Case Note & Summary
The writ petition was filed by A. Suresh, a Station Officer in the Fire Services Department, Government of Puducherry, who belongs to the Scheduled Caste category. He sought promotion to the post of Additional Divisional Fire Officer (ADFO), which is the next avenue of promotion. The petitioner contended that a roster was maintained for the ADFO cadre from its inception, and the 7th point in the roster was reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates. However, the respondents promoted an unreserved category candidate to that vacancy, denying him promotion. He made a representation stating he had completed the required eight years of service for the ADFO post. The petitioner relied on an Office Memorandum dated 02.07.1997, which replaced the earlier 200-point, 40-point, and 120-point vacancy-based rosters with a post-based roster. He argued that under Clause 5 of the OM, during the initial operation of the post-based roster, the earlier appointments made at the inception of the cadre must be considered and adjusted to determine the correct roster points. The respondents failed to do so, leading to the denial of his rightful promotion. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, had dismissed his Original Application (O.A.No.231 of 2016) on 19.01.2022. The High Court, after hearing the parties, found that the Tribunal's order was erroneous. The Court held that the respondents had not properly implemented the post-based roster as per the OM, and the petitioner was entitled to promotion to the 7th reserved point. Consequently, the Court quashed the Tribunal's order and directed the respondents 2 to 4 to promote the petitioner as ADFO in the vacancy falling in the 7th reserved point in the roster, within a stipulated period.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Reservation in Promotion - Post-Based Roster - Implementation - The dispute pertains to promotion of a Scheduled Caste Station Officer to the post of Additional Divisional Fire Officer (ADFO) in the Fire Services Department, Government of Puducherry. The Court held that while implementing the post-based roster under the Office Memorandum dated 02.07.1997, the earlier appointments made at the inception of the cadre must be adjusted to determine the correct vacancy point for reserved category candidates. The respondents failed to do so, resulting in denial of promotion to the petitioner who was entitled to the 7th reserved point. (Paras 2-5)
B) Service Law - Reservation in Promotion - Office Memorandum 02.07.1997 - Clause 5 - Adjustment of Past Appointments - The Court interpreted Clause 5 of the OM to mean that during initial operation of the post-based roster, appointments made prior to the introduction of the roster must be taken into account to ascertain the roster points. The respondents' failure to adjust past appointments led to an incorrect roster position, and the petitioner's claim for promotion to the 7th reserved point was upheld. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Tribunal erred in not directing the respondents to promote the petitioner to the post of Additional Divisional Fire Officer (ADFO) in the 7th reserved point of the roster, and whether the respondents correctly implemented the post-based roster under the Office Memorandum dated 02.07.1997.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, in O.A.No.231 of 2016 dated 19.01.2022, and directed respondents 2 to 4 to promote the petitioner as Additional Divisional Fire Officer (ADFO) in the vacancy falling in the 7th reserved point in the roster.
Law Points
- Post-based roster
- reservation in promotion
- Scheduled Caste
- adjustment of past appointments
- Office Memorandum 02.07.1997
- 200-point roster
- 40-point roster
- 120-point roster
- vacancy based roster
- roster point determination
Case Details
2026 LawText (MAD) (02) 30
Writ Petition No.7865 of 2023 & WMP.No.8116 of 2023
C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, K.KUMARESH BABU
Mr.P.S.Raman Sr., Counsel assisted by Mr.J.Srinivasa Mohan for M/s.TVJ Associates for petitioner; Mr.Syed Mustafa, Spl.,G.P., (Puducherry) for RR1 to 4; Mr.N.Balamurali Krishna for Mr.R.Nandha Kumar for RR5 & 6
Union of India, By Government of Puducherry Rep., by its Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Puducherry – 1; The Secretary to Government, Fire Services Department, Secretariat, Government of Puducherry, Puducherry -1; The Additional Secretary to Govt., Home Department, Secretariat, Government of Puducherry, Puducherry -1; The Divisional Fire Officer, Fire Service Department, Government of Pondicherry – 605 001; Mr.Rithosh Chandra; Mr.J.,Mugundan; The Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, Rep., by its Registrar, Chennai – 600 104.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, in O.A.No.231 of 2016 dated 19.01.2022, and seeking a direction for promotion.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of the Tribunal's order and a direction to respondents 2 to 4 to promote him as Additional Divisional Fire Officer (ADFO) in the vacancy falling in the 7th reserved point in the roster.
Filing Reason
Petitioner, a Scheduled Caste Station Officer, was denied promotion to the post of ADFO despite being entitled to the 7th reserved point in the roster, and the Tribunal dismissed his application.
Previous Decisions
The Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, dismissed O.A.No.231 of 2016 on 19.01.2022.
Issues
Whether the Tribunal erred in not directing the respondents to promote the petitioner to the post of ADFO in the 7th reserved point of the roster?
Whether the respondents correctly implemented the post-based roster under the Office Memorandum dated 02.07.1997, particularly Clause 5 regarding adjustment of past appointments?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner's Senior Counsel argued that the petitioner, a Scheduled Caste candidate, was entitled to promotion to the 7th reserved point in the roster for ADFO, but the respondents promoted an unreserved category candidate instead. He relied on Office Memorandum dated 02.07.1997, which replaced vacancy-based rosters with post-based rosters, and submitted that under Clause 5, earlier appointments at the inception of the cadre must be adjusted to determine the correct roster points.
Respondents' counsel argued in support of the Tribunal's order, but the judgment does not detail their specific submissions.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court held that while implementing the post-based roster under the Office Memorandum dated 02.07.1997, the earlier appointments made at the inception of the cadre must be considered and adjusted to determine the correct vacancy point for reserved category candidates. The respondents' failure to do so resulted in denial of promotion to the petitioner, who was entitled to the 7th reserved point.
Judgment Excerpts
The learned Senior counsel by referring to an Office Memorandum that had been issued on 02.07.1997, would submit that the earlier policy of 200-point, 40-point, 120-point vacancy based rosters were replaced by post-based rosters.
Referring to clause 5 of the said Memorandum, he would submit that during the initial operation of such roster the earlier appointments made at the inception of the cadre have to be considered and adjust
Procedural History
The petitioner filed O.A.No.231 of 2016 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, which was dismissed on 19.01.2022. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition No.7865 of 2023 before the High Court of Judicature at Madras, which was reserved on 18.02.2026 and pronounced on 27.02.2026.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
