (Respondents 1-4) argued that the cadre consisted of a single post until 1997, and since reservation cannot apply to a single-post cadre, the roster only commenced once the posts became plural after 1997.

1. Whether the roster for reservation in a cadre must be operated from the date of inception of the cadre even if it was initially a single-post cadre.

2. Whether the promotion made in 2015 to the post of ADFO was liable to be reserved for an SC candidate as per Clause 5 of the Office Memorandum dated 02.07.1997.

The Court applied the principles governing post-based rosters as laid down in Office Memorandum dated 02.07.1997, specifically Clauses 5 and 6 regarding the adjustment of existing appointments at the stage of initial operation.

It primarily relied on the Constitutional Bench judgment in *Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research v. Faculty Assn.* (1998) 4 SCC 1, which established that reservation or the rotation of a roster cannot be applied to a single-post cadre as it would result in 100% reservation, violating the rights of the general category.

The Court reasoned that prior to 1997, the ADFO position was a singular post and therefore exempt from roster-based reservation as per settled law.

The Court rejected the petitioner's interpretation of Clause 5 of the 1997 OM—which suggests adjusting existing appointments from inception—noting that Clause 5 must be read in conjunction with Clause 6 and the principle of plurality.

The Court held that applying a roster retrospectively to a period when only a single post existed would effectively create a reservation where none was legally permissible.

Consequently, the department was correct in reckoning appointments for the purpose of the roster only from the point the cadre became plural (after 1997).

Under this calculation, the 2015 vacancy did not fall under the SC reserved point (Serial No. 7).

The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding no infirmity in the promotion of the private respondents (Respondents 5 & 6) based on merit.

The Writ Petition was dismissed, and the petitioner's prayer to be promoted against the 7th roster point was rejected.