JUDGMENT K.C. Agrawal, J. - This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by the employees posted in the Personnel Branch, Northern Railway, Allahabad. They held posts of Superintendent, Assistant Superintendents, Head Clerk or Senior Clerks in that branch. These were Class III posts. In the Personnel Branch, the entry post is Junior Clerk (Grade Rs. 260-400/-) from amongst whom promotions to the extent of 80 per cent are made as Senior Clerks Grade Rs. 300-500. From Senior Clerks, there are three Sub-Divisions, where promotees could go : 1. Personnel Inspector, Grade Rs. 425-660. 2. Head Clerk, Grade Rs. 425-700. 3. Welfare Inspector, Grade Rs. 425-650. 2. From Personnel Inspector avenue for promotion is to the post of Divisional Personnel Inspector and thereafter as Chief Inspector Grade Rs. 700-900. From Head Clerks promotions are to the post of (b-ii) Assistant Superintendents, Grade Rs. 550-770 and (b-iii) Superintendents Grade Rs. 700-900. The promotions from (d-i) Welfare Inspectors is to the post of (c-ii) Senior Welfare Inspectors Rs. 550-750, and to (c-iii) Senior Welfare Inspector Grade Rs. 700-900. 3. The petitioners alleged that on 27-4-1969 the Railway Board issued directions for reservation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (briefly stated as S.C. and S.T.) candidates for the posts filled by promotion in the Railways. In the counter-affidavit, the Railways have, however, stated that the latest orders of Railway Board issued under their letter No. 76-E(SCT)/15/10, dated 19-4-1976 provided for reservation of 15 per cent and 7 per cent for S.C. and S.T. employees respectively in respect of the posts filled by promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-suitability. The aforesaid letter was in supersession of the Railway Board's orders contained in letter No. E/SCT/72-CM-15/5, dated 11-1-1973. In order to secure the object of reservation of 15 per cent and per cent for S.C. and S.T. respectively the Railways invented method of 40 points-roster. This is media for filling up all the vacancies, whether reserved or unreserved. There are reservation points Nos. 1,8,14,22,28 and 36 for S.C. community candidates and points 4,17 and 31 for S.T. community candidates in the 40 points roster. This is media for filling up all the vacancies, whether reserved or unreserved. There are reservation points Nos. 1,8,14,22,28 and 36 for S.C. community candidates and points 4,17 and 31 for S.T. community candidates in the 40 points roster. If the number of candidates of the appropriate community is not available up to the extent the number of vacancies reserved in their favour at the time of promotion, the unfilled reserved vacancies may be filled by general candidates after de-reservation under order of the Railway Board and unfilled quota is carried forward to the subsequent three promotional years, during which the administration should exert all efforts to recoup the shortfall. Other points in roster are treated as unreserved and are not reserved for those which are filled by any candidate, whether S.C. or general by virtue of their position acquired in the select list/panel. The circular of the Railway Board dated 21-2-1976 provides, amongst others : (1) The prescribed quota is the minimum and not the maximum. (2) A Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe person appointed against an earlier point, even if it is unreserved, cannot be adjusted against subsequent reserved point according and/or filled at a subsequent date; and (3) All the points other than reserved points in the roster are to be treated as unreserved and not reserved for "others". 4. The petitioners contended that as reservation in promotion has been held to be valid by the Supreme Court, they cannot and do not, challenge the same. However, their contention is that those who succeed even on merits, have to be adjusted as against the seats of the reserved quota. In sum and substance, their contention is that the candidates of S.C. and S.T. who have been given promotion on their merits should be taken against the quota. For the purpose of illustrating their points, the petitioners have filed a chart showing that if the adjustment of the persons selected on seniority-cum-suitability basis from S.C. and S.T. is not made or accounted for as against reserved quota, time will come when 92 per cent of the promotional seats would be taken by the members of the two communities, some on the basis of seniority-cum-suitability whereas others on the basis of reservation of seats. Counsel's suggestion was that the method of adjustment of seats was the only constitutional way by which appointments of those on merits can be held to be legal. On adjustment of seats there would be harmony and there may not be any bickering. 5. At the time of drafting of the Constitution, considerable time was devoted over the debates on reservation of seats in appointments as well as in promotions. Different view points were expressed by the Hon'ble Members of the Constituent Assembly on this controversial issue. Ultimately, Article 16(4) was enacted by the Constitution makers laying down that nothing in this Article shall prevent the State from making any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State. 6. For making reservation, two conditions are necessary: (1) posts or appointments should be reserved in favour of any backward class of citizens, and (ii) reservation can be made when in the opinion of the State backward class of citizens is not adequately represented in the services under the State. Cl. (1) of Article 16 of the Constitution guarantees equality of opportunity to all citizens in matters of appointment to any office or to any other employment under the State. Cl. (2) of the said Article brings out in a negative form what is guaranteed affirmatively by Cl. (1). It prohibits discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them. Cl. (2) of Article 16 is, in fact, co-extensive with Cl. (1). Cl. (2) would invalidate a law or a rule or any order which would reserve a post or an employment in a State on any of the considerations mentioned in Cl. (2) of Article 16 of the Constitution. 7. The scope of Cl. (4) of Article 16 of the Constitution came to be considered before the Supreme Court in Devadasan v. Union of India AIR 1964 SC 179 . The Supreme Court laid down that the purpose of Article 16(4) is to ensure that such people, because of their backwardness, should not be unduly handicapped in the matter of securing employment in the various services of the State. The Supreme Court laid down that the purpose of Article 16(4) is to ensure that such people, because of their backwardness, should not be unduly handicapped in the matter of securing employment in the various services of the State. This provision, therefore, contemplates reservation of appointments or posts in favour of backward classes who are not adequately represented in the services of the State. According to the Supreme Court, the object of reservation is to make reasonable allowance for backwardness of members of a class by reserving certain proportion of appointments for them in the public services of the State. It has been said in M. R. Balaji v. State of Mysore AIR 1963 SC 649 , that reservation must be within the reasonable limits. Reservation of a reasonable percentage of posts for members of S.C. and S.T. is within the competence of the State. What the percentage ought to be must necessarily depend upon the circumstances obtaining from time to time Devadasan v. Union of India. 8. A passing reference may be made to the argument of the learned counsel for the parties about the question whether cl. (4) of Article 16 is a constituent to Article 16(1). The argument of the respondent's learned counsel was that the law laid down in State of Kerala v. N. M. Thomas AIR 1976 SC 490 : (1976 Lab IC 395), that Article 16(4) was an exception has not been followed by the Supreme Court in Akhil Bhartiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 298 : (1980 Lab IC 1325). Since for deciding the controversy before us this question has no relevance, we are not required to go into the same. 9. Before proceeding to consider the argument of the petitioner's learned counsel we have to keep in mind that the reservation contemplated by Article 16(4) does not apply only to initial recruitment but also extends to promotions as well: see Triloki Nath v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, AIR 1967 SC 1283 . On account of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court that there could be reservation in promotions also, counsel for the petitioners did not controvert the aforesaid legal position. On account of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court that there could be reservation in promotions also, counsel for the petitioners did not controvert the aforesaid legal position. However, his contention was that the Constitution makers only provided for reservation in initial recruitment and in promotions, but the members of S.C. and S.T. who get first promotion by virtue of reservation and then secure a higher seniority by virtue of the same, their second promotion should be only on the basis of accelerated seniority and, as such, ought to be either ignored or that securing of second promotion should be adjusted as against the reserved quota. We have not found any merit in the submission of the petitioner's learned counsel. 10. A member of S.C. or S.T. obtaining promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-suitability has to be kept at par with a member of any other community. His promotion to the higher post will be on merits as much as of any-body else. To hold that his seniority would have to be adjusted as against the reserved quota would amount to infringement of Article 16(2) of the Constitution which provides that there would be no discrimination amongst citizens of India on the ground of religion, caste, sex etc. A member of S.C. having obtained promotion on merits has to be treated in the same manner as a person belonging to any other community. Reservation of posts or appointments for S.C. or S.T. in the ratios provided for would not be impeded or get reduced because of his obtaining promotion on merits. To accept the submission would mean to bifurcate the promotional posts obtained on merits or suitability would be on caste basis. It would be the same thing as saying that since three members of one particular community have obtained promotions, the fourth or any other member of that community would not get the promotion inasmuch as that would deprive the other communities to get promotion. Equality of opportunity talked of by the Constitution requires every one to be treated alike irrespective of the caste to which he belongs. The object of Article 16(4) is to ensure that such people who on account of their backwardness were handicapped in the matter of securing employment should be given a helping hand so that they become adequately represented in the services of the State. The object of Article 16(4) is to ensure that such people who on account of their backwardness were handicapped in the matter of securing employment should be given a helping hand so that they become adequately represented in the services of the State. The appointment of a member of S.C./S.T. as against the reserved quota is one thing and selection of a member of the same communities on merits is another. The two things will have to be kept apart and separately. The argument that once a person is promoted to a higher post out of the quota of S.C./S.T. he retains the birthmark throughout his service career may be correct or not, but it would be fallacious to think that such a person cannot secure promotion on merits. 11. In Akhil Bhartiy a Soshit Karamchari Sangh v. Union of India (1980 Lab IC 1325), (SC), (supra) the Supreme Court observed : The Constitution provides not merely for adequate representation of S.C. and S.T. to services under the Union and the States, but also provides for reservation of seats for S.C. and S.T. in the Legislatures. The cursory study of the Articles relating to the States and safeguards of S.C. and S.T. puts it beyond doubt that the founding fathers have assigned to them a special place and shown towards them special concern and charged the States with special mandates to redeem these handicapped human sectors from their grossly retarded situation. It is, therefore, problematic whether Article 16(2) when it refers to equality amongst castes deals with the Scheduled Castes which, as shown above, may even be made of a plurity of castes or groups or races and may vary from State to State." 12. The object of reservation would be defeated and may result in invalidating the notifications issued by the Governments concerned providing for reservation on promotional posts on a flimsy and untenable ground. The view taken by us finds support by a decision of the Supreme Court in Hiralal v. Dist. Judge, Ghaziabad AIR 1984 SC 1212 : (1983 Lab IC 776). In that case, the petitioner went to the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution alleging violation of his fundamental right enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The view taken by us finds support by a decision of the Supreme Court in Hiralal v. Dist. Judge, Ghaziabad AIR 1984 SC 1212 : (1983 Lab IC 776). In that case, the petitioner went to the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution alleging violation of his fundamental right enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. He pleaded that he was a member of the Scheduled Caste and the State Government had directed that in services subordinate to U.P. Government for recruitment through competition, 18 per cent of the posts were to be reserved for members of the Scheduled Castes His grievance was that out of the posts advertised, six posts had to be filled by Scheduled Castes and as he was not given the benefit of the same, the appointments were invalid. In the counter affidavit, the stand taken was that more than 21 per cent of the posts in Grade III cadre were being manned by the people belonging to S.C. at the relevant time and, as such, the petitioner could not be accommodated as against the reserved quota. This argument was repelled by the Supreme Court and it was observed : It is not known whether some of the recruits of earlier years already in service belonging to Scheduled Castes had come on the basis of overall merit without reference to reservation." 13. These observations of the Supreme Court lend support to the view that recruitment of a member of S.C. on merits cannot be adjusted as against the reserved quota. 14. Apart from promotion as against the reserved quota, Cl. (2) of Article 16 guarantees fundamental right of an individual citizen, and the right to get promotion is a right which an individual citizen has as a citizen and not as a member of any community or class of citizens. A member of S.C./S.T. has to be treated in the same manner as securing promotion on merits as a member of any other community. Just as a member of any other community cannot be denied promotion simply because his community has obtained a fairly large share of the promotional posts, similarly an S.C. succeeding on merits or on the principle of merits-cum-suitability basis cannot be denied the same. Just as a member of any other community cannot be denied promotion simply because his community has obtained a fairly large share of the promotional posts, similarly an S.C. succeeding on merits or on the principle of merits-cum-suitability basis cannot be denied the same. To insist on adjustment or accounting for the seat obtained by him on merits as against the reserved quota would really amount to denying him the right to which he is entitled to under Articles 16(1) and 16(2) of the Constitution. 15. There is divergence of opinion amongst the Kerala, Bombay and Mysore High Courts with regard to the interpretation and applicability of Article 15(4) of the Constitution. The Kerala High Court in Jacob Methew v. State of Kerala AIR 1964 Ker 39 , has taken the view that admission to educational institutions of a member of reserved class competing in general post been merit basis does not affect percentage of reserved seats for that class, whereas the Bombay High Court in Anil v. Dean, Government Medical College, Nagpur, AIR 1985 Bom 153 , has taken the view that if the minimum number of seats guaranteed under the reservation is filled by the candidates competing in open market, the purpose of reservation would be served and in that case it would not be necessary to go on further admitting candidates from these classes against the reserved seats. The Mysore High Court in S. A. Partha v. State of Mysore AIR 1961 Mys 220 has taken the view which coincides with that of the Bombay High Court. We would respectfully agree on principle with the Kerala High Court in Jacob Methew v. State of Kerala (supra). 16. V. V. Giri v. D. Suri Dora, AIR 1959 SC 1318 , was the decision which proceeded on the basis of the provisions of the Constitution and the Representation of the People Act in relation to elections in respect of the multi member constituencies where certain seats were reserved for S.C. and S.T. candidates. There it was held as regards Article 330 of the Constitution that the reservation of seats as therein specified was intended to guarantee a minimum number of seats to the Scheduled Castes and Tribes; therefore, if members of these castes and tribes secured additional seats by election to general unreserved seats, there would be no repugnancy at all. There it was held as regards Article 330 of the Constitution that the reservation of seats as therein specified was intended to guarantee a minimum number of seats to the Scheduled Castes and Tribes; therefore, if members of these castes and tribes secured additional seats by election to general unreserved seats, there would be no repugnancy at all. To us it appears that the basic principle of reservation, as laid down in the case of Akhil Bhartiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh (1980 Lab IC 1325) (SC) (supra), in the Legislatures and in the services being the same the principle of this case can be utilised for negativing the contention of the petitioners. 17. In V. Raghuramulu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1958 Andh Pra 129, it was held that a rule reserving seats for backward classes ought not to be so worded as to prevent members of backward class from getting larger number of seats on their merits because in that event it would contravene their fundamental rights under Article 29(2) of the Constitution. 18. Sri Lalji Sinha, who appeared for the Northern Railway, brought to our notice the notifications issued by the Railways which have provided that the seats obtained by Scheduled Castes on merits would not be adjusted as against the reserved quota. Since we have held that the selection on merits of a member of Scheduled Caste is not required to be adjusted as against the seat obtained by him on merits, we have to hold that the order of the Railway Board in that connection, the latest of which is dated 20-12-1983, is valid. 19. Counsel for the petitioners urged that if past injustice done to the members of S.C. and S.T. because of their birth-mark calls for condemnation, so does injustice done to members of the advanced classes based on their birth. It may simply be noted that the petitioners could not and have not challenged the reservation of seats in the initial appointments and promotions. There is no material before us that the reservation is of such a magnitude that the rule regarding equality of opportunity has been destroyed. It may simply be noted that the petitioners could not and have not challenged the reservation of seats in the initial appointments and promotions. There is no material before us that the reservation is of such a magnitude that the rule regarding equality of opportunity has been destroyed. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that as the members of S.C. have now started qualifying in services on the basis of merits, may be on seniority-cum-suitability basis or any other, time has come when the Court must hold that those appointed on merits must be adjusted as against reserved quota. This is an argument in a circle. We have already negatived it. 20. In State of A.P. v. U. S. V. Balaram AIR 1972 SC 1375 , the Supreme Court repelled a similar argument by observing that admission to the reserved seats of backward classes is not affected by some of the candidates belonging to those classes getting admission on their own merits. 21. Sri S. C. Budhwar, counsel for the petitioners, urged that as the number of seats obtained on merits would make the representation of S.C. and S.T. adequate, those seats should be adjusted towards the quota reserved for the aforesaid two communities. He urged further that not to adjust the seats as against the reserved quota would amount to fraud on the Constitution, and, as such, this court would have power to give a direction for adjustment of the same. For the principle that if an executive action amounts to a fraud on the Constitution the same would be liable to be declared as ultra vires, counsel relied upon a decision in M. R. Balaji v. State of Mysore ( AIR 1963 SC 649 ) (supra). 22. In fact, what Sri S.C, Budhwar submits amounts to fraud is due to non-adjustment of seats obtained on merits towards the reservation quota. We have repelled this argument earlier and have stated at places more than one that obtaining of seats on merits is something different from securing the same as against the reserved quota. Merely because that some places higher in the seniority list are obtained by Government employees due to reservation, it would not mean that such persons even found on merits according to rules fit for promotion would not be entitled to get the same on that basis. Merely because that some places higher in the seniority list are obtained by Government employees due to reservation, it would not mean that such persons even found on merits according to rules fit for promotion would not be entitled to get the same on that basis. The rule of seniority-cum-suitability was applied to those persons as much as to others eligible for promotion. On consideration of their seniority and suitability they secured promotions to the posts which are involved in the present case. They cannot be deprived of the promotional posts on the argument advanced. 23. Counsel next urged that decision on the percentage of reservation should be renewed from time to time, and it is found now that the members of S.C. and S.T. are competent enough to obtain seats on merits, the reservation quota fixed for them should be reduced. In reply, Sri B. D. Mandhyan counsel for the respondents, urged that reservation of seats is a long term phenomenon and if at a particular time some seats are found to have been secured on merits by members of S.C. and S.T., that would not call for reduction of percentage of the reserved seats. Be that as it may, it does not appear to us to be a question falling within the competence of this Court. This, to our minds, appears to be a political question, consideration of which is tagged with number of circumstances and facts. This is not justiciable, and requires policy determination by nonjudicial policy making authorities. If Courts service this power, there is danger of embarrassment from multiple pronouncements by various Courts. These pronouncements may lead in different directions. 24. For what we have said above, we do not find any merit in this petition, and dismiss the same. The interim order dated 7-11-1984 is withdrawn. In this petition both the parties had exchanged affidavits and counsel for both the sides were heard. Therefore, as permitted by Chap. XXI, R. 2 of the Rules of the Court, we are deciding this petition under the same.