S. B. MAJMUDAR, J. ( 1 ) IN these three petitions, a common question has been raised for our consideration and the question is as to the effect that when promotions of Scheduled Tribes/scheduled Castes (ST/ SC for short) employees are effected from the cadre of clerks, clerk-typists. and typists in the Revenue Department of the State of Gujarat working in different collectorates to the higher posts of Deputy Mamlatdars on application of roster system and when contingency arises for effecting reversions from the promotional posts of Deputy Mamlatdars on account of cancellation of posts on any administrative ground, whether these ST/ SC promotees can legitimately contend that till percentage of reservation of the post for them in the promotional cadre is not exceeded, they cannot be reverted and instead, promotees from the general category should be reverted irrespective of their inter se seniority in the promotional cadre of Deputy Mamlatdars. ( 2 ) THE petitioners in this group of petitions represent general category of employees who contend that their colleagues who belong to ST/sc and who are also promoted as Deputy Mamlatdars, should not get benefit of such percentage of reservation at the time when reversions arc to be effected even though they might have been promoted as per roster for maintaining percentage of leserved categoiies of employees in the promotional cadre. The contesting respondents belonging to reserved category of employees naturally oppose this contention. ( 3 ) BEFORE we proceed to deal with this controversy, in greater details, it will be necessary to note a few introductory facts leading to these proceedings. Special Civil Application Nos. 5937 of 1990 and 5370 of 1990 are concerned with employees working as Deputy Mamlatdars in Baroda Collectorate. Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 in Special Civil Application No. 5370 of 1990 were promoted as Deputy Mamlatdar on the basis of roster and roster points as they belonged to ST/sc communities while the petitioners in Special Civil application represent general category of candidates who are promoted as deputy Mamlatdars and working as such. In Special Civil Application No. 5937 of 1990, the petitioners are belonging to general category while respondents Nos. 3 to 11 represent reserved category of employees working as Deputy Mamlatdars in The same Collectorate. In Special Civil Application no. In Special Civil Application No. 5937 of 1990, the petitioners are belonging to general category while respondents Nos. 3 to 11 represent reserved category of employees working as Deputy Mamlatdars in The same Collectorate. In Special Civil Application no. 5134 of 1990, petitioners who are working as Deputy Mamlatdars and who belong to general category of employees have challenged non-reversion of respondents Nos. 3 to 10 who belonged to reserved categories and who are also working as Deputy Mamlatdars after being promoted as such on account of roster points. ( 4 ) THERE are certain other challenges in these petitions, to which we will refer to in the later part of this judgment. For the present, it is sufficient to note that the main challenge in these petitions is centering round nonreversion of these reserved categories of employees who belong to ST/sc categories and their thieatened reversion of the petitioners in their place and stead on account of cancellation of certain posts in these Colkctorates. In these petitions, the authorities under whom the concerned employees are working are joined as respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Respondent No. 1 is the State. The petitioners and contesting rival group of employees are admittedly employees of respondent No. 1 in the Revenue Department while respondent No. 2 are the concerned Collectors under whom they are working. ( 5 ) IT is now time for us to briefly indicate the rival contentions canvassed by the learned Advocates of respective parties. ( 6 ) CONTENTIONS on behalf of the petitioners :- The learned Counsel for the petitioners vehemenily contended that Art. 16 (4) is an exception to Arts. 16 (l) (g) read with Art. 14 (1) of the Constitution and, therefore, this exception has to be strictly construed. As per Art. 16 (1), there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. Thus, all that is guaranteed by the said Article is equality of opportunity in matters relating to employment which would include promotion as held by the Supreme Court in number of decisions. However, the State having formed a policy under Art. 16 (4) of giving a special treatment to reserved categories of employees like ST/ sc and having given them accelerated chances of being considered for promotion, the policy would come to an end and get exhausted. However, the State having formed a policy under Art. 16 (4) of giving a special treatment to reserved categories of employees like ST/ sc and having given them accelerated chances of being considered for promotion, the policy would come to an end and get exhausted. That once the employees belonging to ST/sc on the basis of this policy get accelerated promotions to the cadre of Deputy Mamla-tdars, policy under Art. 16 (4) comes to an end qua them and after becoming Deputy Mamlatdars on accelerated basis on account of roster and roster point vacancies, they form the same class as the other general category of Deputy Mamlatdars who belong to non-reserved class and when in that promotional cadre of Deputy Mamlatdars, an occasion arises to reduce the posts and to effect reversion, reversion must be effected solely on the principle of inter se seniority and juniors must make room for the seniors by getting reverted. At this stage, policy under art. 16 (4) cannot be pressed in service in the reverse gear as it had got exhausted once the concerned ST/sc candidates got accelerated promotion. If that does not happen, the reversion would be liable to be struck down under Art. 16 (1) itself. That roster guarantees an accelerated chance of promotion to the reserved categories of employees and nothing more. Roster points are not points which are reserved for the concerned ST/sc candidates but they are to be utilised only for the purpose of ascertaining number of reserved posts in the promotional cadre but these roster points do not affect the inter se seniority of employees as laid down in clearest terms by government resolution dated 31-1-1976. Consequently, while effecting reversions from the cadre of Deputy Mamlatdars general principle of seniority and juniority will govern such reversions and no special treatment can be given to reserve class of promotee Deputy Mamlatdars vis-a-vis their colleagues in the general class especially when these colleagues may be having seniority over these reserved category of employees on the basis of their inter-se seniority. In this connection, reliance was placed on various decisions of the Supreme court, decision of the learned single Judge of this Court (P. D. Desai, J.) in Special Civil Application No. 3600 of 1980 decided on 19-3-1981 as well as Division Bench judgment of this Court in L. P. A. No. 81 of 1981 decided by B. J. Divan, C. J. and G. T. Nanavati, J. on 24-3-1981 approving the decision of the learned single Judge. Reliance was also placed on decisions of other High Courts. The learned Counsel for the petitioners also drew our attention to certain passages from Seervais Constitution Law, third and fourth editions. We will refer to these judgments and passages in later part of this judgment. In short, the learned Counsels contention was that the policy discernible from the Government resolution is a limited policy for giving accelerated chance of promotion to the ST/sc candidates as per Art. 16 (4) of the Constitution and that the concerned respondents cannot insist on stretching the meaning of that policy and seek protection against their reversions also. It was also contended that reservation effected under art. 16 (4) in connection with vacancies worked out for promotion has nothing to do with fixation of any quota of reservation in promotional cadre and, therefore, the very basis of the contention of reserved category employees is not sustainable in the light of the constitutional policy under Art. 16 (4 ). ( 7 ) THESE contentions were supported by Miss Rekha Doshit for the authorities, viz. , respondents Nos. 1 and 2. She submitted that no one has any constitutional right to compel the State to form any policy under Art. 16 (4) and it is the Policy which has been framed by the State in its discretion and wisdom which should govern to resolve the dispute between the contesting parties. , respondents Nos. 1 and 2. She submitted that no one has any constitutional right to compel the State to form any policy under Art. 16 (4) and it is the Policy which has been framed by the State in its discretion and wisdom which should govern to resolve the dispute between the contesting parties. According to her, the Government circulars only indicated that the concerned ST/sc employees should be given accelerated chances of promotion as per the procedure laid down in Government circulars holding the field from time to time and once this is done and they are promoted, they form the same class of promoted employees as general cadrepromotees who are their colleagues and, therefore, their inter-se seniority is governed by the statutory rules and once their inter-se seniority is determined, when occasion for reversion arises, reversions have to be effected strictly according to the inter-se seniority of promotees irrespective of the question whether promotees belorg to ST/sc or to general class. The said consideration is totally irrelevant for deciding the question as to who should be reverted and that there is no quota reservation by any Government resolutions framed in exercise of powers under Art. 16 (4) which would give immunity to the ST/sc employees from being reverted even though in general seniority in the promotional cadre, they may be junior to the general class employees. She, in this connection, invited our attention to the decision of the Full Bench of Bombay High Court in Gopalkrishna v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1987 Bom 123 especially para 11 thereof for pointing out that so far as the Maharashtra State is concerned, it has laid down a separate policy under Art. 16 (4) which would govern not only entry point in the promotional cadre but also exit point from that cadre so far as the question of promotion and reversion of ST/sc employees vis-a-vis general class of employees is concerned. In the absence of such a clear policy adopted by this State, the conclusion is inevitable that while effecting reversion there is no policy under Art. 16 (4) holding the field which can give special protection from reversion to the ST/sc promotees and can save them from reversion eventhough they are junior as compared to general cadre of promotees, and that specious plea that percentage of reserved categories of posts in the promotional cadre is not fully met will be no defence against such reversion of junior ST/sc promotees. ( 8 ) ON the other hand, Mr. Anand appearing amicus curiae for some of the contesting ST/sc respondents and M/s. Girish Patel and Gohil as interveners in these proceedings on behalf of the ST/sc employees, vehementiy contended that even though Art. 16 (4) may be in the nature of an exception to Art. 16 (1), once the policy is settled by the State it by itself, gives a constitutional right to the concerned ST/sc employees and that policy underlines the object of preserving fixed percentage of representation of ST/sc employees even in the promotional cadre and once with that end in view, roster is operated and for which there is no dispute, so far as different Collectoratcs are concerned strictly speaking, the concerned clerks and clerk-typists belonging to ST/sc category would become entitled to be given promotion if otherwise eligible against the roster point vacancies reserved for them and it cannot be said that roster points are merely to be utilised for earmarking number of vacancies reserved for them in a given recruitment year and to that extent, the decision rendered by the learned single Judge (P. D. Desai, J.) as well as by the division bench in appeal against that decision will be required to be reconsidered. In the alternative, it was contended that even if ratio of this decision is found to be valid and operative, the circular with which the judgments were concerned was of January 1976. That much water had flown under the sabarmati bridge thereafter till we come to the time when the present controversy arose. In the alternative, it was contended that even if ratio of this decision is found to be valid and operative, the circular with which the judgments were concerned was of January 1976. That much water had flown under the sabarmati bridge thereafter till we come to the time when the present controversy arose. There are number of subsequent circulars issued by the state of Gujarat especially in the light of settlements arrived at between the State as well as the employees Union representing ST/sc employees and also Union representing general class of employees and in the light of Sadhwani Committee report, which was submitted in the wake of Antireservation stir and the grievances centering round the same, it was contended that in the light of the Government resolutions, a clear-cut policy under art. 16 (4) as modulated and diluted and even extending earlier policy under art. 16 (4) as respected by the Government resolution dated 31-1-1976 is clearly discernible and this policy guarantees approval of quota and percentage of reserved posts for ST/sc categories of employees in the promotional cadre and the contesting respondents are right when they contend That so long as percentage of reserved category posts in the promotional cadre of deputy Mamlatdars has not exceeded, if reversions are to be effected from the cadre of Deputy Mamlatdars, these reserved category candidates within the quota or percentage of reservation cannot be touched and to this extent, policy under Art. 16 (4) can and does cut across the general rule that juniors must make room for seniors when reversions are to be effected. To that extent, Art. 16 (1) and Art. 14 will stand pro tanto diluted by the thrust of constitutional policy legally permissible under Art 16 (4 ). Even otherwise, it was contended that ST/sc employees form a class by themselves and therefore, if any special treatment is given to them, both at entry point in the promotional cadre by virtue of roster and at exit point by working of roster in the reverse gear, no grievance can be made by the general category of employees as they do not form the same class as reserved category of employees on account of years of repression, suppression and general backwardness from which they have been made to suffer by the society. It was, therefore, contended that when question of reversion comes, if percentage of reserved category of posts in the promotional cadre of deputy Mamlatdars is not exceeded, the concerned promotees belonging to reserved class cannot be reverted or at least it should be ensured that when number of posts are to be retrenched, the reserve cadre of employees can be retrenched only to the extent to which they represent percentage of posts which are reserved for them and in that proportion, they can be reverted. This submission was, however, made in the alternative and as a last resort. The learned Counsel for the respondents also relied upon number of decisions of the Supreme Court and two decisions of the Division Benches of this Court as well as decisions of other High Courts. We will advert to these decisions at appropriate place in the later part of this judgment. ( 9 ) THE learned Counsel for the contesting respondents submitted that straightway, in no case, reversion of ST/sc categories of employees can be effected by the concerned Collectors without considering and then ensuring that reserved percentage of posts for ST/sc communities is maintained in the promotional cadre and also without ascertaining whether while effecting reversion on cancellation of the posts, what would be the percentage of reserved class candidates which shall be liable to be reverted. ( 10 ) IN view of these rival contentions, the following points arise for our determination :- (1) Whether roster system introduced by the State of Gujarat for effecting promotion of ST/sc categories of employees guaranteed to them any right to be considered for being appointed if otherwise eligible to the roster point vacancies or whether they can claim accelerated promotion on the earmarked reserved posts in the promotional cadre in any recruitment year treating roster points only for ascertaining number of reserved vacancies of posts in the promotion cadre. (2) Whether roster for the purpose of effecting accelerated promotion to be given to the ST/sc employees ensures to them any fixed percentage of posts in the promotional cadre by treating these posts as quota of reserved promotional posts for them. (2) Whether roster for the purpose of effecting accelerated promotion to be given to the ST/sc employees ensures to them any fixed percentage of posts in the promotional cadre by treating these posts as quota of reserved promotional posts for them. (3) In case when any reversion is to be effected from the promotional posts on account of cancellation of the said posts on any administrative ground, general Rule of seniority is to be departed from, so far as ST/sc category of promotees are concerned and whether they can claim immunity from reversion even though they are juniors in the promotional cadre on the ground that fixed percentage or quota of reserved promotional posts which are remaining is not fully filled in and so long as it has not exceeded. (4) Or in the alternative, in such contingency, whether reversion of reserved category-employees can be effected on pro rata basis to the extent of percentage of reservation of promotional posts for them in the light of total cancelled posts at a given point of time. ( 11 ) POINT No. 1 : Before we proceed to deal with these points seriatim, it would be necessary to have a look at the Constitution backdrop as emerging from the scheme of the Constitution and as interpreted by various decisions of the Supreme Court and High Courts and in the light of which the present controversy will have to be resolved. ( 12 ) CONSTITUTION backdrop: Article 14 of the Constitution ensures equality before law and mandates that the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of india. Thus, general mandate of this Article is that all citizens equally situated must be treated alike by the State. Article 15 prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth. Sub-art. (1) thereof mandates that the State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them. Then follows Art. 16 around which centres the present controversy. Therefore, it would be profitable to reproduce the entire Article :" (1) There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. Then follows Art. 16 around which centres the present controversy. Therefore, it would be profitable to reproduce the entire Article :" (1) There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. (2) No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them, be ineligible for, or discriminated against in respect of any employment of office under the State. (3) Nothing in this article shall prevent Parliament from making any law prescribing, in regard to a class or classes of employment or appointment to an office under the Government of or any local or other authority within, a State or Union territory, any requirement as to lesidence within that State or Union territory prior to such employment or appointment. (4) 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. (5) Nothing in this Article shall effect the operation of any law which provides that the incumbent of an office in connection with the affairs of any religious or denominational institution or any member of the governing body there of shall be a person professing a particular religion or belonging to a particular denomination"a mere look at the Article shows that as per sub-art. (1) it is laid down that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matteis relating to employment. It is now well settled by decisions of the Supreme Court that matters relating to employment as contemplated by sub-ait. (1) of Art. 16 cover in their sweep matters relating to promotion. There was no dispute between the parties on this aspect. Therefore, even while considering the zone of promotion to the Government employees, mandate of Art. 16 (1) requires that all employees should be treated alike and must be given equal opportunity in matters of promotion. However, it is sub-art. (4) of Art. 16 which cuts a field of its own for its operation, and to that extent, cuts across sub-art. (1) of Art. 16. It is of course in the nature of an exception as laid down by the decisions of the Supreme Court. However, it is sub-art. (4) of Art. 16 which cuts a field of its own for its operation, and to that extent, cuts across sub-art. (1) of Art. 16. It is of course in the nature of an exception as laid down by the decisions of the Supreme Court. But once that exception holds the field, the said field becomes clearly earmarked field for giving special treatment to the employees covered by such field and any policy in this connection which is followed by the State necessarily confers corresponding constitutional right to the beneficiaries of the policy by the thrust of sub-art. (4) of Art, 16, and to that extent Arts. 16 (1) and 16 (4) would rescind in the background. It also clearly appears from sub-art. (4) of Art. 16 that it is an enabling provision which request to the concerned State to take its own policy decision for making provision for reservation of appointments including promotional posts in the state service in favour of any backward class of citizens which in its opinion, is not adequately represented. The catch words of sub-art. (4) of Art. 16 are to the effect that the State must form an opinion that concerned backward class citizens are not adequately represented in the services and, therefore, with a view to securing adequate representation of such backward class citizens in the service that policy under Art. 16 (4) is framed by the concerned State. It becomes, therefore, axiomatic that once the State in its discretion and wisdom found that accelerated promotion should be effected in favour of backward class like ST/sc employees who in its opinion are not adequately represented in service, including promotional cadre posts and for that purpose once roster is introduced, it would not be only fur the sake of promotion but it would certainly be for the purpose of seeing that sufficient number of backward class citizens get promoted and their percentage of representation in the promotional cadre is maintained at all times. But for that, introduction of roster would be an empty formality and exercise in futility and hence, the very introduction of roster system of promotion and giving roster points of promotion to ST/ sc employees to the extent of percentage of reserved promotional posts earmarked by the State policy would guarantee reserved quota of promotional posts to these reserved class of candidates. This is in fact a mirror image of the reservation policy in the matters of promotion as laid down by the state in its wisdom. It is of course true that nobody can compel the State to frame such policy under Art. 16 (4 ). But once such policy is laid down by the State being satisfied and having formed the opinion that reserved category candidates are not adequately represented in the promotional cadre and for that purpose, ones roster is operated to lift upward the number of reserved category of employees by giving them accelerated chances of promotion and they are lifted up to the promotional cadre if otherwise found fit and eligible for promotion as per the recruitment rules, tentacle of this roster would travel with promoted reserved category employees and will protect them against reversions even from the promotional cadre as reversion is the converse of promotion and if there is fixed percentage of reservation of promotional posts for backward classes, that itself would bring in its wake reservation of quota of these posts in the promoted cadre and consequent immunity from reversion till that percentage is not exceeded at a given point of time. This clearly emerges from the bare reading of Arts. 16 (1) and 16 (4 ). Any other view would result in giving a lip service to the thrust of Art. 16 (4) and the constitutional mandate underlying it. It is easy to visualise that ones backward class citizen like ST/sc candidates are promoted against the reserved quota of posts and moment they enter the promotional cadre if on the next day, on account of cancellation of posts, they are asked to go back as they would be junior most in the promotion cadre and if representation of the backward class in the promotion cadre is yet not adequate as per the percentage of reservation, it would amount to making more inadequate the representation which is already inadequate and would never reach upto the reserved percentage of representation of such backward classes in the promotion cadre and like a game of music chair, the concerned employees of reserved category would go up and down and the very purpose of Art. 16 (4) would get frustrated and would become a mere exercise on paper. ( 13 ) THE next Article which requires consideration in this connection is Art. 46 which lays down a directive principles of State policy and states that the State shall promote with special care the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of the people, and in particular, of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes and shall protect them from social injustice and all forms of exploitation. Provision of this Article has to be kept in view while interpreting the Constitution scheme underlying Arts. 16 (1) and 16 (4 ). Article 330 deals with reservation of seats for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes in the House of the People. Article 332 provides for parallel provision for seats for Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes in the legislative assemblies of the States. In the same chapter we find Art. 335 which deals with claims of Scheduled Castes and scheduled Tribes to services and posts and it lays down that the claims of the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes shall be taken into consideration, consistently with the maintenance of efficiency of administration, in the making of appointments to services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State. It is now well settled that Ait. 335 has to be read with Art. 46. The Supreme Court in The Comptroller and Auditor Genera. V. J. S. Jagannathan, AIR 1987 SC 537 speaking through Madon, J. has made the following pertinent observations :"the discretion conferred on the authority in matters of relaxation of marks in cases of scheduled caste and scheduled tribe candidate, is a discretion to be exercised in the discharge of the Constitutional duty imposed by Art. 335 to take into consideration the claims of the members of the scheduled castes and the scheduled tribes, consistently with the maintenance of efficiency of administration, in the making of appointments to services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a Stats. This duty is to be exercised in keeping with the Directive Principle laid down in Art. 46 to promote with special care the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of the people, and in particular, of the scheduled castes and the scheduled tribes, and to protect them from social injustice and all forms of exploitation. This duty is to be exercised in keeping with the Directive Principle laid down in Art. 46 to promote with special care the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of the people, and in particular, of the scheduled castes and the scheduled tribes, and to protect them from social injustice and all forms of exploitation. Article 37 of the Constitution provides that the Directive principles of State policy contained in Part IV of the Constitution, in which Art. 46 occurs, are fundamental to the governance of the country and that it is the duty of the State to apply these principles in making laws. The object of the said office memorandum dated 21-1-1977 is to provide an adequate opportunity of promotion to the members of the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes By reason of the provisions of Art. 16 (4) of the Constitution a treatment to the members of the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes different from that given to others in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State does not violate the fundamental right to equality of opportunity for all citizens in such matters guaranteed by Art, 16 (1) of the Constitution. It is now well settled that the reservation in favour of backward classes of citizens including the members of the scheduled castes and the scheduled tribes as contemplated by Art. 16 (4) can be made not merely in respect of initial recruitments but also in respect of post to which promotions are to be made. "the first part of Ait. 335 itself mandates that the claims of the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes shall be taken into consideration while making appointments to services which would include promotion to the promotional cadres, it has to be done consistently with the maintenance of efficiency of administration. Thus second part of Art. 335 will have to be kept in view by the concerned State while laying down policy fixing percentage of reservation of post for ST/sc at different echelons of state service. Thus, Art. 16 (4) policy has to be framed keeping in view both arts. Thus second part of Art. 335 will have to be kept in view by the concerned State while laying down policy fixing percentage of reservation of post for ST/sc at different echelons of state service. Thus, Art. 16 (4) policy has to be framed keeping in view both arts. 46 and 335 which includes the thurst of the Article put forward by the framers of the Constitution in the secor-d part regarding maintenance of efficiency in the administration while fixing such percentage of reservation under Art. 16 (4) but that will obviously not apply after fixation of percentage of representation of such class of employees at different levels in the hierarchy of posts. Once paicentage is so fixed and the question of reversion arises, if that fixed percentage which is already decided upon in its discretion by the State authorities while framing policy under Art. 16 (4) is kept in view. It can never be urged that Art. 335 (second part) in any way would get whittled down. In fact, that part is taken care of once percentage is fixed. It is that percentage which becomes sacrosant both at entry point by virtue of roster as well as at exit point which represents a mirror image of the scheme of roster and reservation flowing from Art. 16 (4 ). ( 14 ) RELEVANT case law on the point :- We may now turn to the relevant case law on this aspect. As early as in 1962, in the case of General Manager, s. Rly. v. Rangachari, AIR 1962 SC 36, majority of Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court while interpreting Arts. 16 (1) and 16 (4) speaking through gajendragadkar, J. laid down as under :"the initial employment or appointment is only one of the matters relating to employment or appointment. The other matters relating to employment would be the provision as to the salary and periodical increments therein, terms as to leave, as to gratuity, as to pension, and as to the age of superannuation. Similarly, in respect of appointments such matters would include all the terms and conditions of service pertaining to the said office. All those matters are included in the expression matters relating to employment or appointment in Art. 16 (1 ). "in para 16, it has been laid down as under :"arts. Similarly, in respect of appointments such matters would include all the terms and conditions of service pertaining to the said office. All those matters are included in the expression matters relating to employment or appointment in Art. 16 (1 ). "in para 16, it has been laid down as under :"arts. 16 (1) and (2) really give effect to the equality before law guaranteed by art. 14 and to the prohibition of discrimination guaranteed by Art. 15 (1 ). The three provisions form part of the same constitutional code of guarantees and supplement each other. If that be so, it must be held that the matters relating to employment must include all matters in relation to employment both prior, and subsequent, to the employment and form part of the terms and sonditiuns of such employment. "after having laid down in para 24 of the report that the term posts would not mean ex-cadre posts in the context but the context requires that posts should be deemed to be posts inside services and not outside them, in para 26 of the report, the Supreme Court laid down as under :"the condition present for the exercise of the powers conferred by Art. 16 (4) in that the State ought to be satisfied that any backward class of citizens is not adequately represented in its services. This condition precedent may refer either to the numerical inadequacy of representation in the services or even to the qualitative inadequacy of representation. The advancement of the socially and educationally backward classes requires not only that they should have adequate representation in the lowest rung of services but that they should aspire to secure adequate representation in selection post in the services as well. "reversing the decision of the Madras High Court in AIR 1961 Madras 35, in para 27, the Supreme Court held as under :"the power of reservation which is conferred on the State under Art. 16 4) can be exercised by the State in a proper case not only by providing for reservation of appointments but also by providing for reservation of selection posts. This constru -. ction would serve to give effect to the intention of the Constitution makers to make adequate safeguard for the advancement of backward class and to secure for their adequate representation in the services. This constru -. ction would serve to give effect to the intention of the Constitution makers to make adequate safeguard for the advancement of backward class and to secure for their adequate representation in the services. " (Emphasis supplied) it becomes, therefore, clear that it has now been well settled since decades by the Supreme Court that the thurst of Art. 16 (4) is to secure adequate representation of backward class people in promotional posts. It therefore, becomes obvious and almost automatic that once policy under Art. 16 (4) is laid down by the State, no reversion can be effected from the promotional cadre which would cut accross the reserved percentage of posts guaranteed to them by the State in its wisdom and discretion in that connection. ( 15 ) WE may now refer to a decision of the Constitution Bench of the supreme Court in M. R. Balajl v. State of Mysore, AIR 1963 SC 649 . There, the same learned Judge Gajendragadkar, J. spoke for the Constitution Bench in connection with Art. 15 (4) of the Constitution. The controversy in that case arose in the light of the order of the Mysore Government dated 31-7-1962 reserving seats in technical institutions for backward classes when 68% of seats were reserved for such backward classes. In that case the thurst of Art. 15 (4) which also laid down a parallel scheme as Art. 16 (4) of course in connection with other field as compared to sevices contemplated by Art. 16 (4) was considered. Under Art. 15 (4), the State was enabled to make special provision for advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. The Constitution bench in that decision held that 68% reservation was so excessive in technical institutions for such classes of people. In para 31 of the report, it was observed :"when Art. 16 (4) refers to the special provision for the advancement of certain classes of scheduled castes or scheduled tribes, it must not be ignored that the provision which is authorised to be made is a special provision, it is not a provision which is exclusive in character, so that in looking after the advancement of those classes, the State would be justified in ignoring altogether the advancement of the rest of the society. "thus, a fine and delicate balance had to be struck while embarking upon any policy under Art. 15 (4) for advancement of Scheduled Tribe and scheduled Caste people so that the society at large may not suffer. In our view, reliance placed by the petitioners in the aforesaid decision cannot be of any much assistance for deciding the present controversy. ( 16 ) WE may now turn to a decision rendered by the Constitution Bench of the supreme Court in Devdasan v. Union of India, AIR 1964 SC 179 . In that case, the supreme Court was concerned with validity of carry forward rule of reserved category of posts in central service when it permitted reservation of more than 50% in the third year after these vacancies were carried forward in the second year. Reservation of more than 50% was held to be unconstitutional and invalid. While coming to the aforesaid conclusion, majority of the Constitution Bench speaking through Mudholkar, j analysed the scheme of Art. 16 (1) and (4) and laid down as under : "it is an accepted fact that members of the scheduled castes and tribes are by and large backward in comparison with other communities in the country. The purpose of Art. 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 post in favour of backward classes who are not adequately represented in the services under the State. Where, therefore, the State makes a rule providing for the reservation of appointments and posts for such backward classes, it cannot be said to have violated Art. 14 merely because members of the more advanced classes will not be considered for appointment to these posts even though they may be equally or even more meritorious than the members of the backward classes, or merely because such reservation is not made in every kind of service under the State. Where the object of a rule is to make reasonable allowance for the backwardness of members of a class by reserving certain proportion of appointments for them in the public services of the State what the State would in fact be doing would be to provide the members of backward classes with an opportunity equal to that of the members of the more advanced classes in the matter of appointments to public services if the reservation is so excessive that it practically denies a reasonable opportunity for employment to members of other communities the position may well be different and it would be open then for a member of a more advanced class to complain that he has been denied equality by the State. The problem of giving adequate representation to members of backward classes enjoined by Art. 16 (4) of the Constitution is not to be tackled by framing a general rule without bearing in mind its repercussions from year to year. What precise method should be adopted for this purpose is a matter for the Government to consider. While any method can be evolved by the Government it must strike a reasonable balance between the claims of the backward classes and claims of other employees. The guarantee contained in Art. 16 (1) is for ensuring equality of opportunity for all citizens relating to employment and to appointments to any office under the State. This means that on every occasion for recruitment the State should see that all citizens are treated equally. The guarantee is to each individual citizen and, therefore, every citizen who is seeking employment or appointment to an office under the State is entitled to be afforded an opportunity for seeking such employment or appointment whenever it is intended to be filled. In order to effectuate the guarantee each year of recruitment will have to be considered by itself and the reservation for backward communities should not be so excessive as to create a monopoly or to disturb unduly the legitimate claims of other communities. Clause (4) of Art. 16 is by way of a proviso or an exception to clause (1 ). A proviso or an exception cannot be so interpreted as to nullify or destroy the main provision. Clause (4) of Art. 16 is by way of a proviso or an exception to clause (1 ). A proviso or an exception cannot be so interpreted as to nullify or destroy the main provision. To hold that unlimited reservation of appointments could be made under clause (4) would in effect efface the guarantee contained in clause (1) or at best make it illusory. No provision of the Constitution or of any enactment can be so construed as to destroy another provision contemporaneously enacted therein. It is true that effect must be given to the express words of Art. 16 (4) : nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for the reservation of appointments. . . etc. but that does not mean that the provision made by the State should have the effect of virtually obliterating the rest of the Article, particularly clauses (1) and (2) thereof. The overriding effect of clause (4) on clauses (1) and (2) could only extend to the making of a reasonable number of reservation of appointments and posts in certain circumstances. . That is all. Under Art. 16 (4), it is clear that reservation of a reasonable percentage of posts for members of the scheduled castes and tribes is within the competence of the State. What the percentage ought to be must necessarily depend upon the circumstances obtaining from time to time. " relying on this decision, the learned Advocates for the petitioners submitted that Art. 16 (4) is an exception to Art. 16 (1 ). That may be so, but the question is once Art. 16 (4) is resorted to by the State and certain percentage of reservation of posts in promotional cadre is guaranteed to ST/sc employees, can such guarantee be whittled down or made a dead letter by effecting reversion of such employees even though percentage of reservation of posts available in the promotional cadre is not fully worked out. For answering this question, the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court cannot be of any avail to the petitioners. For answering this question, the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court cannot be of any avail to the petitioners. On the contrary, it clearly laid down that it is for the State to decide its own policy under Art. 16 (4) in the light of exigency of situation prevailing from time to time with a view to ensuring that adequate representation of such SC/st employees is made available in higher level of State service representing promotional cadre of posts. ( 17 ) RELIANCE placed by the learned Advocates for the respondents on the decision of the Supreme Court in Om Oil and Oil Seeds Exchange v. Their workmen, AIR 1966 SC 1657 to the effect that even under the Industrial disputes Act, by Sec. 25g, rule of first come last go is not immutable and may be departed from for valid reasons, cannot be of any much assistance to them, for the simple reason that we are concerned with purely a different question, viz. , whether seniority rule should be departed from, for the purpose of effecting reversion from the promotional posts where ST/sc candidates have been promoted on reserved posts to be manned by them. ( 18 ) THE learned Advocates of petitioners also invited our attention to the constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court in C. A. Rajendran v. Union of India, AIR 1968 SC 507 , wherein, interpreting Arts- 14, 16 and 335, especially Art. 16 (4) thereof, the Constitution Bench speaking through ramaswamy, J. laid down as under :"under Art. 16 of the Constitution, there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the state or promotion from one office to a higher office thereunder. Articles 14, 15 and 16 form part of the same Constitutional code of guarantees and supplement each other. It follows therefore that there can be a reasonable classification of the employees for the purpose of appointment and promotion. To put it differently, the equality of opportunity guaranteed by Art. 16 (1) means equality as between members of the same class of employees and not equality between members of separate, independent classes. Clause (4) of Art. 16 does not cover the entire field covered by clauses (1) and (2) of that Article. To put it differently, the equality of opportunity guaranteed by Art. 16 (1) means equality as between members of the same class of employees and not equality between members of separate, independent classes. Clause (4) of Art. 16 does not cover the entire field covered by clauses (1) and (2) of that Article. The only matter which clause (4) covers is a provision for the reservation of appointments in favour of a backward class of citizens. It is well settled that clause (4) of Art. 16 is an exception clause and is not an independent provision and it has to be strictly construed. It is also apparent that the language of Art. 16 (4) has to be interpreted in the context and background of Art. 335 of the Constitution. In other words, in making a provision for reservation of appointments or posts the government has to take into consideration not only the claims of the members of the backward classes but also the maintenance of efficiency of administration which is a matter of paramount importance. "we fail to appreciate how this decision can be of any avail to the petitioners for resolving the present controversy. While enacting policy under Art. 16 (4), requirements of Art. 335 had to be kept in view by the State. But the question with which we are concerned is once scheme is framed under Art. 16 (4), and percentage of reservation of promotional post for ST/sc employees is laid down by the State, as in its opinion these communicities are not adequately represented in the promotional cadre, reversion can be effected from the said promotional posts of ST/sc promotees so as to whittle down or adversely affect the percentage of reserved pests to be manned by them and for which accelerated promotions were effected by following the policy laid down under art. 16 (4 ). That question is not answered as it was not on the anvil of the constitution Bench which decided the above case. On the contrary, the said decision itself laid down that the equality of opportunity guaranteed by Art. 16 (1) means equality as between members of the same class of employees and not equality between members of separate, independent classes. That question is not answered as it was not on the anvil of the constitution Bench which decided the above case. On the contrary, the said decision itself laid down that the equality of opportunity guaranteed by Art. 16 (1) means equality as between members of the same class of employees and not equality between members of separate, independent classes. ST/sc candidates on account of their economic and social conditions in the light of historical background of treatment meted out by the society since generations obviously would form a separate class. If a special treatment is given to them by the State, it would not be by itself violative of Art. 16 (1) even leaving aside Art. 16 (4) which itself enables such discrimination in their favour, which the learned Advocates for the petitioners styled as reverse discrimination which according to them, was permissible at entry point in promotional cadres and not at exit point as that was outside the scope of Art. 16 (4 ). As seen above, by interpreting the language of Art. 16 (4), we have already negatived this contention as it is contraindicated by the policy framed under the said subarticle. The submission of the learned Advocates ofthe petitioners, based on c. A. Rajendrans case (supra) that The Government in its discretion can also recall reservation under Art. 16 (4) also cannot be of any avail as in the present case, no such eventuality has taken place. ( 19 ) THE Supreme Court in A. Periakanippan v. State of T. N , AIR 1971 SC 2303 , had again to consider the question regarding constitutional validity of unitwise distribution of seats in Medical Colleges in Tamil Nadu. In that connection, the Supreme Court speaking through Hegde, J. examined the scheme of Art. 15 (4) and laid down in para 31 of the report following Rajendran case, (supra) as under it :"the classification of backward classes on the basis of castes is within the purview of Art. 15 (4) if those castes are shown to be socially and educationally backward. But all the same the Government should not proceed on the basis that once a class is considered as a backward class it should continue to be backward class for all times. Such an approach would defeat the very purpose of the reservation. But all the same the Government should not proceed on the basis that once a class is considered as a backward class it should continue to be backward class for all times. Such an approach would defeat the very purpose of the reservation. The government should always keep under review the question of reservation of seats and only the classes which are really socially and educationally backward should be allowed to have the benefit of reservation. Reservation of seats should not be allowed to become a vested interest. "it has to be noted that the above observation are in connection with reservation of seats in educational institutions. But even if the ratio is extended to reservation of promotional posts in Govt. service under Art. 16 (4), the present controversy will not get covered by the ratio of the said decision. It is no doubt open to the Government to review the policy of reservation whether it is under art. 15 (4) or Art. 16 (4 ). But as seen above, the short question with which we are concerned is when the policy of reservation is already holding the field under art. 16 (4), whether that policy stops short at entry point of promotional cadre or it can cover in its sweep the exit point for those persons when reversions are to be effected while such reservation policy holds the field covering such promotional posts. ( 20 ) IN A. R. Choudhary v. Union of India, AIR 1974 SC 532 , the Constitution bench of the Supreme Court was concerned with the question as to whether carry forward rule as applicable to railway service as per Art. 16 (4) would permit any carried forward vacancies to be treated as unreserved only because on earlier occasion it was treated as unreserved and was carried forward and had reached the limit upto which it could be further carried forward and when it was a solitary vacancy remaining in the field. Putting emphasis on the carry forward rule which naturally flew from the policy under Art. 16 (4), the Constitution Bench speaking through Chandrachud, J. held that if carry forward rule had to be given any meaning, the vacancy had to be carried forward for the benefit of Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes until the close of the financial year 1968-69, The carry forward rule was not violative of Arts. 14 and 16, In para 22 of the report, chandrachud, J. speaking for the Supreme Court considered the argument that only one vacancy occurred in 1968-69 and since the letter of the railway board dated 16-1-1964 says that if there be only one vacancy, it should be treated as unreserved, hence the Kharagpur vacancy must be treated as unreserved. It was held that such construction would rob the rule of its prime significance and will render the carry forward provision illusory. Though each year of recruitment is to be treated separately and by itself, a reserved vacancy has to be carried forward over 2 years, if it is not filled in by the appointment of a reserved candidate. The open class reaped a benefit in 1966-67 when a reserved vacancy was treated as unreserved by the appointment of an open candidate smt. Gita Biswas, and that the construction sought to be put on the rule by the petitioner would perpetuate a social injustice which has clouded the lives of large section of humanity which is struggling to find its feet. The aforesaid decision of the Supreme court, therefore, clearly indicates that in cases where roster operates as per the policy laid down under Art. 16 (4) for giving accelerated chances of promotion to SC/st employees, carry forward rule which is a part and parcel of such roster system has to operate for a span of years and vacancies have to be considered reserved or unreserved in that light. . ( 21 ) MR. Patel for the interveners drew our attention to the decision of the Supreme court in State of Kerala v. N. M. Thomas, AIR 1976 SC 490 . The Supreme Court was concerned with the constitutional validity of Art. 13aa under which employees belonging to ST/sc were given concession for clearing test for selection post during larger period of time as compared to employees belonging to general cadre/upholding the validity of the said rule, the majority laid down as under :"under Art. 16. there can be reasonable classification of the employees in matters relating to employment or appointment. Article 16 (1) does not prohibit the prescription of reasonable rules for selection to any employment or appointment to any office. there can be reasonable classification of the employees in matters relating to employment or appointment. Article 16 (1) does not prohibit the prescription of reasonable rules for selection to any employment or appointment to any office. In regard to employment, like other terms and conditions associated with and incidental to it, the promotion to a selection post is also included in the matters relating to employment and even in regard to such a promotion to a selection post all that Art. 16 (1) guarantees is equality of opportunity to all citizens. Articles 16 (l) and (2) give effect to equality before law guaranteed by Art. 14 and to the prohibition of discriminatioa guaranteed by Art. 16 (1 ). Promotion to selection post is covered by Arts 16 (1) and (2 ). The power to make reservation which is conferred on the State under Art. 16 (4) can be exercised by the State in a proper case not only by providing for reservation of appointment but also by providing for reservation of selection posts. In providing for reservation of appointments or posts under Art. 16 (4), the State has to take into consideration the claims of the backward classes consistently with the maintenance of the efficiency of administration. Article 16 (4) clarifies and explains that classification on the basis of backwardness does not fall within art. 16 (2) and is legitimate for the purposes of Art. 16 (l ). If preference shall be given to a particular under-represented community other than a backward class or under-represented state in an All India Service such a rule will contravene Art. 16 (2 ). A similar rule giving preference to an under-represented backward community is valid and will not contravene arts. 14, 16 (1) and 16 (2 ). The classification of employees belonging to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes for allowing them an extended period of two years for passing the special tests for promotion is a just and reasonable classification having rational nexus to the object of providing equal opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to public office. Grating for temporary exemption from special tests to the personnel belonging to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes by executive order has been an integral feature of the service conditions in Kerala from its very inception on 1/11/1956. That was the pattern in Travancore Cochin State. Grating for temporary exemption from special tests to the personnel belonging to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes by executive order has been an integral feature of the service conditions in Kerala from its very inception on 1/11/1956. That was the pattern in Travancore Cochin State. The special treatment accorded to the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes in Government service which had become part and parcel of the conditions of service over these long periods amply justify the classification of the members of the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes as a whole by Rule 13aa and Government orders dated 13-1-1972 and 11-1-1974. Art. 335 of the Constitution states that claims of members of the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes shall be taken into consideration in the making of appointment to the services and posts in connection with affairs of the State consistent with the maintenance of efficiency of administration. Rule 13aa and orders dated 13-1-1972 and 11-1-1974 are related to this Constitutional mandate. Only those Lower Division Clerks who were senior in service will get the benefit of the relaxation contemplated by Rule 13aa and the two orders. Promotion to Upper division from Lower Division is governed by the rule of seniority subject only to passing of the qualifying test. The temporary relaxation of test qualification made in favour of schedule J castes and scheduled tribes is warranted by their inadequate representation in the services and their overall backwardness. Rule 13aa and the orders are meant to implement not only the direction under Art. 335 but also the directive principle under art. 46. Rule 13aa does not impair the test of efficiency in administration inasmuch as members of scheduled castes and tribes who are promoted have to acquire the qualification of passing the test. The only relaxation which is done in their case is that they are granted two years more time than others to acquire the qualification. From the point of view of time a differential treatment is given to members of scheduled castes and tribes for the purpose of giving them equality consistent with efficiency. Rule 13aa and the two orders are, therefore, valid. From the point of view of time a differential treatment is given to members of scheduled castes and tribes for the purpose of giving them equality consistent with efficiency. Rule 13aa and the two orders are, therefore, valid. "the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court clearly laid down that separate treatment in the matter of promotion can be given to ST/sc employees as they form a class by themselves and such classification would even stand the test of Art. 16 (1) even independently of Art. 16 (4 ). ( 22 ) THE learned Counsel of both the sides relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in A. B S. K. Sangh (Rly.) v. Union of India, AIR 1981 sc 298 . Krishna lyer, J. speaking for himself and 0. Chinnappa Reddy, J. while interpreting Arts. 14 and 16 laid down as under :"the State may classify, based upon substantial differentia, groups or classes and this process does not necessarily spell violation of Arts. 14 to 16. The fundamental right of equality of opportunity has to be read as justifying the categorisation of SC and ST separately for the purposes of "adequate representation" in the service under the State. The object is constitutionality sanctioned in terms, as Arts 16 (4) and 46 specifieate. The classification is just and reasonable. The Court may, however, have to test whether the means used to reach the end are reasonable and do not outrun the purposes of the classification. Of course, apart from Art. 16 (1), Art. 16 (2) expressly forbids discrimination on the ground of caste. Even assuming on the ground of castes, classification, if permitted, will validate the differential rules for promotion. Moreover, art. 16 (4) is an exception to Art. 16 (2) also. "pathak, J. in his turn laid emphasis on Art. 335 for judging the policy reserving maximum quota of reservation of posts. We are not concerned with the constitutional validity of the reservation policy adopted by the State and which has got modified from time to time as we will presently see. But the fact remains that Art. 16 (4) has been treated to be an exception to Arts. 16 (1) and 16 (2) in the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court and to the extent it operates, it carves out a field for itself uninhibited by the thrust of Arts. But the fact remains that Art. 16 (4) has been treated to be an exception to Arts. 16 (1) and 16 (2) in the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court and to the extent it operates, it carves out a field for itself uninhibited by the thrust of Arts. 16 (1) and 16 (2) or for that matter, Art. 14. ( 23 ) IN the case of B. S. H. Kalyan Parishad v. Union of India, AIR 1985 sc 983 , the two member bench of the Supreme Court had to consider the scope and effect of reservation policy promulgated by the Presidential Directive to Chief executives of All India Public Sector Enterprises on the subject of reservation for SC and ST employees. Interpreting that policy, it was held :"the rule of reservation is also applicable to promotions by selection to posts within group "a" which carry an ultimate salary of Rs. 2250. 00 per month or less but that the procedure is slightly different then in the case of other posts. While the rule of reservation applies to promotions by selection to posts within group (A) carrying salary of Rs. 2250. 00 per month or less, it is prescribed that only those officers belonging to the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes will be considered for promotion who are senior enough to be within the zone of consideration. The select list depending upon the number of vacancies would be drawn up in which would also be included those officers belonging to the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes who are not unfit for promotion. "the decision was rendered on the peculiar facts of the policy placed for consideration of the Supreme Court in that connection cannot be of any assistance to either side. ( 24 ) IN K. C. Vasanth Kumar v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1985 SC 1495 , the Constitution Bench had to consider the question or reservation in favour of SC/st and other backward class people so far as the Karnataka State was concerned and which may serve as a guideline to the commission. The opinion of the bench was to the effect that the reservation should continue. The opinion of the bench was to the effect that the reservation should continue. ( 25 ) RELIANCE was also placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioners on Chakradhar v. State of Bihar, AIR 1988 SC 959 which laid down that no reservation could be made under Art. 16 (4) so as to create a monopoly. Otherwise it would render the guarantee of equal opportunity contained in arts. 16 (1) and 16 (2) wholly meaningless and illusory. If there is only one post in the cadre, there can be no reservation with reference to that post either for recruitment at the initial stage or for filling up a future vacancy in respect of that post. A reservation which would come under Art. 16 (4), presupposes the availability of at least more than one post in that. cadre. This decision will also not be of any help in the present case, 100 point roster is being applied for regulation of promotions from the cadre of clerks, clerktypists to the cadre of Deputy Mamlatdars and there are more than one post available in the promotional avenue. ( 26 ) IN the case of P. and T. SC/st Employees Welfare Association v. Union of India, AIR 1989 SC 139 , the Supreme Court was concerned with the question whether deprivation of benefit to ST/sc employees in P and T department which was enjoyed by their counterparts in other departments was valid or not. Venkataracoiah, J. speaking for the Supreme Court observed :"while it may be true that no writ can be issued ordinarily compelling the government to make reservation under Art. 16 (4) which is only an enabling clause, the circumstances in which the members belonging to the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes in the post and telegraphs department are deprived of indirectly the advantage of such reservation which they were enjoying earlier while others who are similarly situated in the other departments are allowed to enjoy it, make the action of Government discriminatory and invite intervention by the Court. "mr. Patels reliance on this decision cannot be of any avail to him as in the present case, there is already a policy holding the field under Art. 16 (4) so far as revenue department is concerned. All that we are concerned is to cull out the contours and coverage of that policy. "mr. Patels reliance on this decision cannot be of any avail to him as in the present case, there is already a policy holding the field under Art. 16 (4) so far as revenue department is concerned. All that we are concerned is to cull out the contours and coverage of that policy. ( 27 ) WE may now refer to the latest decision of the Supreme Court under ait. 16 (4) which is rendered in the case of Mohan Kumar Singhama v. Union of India, AIR 1992 SC 1 . Dealing with Art. 16 (4) and the policy of reseivation, the Supreme Court speaking through S. Ratnavel Pandian, J. after referriiig to a catena of decisions of the Supreme Court and other Courts, laid down as under :"the Constitution, no doubt, has laid a special responsibility on the Government to protect the claims of SC/st in the matter of public appointments under various constitutional provisions- Article 16 (4), one of the various Constitutional provisions, is an enabling provision conferring a discretionary power on the State for making any provision for 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 service under the State. Clause (4) of Art. 16 has also been interpreted in the background of Articie 335. Art. 335 enjoins that the claims of the members of the SC and ST shall be taken into consideration, consistently with the maintenance of efficiency of administration, in the making of appointments to services or posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State. Article 320 (4) makes it clear that the Public Service Commission is not required to be consulted as respects the manner in which any provision referred to in Art, 16 (4) may be made or as respects the manner in which effect may be given to Art. 335. Reservation is not a constitutional compulsion but it is a discretionary one. "the aforesaid observations were made while considering the Constitutional validity of second proviso to Rule 4 of the Civil Service Examination Rules. ( 28 ) THUS, it is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Supreme Court that reservation policy cannot be -insisted upon by any one and the State cannot be compelled to adopt such policy under Art. 16. ( 28 ) THUS, it is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Supreme Court that reservation policy cannot be -insisted upon by any one and the State cannot be compelled to adopt such policy under Art. 16. But once such policy is framed and is holding the field, it has to be given effect to and logical effect flowing from the same has to be permitted to have its full sway. ( 29 ) WE may now turn to decisions of this Court and other High Courts pressed in service by the learned Counsel of the respective parties. ( 30 ) IN Dr. Amin Prakash v. State, (1981) XXII GLR 41, a Division Bench of this Court was concerned with the question whether reservation of 25% of seats for SC/st for admission to P. G. Medical Course was reasonable or arbitrary. The Division Bench speaking through S. K. Sheth, J. held that actual reservations made by the State Government. under the impugned orders was not arbitrary and so far as the carry forward rule was concerned, it had been stated that unutilised reservations shall be carried forward for a period of two years and that they shall not exceed 45%. To carry forward unutilised reservations was by no stretch of imagination unreasonable and was valid and binding. In the present case, we are not concerned with the question of percentage of reservations of posts and hence, the said decision cannot be of any use to the learned Advocates for the respondents who relied on the same. ( 31 ) WE may now turn to a decision of another Division Bench in M. K. Janardan v. Union of India, (1978) XIX GLR 879. In that case, the Division Bench was concerned with the question whether carry forward vacancy for SC/st employees in the engineering workshop of the Western Railway at Sabarmati could be treated in the subsequent year as reserved vacancy when there was one such post in the workshop. In that case, the Division Bench was concerned with the question whether carry forward vacancy for SC/st employees in the engineering workshop of the Western Railway at Sabarmati could be treated in the subsequent year as reserved vacancy when there was one such post in the workshop. Answering this question in the affirmative, the Division Bench speaking through Divan, C J. Placing reliance on the Supreme Court decision in A. R. Choudhurys case (supra), made the following pertinent observations in para 6 of the report :"once the power to make reservation in favour of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes is exercised in the light of the provisions of Art. 16 (4) of the Constitution, it would necessarily follow that a roster pointwise for the purpose of vacancies for which reservation has been made must be brought into effect and in order to do full justice, a carry forward rule has to be properly enacted. The carry forward rule has to be so applied that in any particular year, there is not more than 50 per cent reservation, but the open candidates who are competing for an unreserved vacancy cannot complain if a preference has been given to them in the first instance and in the carried forward period of three years if vacancy is reserved in favour or scheduled castes or scheduled tribes candidates. According to the model roster which was an accompaniment to the Railway Boards letter dated 20/04/1970, the first point in the roster is a reserved point in favour of scheduled caste but by virtue of the note, if there be only one vacancy in a particular year, it has to be treated as unreserved and if on this account a reserved point is treated unreserved, the reservation has to be carried forward to the subsequent three recruitment years. Since this model roster came into existence en 20/04/1970 and since so far as the post of Chief Cleric of the engineering workshop is concerned, it is being made applicable for the first time, the present selection will have to be treated as on the footing of an unreserved vacancy even though the first point on the roster is of scheduled castes but this reserved point which is at Point No. 1 has to be carried forward for a subsequent period of three recruitment years and if that is done, it would be a perfectly valid action. The conteniion that the reservation rule cannot apply when there is only one single post cannot be entertained in view of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court and also on the logic behind the reservation, the roster and the carry forward rule. Then logical corollary of reservation of posts is roster and logical corollary to the roster is the carry forward rule for a particular number of years as may be prescribed. If taking a Railway services as a whole, the reservation of 15 per cent for scheduled castes and 71/2 per cent for scheduled tribes has to be brought about, it is only by treating vacancies in posts as reserved vacancies or unreserved vacancies that over a number of years a situation can be brought about where ultimately 15 per cent of ell cadres where posts are reserved are manned by scheduled castes personnel and 7 1/2 per cent of the post of the cadre are manned by scheduled tribes personnel. " (Emphasis supplied) in view of the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench on which reliance was placed by the learned Advocates of the respondents, it becomes obvious that once roster is introduced and percentage of reservation of posts for SC/st employees in promotional cadres is fixed by the State, in exercise of its powers under Art. 16 (4), taking service as a wholes-pread over years, situation is required to be brought about by which in the concerned cadre in which reservation for posts is made, proper percentage of posts which are reserved are manned by SC/ st. As this is the logical thurst of such reservation of posts as per Art. 16 (4) it necessarily follows as a logical corollary of that policy that while effecting reversions from such promotional cadres, cadre should be taken that percentage of reserved posts occupied by SC/st candidates does not fall below reservation percentage. This is not an independent aspect of the policy requiring special treatment to be given at exit point so far as promotional posts are concerned but it is a mirror image of such reservation policy regarding entry point and is a logical result thereof. It is true that the aforesaid Division Bench judgment was not directly concerned with the question about exit point and was concerned only with entry point. It is true that the aforesaid Division Bench judgment was not directly concerned with the question about exit point and was concerned only with entry point. Still the aforesaid observations of the Division Bench on a correct interpretation of Art. 16 (4) must logically yield that result. ( 32 ) IN this connection, we may also refer to observations of another Division bench of this Court consisting of P. R. Gokulakrishnan, C. J. and R. A. Mehta, J. in L P. A. No. 232 of 1988 decided on 15-7-1988. In that case, learned single Judge of this Court had passed an interim mandatory injunction directing the respondentauthorities to reinstate ST/sc promotees who were reverted despite the fact that percentage of reservation of posts available in the promotional cadre as laid down by the policy under Art. 16 (4) which was operating in field had not been exceeded. Upholding the said view of the learned single Judge, the Division Bench in the aforesaid appeal, has observed as under :"the respondents have also stated in the special civil application that if the principle of "last come first go" is applied mechanically, it will make mockery of Arts 15 (4) and 16 (4) of the Constitution under which positive mandate at Annexures a and b to the special civil application have been issued. Mr. Pandya, the learned Government pleader no doubt points out that the question of roster point is not available for fixing the seniority and for this purpose, he points out the resolution of the Government dated 3l-l-1976 wherein it is stated that the points in the roster are not for determining the seniority or for determining the order of promotion. Prima facie, the resolution in our view, does not do away the fixing of the seniority as per the promotion effected taking into account the roster point. If the respondents who belong to scheduled tribe got the promotion by virtue of roster point system, cannot be denied to enjoy the benefit if the reversion is made on the principle of seniority as interpreted by the learned Government pleader after reading the resolution referred to above. This view of us is only a prima facie view for the purpose of granting relief to the respondents herein. "the aforesaid observations prima facie support the contentions of the respondents. This view of us is only a prima facie view for the purpose of granting relief to the respondents herein. "the aforesaid observations prima facie support the contentions of the respondents. However, it has to be noted that they are only prima facie observations and cannot reflect the ratio of the case as the Division Bench order itself shows. However, it can certainly be relied upon by the respondents as a part of their arguments and for supporting the same. We are also inclined to agree with this view. ( 33 ) THE learned Advocate for the respondents also placed reliance on a decision of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in P. K. More v. Union of India, AIR 1959 Bom. 134 . A Division Bench of the Bombay high Court speaking through S. T. Desai, J. was concerned with the question whether temporary servant can be covered by the sweep of Art. 16. Answering this question in the affirmative, the Division Bench interpreted the scope and ambit of Art. 16 and laid down in para 18 of the report:"the guarantee of equality embraces all matters of employment - the article in terms clear and ample speaks of all "matters relating to employment" and it is impossible to accede to the suggestion that what is contemplated by Art. 16 is only the initial stage when the citizen is employed to serve the State. Nothing so unfair and startling could have been within the contemplation of the framers of the constitution. The guarantee, in our judgment, was intended to endure and not to be illusory. " ( 34 ) RELYING on these observations of the Division Bench, it was submitted by the learned Advocate for the respondents that even when question of snapping the relationship of employee-employer arises, applicability of Art. 16 has to be kept in view and if that is so, Art. 16 (4) which is a part and parcel of Art. 16 can carve out and field by way of exception to Art. 16 (1) and can also apply in such cases and even reversion can be considered to be uprooting the employee from the promotional post and in the wider sense of the term, it can be treated to be analogous to the termination of that assignment. ( 35 ) WE may now turn to a Full Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in Gopalkrishna v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1987 Bombay 123 (supra ). The full Bench was concerned with the question whether the Government policy making reservation for SC/st and denotified tribes/nomadic tribes in the category of inspectors of police and promotion from that category to that of Assistant commissioners of Police in the Greater Bombay Police Force was well sustained in the eye of law. Upholding the said policy, the Full Bench speaking through lsntin, J. made the following pertinent observations on the scope and ambit of art. 16 (4) in paras 26 and 31 of the report, in the light of various decisions of the Supreme Court holding the field :"thus, once the power to make reservation in favour of SCs and STs is exercised in the light of the provisions of Art. 16 (4), the sequitur must be that a roster pointwise for the purpose of vacancies for which reservation has been made must be brought into effect, and in order to do full justice, a carry forward rule must be properly enacted. The carry forward rule must be properly enacted. The carry forward rule must be so applied that in any particular year, the percentage of reservation does not exceed 50% The open candidates competing for an unreserved vacancy cannot complaint if a preference has been given to them in the first instance and in the carry forward period of 3 years, if vacancy is reserved in favour of SC or ST candidate. The logical corollary of reservation of posts in roster and the logical corollary to the roster is the carry forward rule for a particular number of years. If taking the services under the State as a whole as indeed, they must be taken, reservation of 13%, 7% and 3% for SCs, STs and DT/nts respectively has to be brought about, it is only done by treating vacancies in posts as reserved vacancies or unreserved vacancies so that over a number of years a situation can be brought about where ultimately, 13% of all cadres where posts are reserved are manned by scheduled castes personnel, 7% of the posts of the cadre are manned by ST personnel and 4% of the posts of the cadre are manned by the DT/nt personnel. It is not a single post that has to be looked at but all posts in genera. and the roster, which deals with the vacancies and with posts, is meant to give effect to the logic underlying the reservation rule. It is thus manifest that the roster system, the carry forward rule and reservation of vacancies have been recognised by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has emphasised that the reservation made in each year must be on the basis of total vacancies. The carry forward principle has been recognised and effectuated. The resolutions and roster were held valid with the result that as and when vacancies arose in each year they were filled in according to the resolution and roster. As the supreme Court upheld the power to make reservatioo in each year, it must necessarily follow that the total number of candidates belonging to backward classes would necessarily exceed the prescribed percentage "it may at once be noticed that the aforesaid view of the Bombay High court is on the same lines on which the Division Bench of this Court in (1978) XIX GLR 879 (supra) laid down the scope and ambit of Art. 16 (4) reservation policy in the light of roster system and carry forward Rule. In both these decisions, they have clearly ruled that the roster system and carry forward Rule should be so operated in the light of policy of reservation laid down by the authorities under Art. 16 (4) so that over a number of years, situation can be brought about where ultimately the reserved percentage of st/sc employees are found to be manning this fixed percentage of such posts. ( 36 ) IT is, therefore, axiomatic that for securing this result, those who are manning these posts within the percentage of posts reserved for them have to be permitted to occupy such posts when contingency for reversion arises. Even at that stage, this aspect of the matter is to be kept in view. We are in respectful agreement with the observations made by Lentin, J. of the Bombay high Court in the above case. We may mention at this stage one aspect of the decision rendered by the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court to which our attention was invited by Miss Doshit for the Authorities. We are in respectful agreement with the observations made by Lentin, J. of the Bombay high Court in the above case. We may mention at this stage one aspect of the decision rendered by the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court to which our attention was invited by Miss Doshit for the Authorities. She submitted that in para 2 of the report, it has been clearly mentioned that the Maharashtra government had issued a resolution dated 19-3-1979 directing that when any reversion was to be effected, members of the backward classes already in service should not be reverted if their strength in the promotion cadre did not exceed the prescribed percentage of reservation. It was her contention that in contrast, if we look at the policy of the State of Gujarat, no such provision of insulation of ST/sc employees against reversion in the light of quota for reserved posts is laid down. As we will refer to the Government policy, emanating from various resolutions and circulars issued by the State of Gujarat from time to time laying down the reservation policy under Art. 16 (4) and modifying the same as per the requirement of situations that developed from time to time, the aforesaid distinction between the policy of reservation followed by the Maharashtra Government and that followed by the State of Gujarat would pale into insignificance. ( 37 ) ON the other hand there is a division bench judgment of the bombay High Court dealing with the question of retrenchment of employees in the light of policy of reservation as laid down by Art. 16 (4 ). That was rendered in the case of N. B. Andraskar v. Collector, Teitmal, 1976 (2) SLR 755. In that case, the petitioners who belonged to general category bad felt aggrieved by their retrenchment from service of Census department even though according to them their juniors were continued in service. That was rendered in the case of N. B. Andraskar v. Collector, Teitmal, 1976 (2) SLR 755. In that case, the petitioners who belonged to general category bad felt aggrieved by their retrenchment from service of Census department even though according to them their juniors were continued in service. The defence to the Collectors action was to the effect thatby a policy of Government as laid down under the provision of Part XVI and Art. 16 (4) of the Constitution, a specific quota was reserved for the categories belonging to the Scheduled Tribes and Nomadic Tribes, but the petitioner did not belong to that category known as Scheduled Tribes or Scheduled Castes and so long as the concerned employees who belonged to ST/sc communities did not exceed their quota of reservation, they could not be retrenched and, therefore, the petitioners retrenchment cannot be said to be in any way illegal. Dharmadhikari, j. speaking for the Division Bench made the following pertinent observations"the reservation contemplated by the Government resolution relates to the posts in the public employment. It is obviously done by the Government having regard to the provisions of Part XVI and Art. 16 (4) of the Constitution. A specific quota is reserved for the categories belonging to the scheduled tribes and nomadic tribes. The petitioners do not belong to the categories known as scheduled tribes or scheduled castes In this view of the matter, in our opinion, the petitioner could not be said to be competing with the persons belonging to scheduled castes and the scheduled tribes as they belong to a distinct and different class. If this is so, then it cannot be said that the Government while terminating the services of the petitioners has not followed the declared policy incorporated in the various Government Resolutions. Even while retrenching the employees from services, it is open for the Government to take into consideration, this policy and in that case the retrenchment will have to be made in such a way so that the quota reserved for the various backward classes is not disturbed If this is so, then, in our opinion, the respondents have given cogent and convincing reasons for not following the principle of last come first go in this particular case. In this view of the matter it cannot be said that the order of termination is either arbitrary or illegal. In this view of the matter it cannot be said that the order of termination is either arbitrary or illegal. "miss Doshit for the respondents submitted that the ratio laid down in the above decision will not apply as in the present case, the petitioners were sought to be reverted and not retrenched. In our view, that would not make even slightest of difference. Their promotional posts occupied by the concerned employees if any out is to be effected on account of administrative exigencies, that may be brought about either by retrenching direct recraits or by reverting the departmental promotees as they have got a lien on the lower cadre posts from which they have risen in the rank and got promoted. If in effecting retrenchment, reservation of percentage of post for ST/sc candidate offers them immunity and insulation, to the extent their quota of reservation posts is not exceeded, on the same principle, while effecting reversions, such immunity would flow for them by the very policy of reservation of posts, as in both these cases, they will have to man the post occupied by them in the promotional cadre. Whether they go out of service as direct recruits by retrenchment or they are reverted to the lower cadre posts, result is the same. meaning thereby, they lose the right to continue in higher posts and therefore, it would also smack of termination of service from the promotional cadre. If in case of retrenchment, the concerned employee who is occupying the post against reserved percentage of post is to be protected, there is no rhyme or reason why such protection should not be available to ST/sc candidates while they are required to be reverted on account of administrative exigencies. Both these eventualities therefore logically flow from the policy of. reservation adopted in its discretion by the Government under Art. 16 (4 ). Both these eventualities therefore logically flow from the policy of. reservation adopted in its discretion by the Government under Art. 16 (4 ). As we will discuss hereafter, when we come to the reservation policy followed by the State from time to time, we will notice that in case of retrenchment, such policy is actually laid down to be followed by the State of Gujarat and if this is so, even while effecting reveision of such employees from higher cadre to lower cadre posts, as a logical corollary, such immunity would clearly flow in favour of such SC/st candidates so long as percentage of reservation is not exceeded in the promotional posts. We, therefore, respectfully agree with the ratio of the decision of the aforesaid division bench of the Bombay high Court. ( 38 ) THE learned Advocate for the petitioners placed reliance on the decision of Rajasthan High Court in Sudama Prashad v. Divisional Supdt. , W. Rly. , air 1965 Raj 109 . In that case, one Sudama Prashad who was officiating as Chief Clerk in the Western Railway at the relevant time had challenged the order of his reversion to the lower rank passed by the General Manager. The facts of the case revealed that the petitioner Sudama Prashad was duly promoted to the post of Chief Clerk by passing respondent Shankerlal who subsequently obtained a certificate from Additional District Collector, Kanpur to the effect that he belonged to Khateek community, a Scheduled Caste. Placing reliance on that certificate, the General Manager on the representation of respondent-Shankerlal, ordered that he may be promoted in place of petitioner- sudama Prashad who should be reverted. It is in the background of this factual position that the Division Bench observed in para 14 of the report that what art. 16 (4) contemplates is that giving of preferential treatment to members of the Scheduled Castes or Tribes in matters of employment, but it cannot lend support to the contention that this Article could be utilised for demoting another person who has once been lawfully appointed. 16 (4) contemplates is that giving of preferential treatment to members of the Scheduled Castes or Tribes in matters of employment, but it cannot lend support to the contention that this Article could be utilised for demoting another person who has once been lawfully appointed. in short, the Division bench held that at the time of promotion, respondent No. 3 was bypassed and petitioner-Sudama Prashad was promoted and presumably in the background of the fact that at that time, respondent No. 3 had not obtained any such certificate that he was a SC candidate, consequence of promotion of the petitioner could not be subsequently recalled by promoting Shankerlal in his place merely because as per Art. 16 (4), policy of giving preferential treatment to members of ST/sc for promotion was being followed. The aforesaid decision of the Rajasthan High Court proceeds on its own facts and cannot be pressed in service by the petitioners so far as the present petitions are concerned. We are concerned with the moot question whether the authorities were justified in reverting ST/sc candidates who are already promoted as such against their quota of reservation and when in their promotional quota, percentage of leservation is not exceeded and the question about reverting some of the employees arises on account of administrative exigencies. The aforesaid decision, therefore, is of no avail to the petitioners in supporting their contention. ( 39 ) ON the other hand, we have got a decision of the Allahabad high Court in the case of S. Mohd. Hashim v. State of U. P. , 1976 (1) lic 498 wherein K. N. Singh, J. (as he then was) had to consider the question Whether senior employees can be terminated from service while retaining juniors With a view to retaining quota of reservation for SC employees. Answering this question in the affirmative, K. N. Singh, J. in paras 5 and 6 of the report, in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in AIR 1974 SC 423 , applying art. 16 to cases of reservation in Government service, observed as under : "in view of the above declaration of law by the Supreme Court, it is difficult to accept the contention that Art. 16 is not applicable to termination of service. 16 to cases of reservation in Government service, observed as under : "in view of the above declaration of law by the Supreme Court, it is difficult to accept the contention that Art. 16 is not applicable to termination of service. If the right to equality in employment under the State is applicable to termination of service, clause (4) of Art. 16 would at once be attracted. Article 16 (4) lays down that nothing in the Article shall prevent the State from making any provision for the reservation of appointment or post in favour of any backward class of citizens which in the opinion of the State was not adequately represented in the service under the State. No doubt clauses (2) and (2) ensure equality of opportunity in matters relating to employment and appointment, but clause (4) carves out a general exception to the rule which permits the State to make provision for reservation of appointment to posts in favour of socially backward class namely scheduled castes and scheduled tribes to ensure their adequate representation in service. It is well settled that the State is empowered to make reservation for certain class of citizens for appointment at the stage of initial appointment. It is further well established that the reservation can be made in favour of scheduled castes even at the stage of promotion also. See General Manager, Southern Pailway v. Rangachari (supra ). In my opinion, the same principle would apply to termination also. It is permissible to the State while terminating the services of temporary Government servant to retain the services of members belonging to the scheduled castes if it is necessaty to maintain the reserved quota. As already discussed, equality of opportunity in matters of public employment contained in clauses (1) and (2) of Art. 16 is not sacrosant. It is subject to the provisions contained in clause (4 ). It is thus open to the State to terminate the services of a senior Government servant and to retain the services of junior person if in doing that the State is maintaining the reserved quota fixed for the scheduled caste. There is no dispute that the State Government had made reservation in favour of scheduled caste candidates in the Marketing section of the Food and Civil Supplies Department. The petitioners as well as other persons belonging to the scheduled castes were recruited to the same service. There is no dispute that the State Government had made reservation in favour of scheduled caste candidates in the Marketing section of the Food and Civil Supplies Department. The petitioners as well as other persons belonging to the scheduled castes were recruited to the same service. On the abolition of certain posts, the petitioners services were terminated but the services of the scheduled caste employees who were junior to the petitioner were not terminated because they belonged to scheduled caste, as their retention was necessary to maintain the reserved quota. The procedure followed by the respondents does not violate Art 16 of the Constitution and no hostile discrimination has been practised against them " k. B. Singh. J. in that very decision distinguished the decision of the Rajasthan high Court in AIR 1965 Raj 109 by observing that in Sudama Prashad case, the facts were different. In that case, no reseivation in favour of Scheduled Caste had been made either at the time of initial recruitment or at the time of confirmation. Two employees were recruited to the sevice as general candidates, Later on, one of them claimed to belong to Scheduled Caste. He produced a certificate and claimed promotion to the higher post to the prejudice of senior persons on the ground that lie belonged to Scheduled Caste. In those circumstances, the rajasthan High Court held that the order of reversion was violative of Art. 16 of the Constitution. The law laid down in that case would not apply to the facts of the case before the learned Judge of the Allahabad High Court. Same position obtains in the present case. In fact, the learned single Judge has referred to the decision of the Bombay High Court in 1986 (2} SLR 755 with approved, we concur with the above view of the Allahabad High court. Before paiting with discussion of case law, we may also mention that the learned Advocate for the petitioners invited our attention to the observations found in critical commentary on Constitution of India by H. M. Seervai, third Edition, Vol. I and Fourth Edition Vol. I respectively. So far as Vol. Before paiting with discussion of case law, we may also mention that the learned Advocate for the petitioners invited our attention to the observations found in critical commentary on Constitution of India by H. M. Seervai, third Edition, Vol. I and Fourth Edition Vol. I respectively. So far as Vol. I of Third Edition is concerned, the learned author has commented on the theory of legislative device underlying Art. 16 (4) of the Constitution as laid down by Subba Rao, J. in minority judgment in the case of Champaakram dorairajan, AIR 1964 SC 179 . According to the learned author, the reasoning is not well sustained. In para 9. 141, the learned author says the words nothing in this article as employed in Art. 16 (4) do not represent the legislative device. According to the learned author, Art. 16 (4) is an exception to Ait. 16 (1 ). Be that as it may, as we have seen earlier once Ait. 16 (4) applies, it certainly covers the field which it carves out for special application de hors general sweep of Art. 16 (1 ). It would, therefore, be not necessary to examine in detail the view of the learned author on this theory. ( 40 ) OUR attention was also invited to the observations made by the learned author in Vol. I of Fourth Edition in para 9. 385 to 389. They are on the same lines on which paras in Vol. I of third edition have proceeded so far as theory of legislative device is concerned, and therefore, it is not necessary to repeat what we have stated in this connection earlier. Mr. Shukla appearing for some of the petitioners drew our attention to the observations made in the same Volume in para 9. 160. That para refers to the legislative history of Art. 4. In fact, in para 9. 191 the learned author notes that in Thomass case it is held that Art. 16 (4) is not an exception but it lays down a sepal ate Constitution policy. The learned author has not inclined to agree with the majority decision in that case. However, so far as we are concerned, the said decision would be binding to us under Art. 141 of the Constitution. . ( 41 ) NOW is the time for us to turn to the consideration of the points that arise for our decision. The learned author has not inclined to agree with the majority decision in that case. However, so far as we are concerned, the said decision would be binding to us under Art. 141 of the Constitution. . ( 41 ) NOW is the time for us to turn to the consideration of the points that arise for our decision. But before we do so, we may have a look at the actual policy of reservation followed by the State of Gujarat from time to time looking to exigencies of situations prevailing at different points of time. This policy can be culled out from various resolutions issued by the slate of Gujarat from time to time. ( 42 ) RESERVATION Policy Followed by the State Under Article 16 (4) : for the first time, on 31-1-1976, the Government of Gujarat in the general Administration department, issued a resolution by order and in the name of the Governor of Gujarat directing that there should be reservation for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Government employees to the same extent as has been prescribed by Government for direct recruitment of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates in Government service from time to time even in respect of promotion to be made on the basis of seniority subject to fitness in appointment to all Class I, II, III and IV posts in grades or services in which the element of direct recruitment, if any, does not exceed 50%. It was laid down that a decision on the fitness or unfitness of an officer should be taken by the departmental promotion committee which should be constituted by the departments. The departments should decide on the composition of the departmental promotion committees having regard to the nature of post/ posts for which promotion is to be made. While referring proposals to the departmental promotion committee for promotion on the basis of seniority subject to fitness in respect of vacancies expected to arise during a year, the following procedure should be followed :"1. A 100 point roster for various percentages of reservation for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes as appended (appendices 1 to 8) to determine the number of reserved vacancies in a year should be followed. The points mentioned in the roster should be reserved for the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. A 100 point roster for various percentages of reservation for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes as appended (appendices 1 to 8) to determine the number of reserved vacancies in a year should be followed. The points mentioned in the roster should be reserved for the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. The points in the roster are only for determining the number of vacancies to be reserved for these categories in the total number of vacancies for which a select list is to be drawn. The points in the roster are not for determining seniority or for determining the order of promotion. 2. Whenever according to the points in the roster there are any vacancies reserved for each of the two classes mentioned above, separate list should be drawn up of the eligible candidates from each of these categories, and arranged in order of their inter se seniority in the main list. 3 The scheduled castes and the scheduled tribe employees should be adjusted by the departmental promotion committee separately in regard to their times. 4. The select list thus prepared would normally be operative for a period of one year, but this period may be extended by six months to enable such of the officers included therein, as could not be appointed to the higher posts during the normal period of one year, to be appointed during the extended period. "while turning to the appendix 9 of the said resolution indicating 100 point roster districtwise, it was laid down that roster for Class III and Class iv posts to be filled in at district level for ST/sc shall be on the basis of 9% and 14% respectively. Thus, in all there was provision for reservation of 23% on promotional posts for ST/sc employees. This inter-se allotment of percentage between ST/sc naturally varied from district to district in the light of extent of ST/sc population in the concerned district. In the working of the said resolution, some difficulties were felt and a clarification was sought from the Government. Thus, in all there was provision for reservation of 23% on promotional posts for ST/sc employees. This inter-se allotment of percentage between ST/sc naturally varied from district to district in the light of extent of ST/sc population in the concerned district. In the working of the said resolution, some difficulties were felt and a clarification was sought from the Government. Hence, by a resolution dated 19-6-1976, on the question as to what should be the zone of consideration for employees required to be considered against the reserved vacancies, it was laid down that so long as promotion against reserved vacancies is based on seniority subject to fitness, employees belonging to ST/sc, if not available within the number of employees considered for being brought on the select list, will have to be located down below in the seniority, irrespective of their rank in the seniority for inclusion in the select list against reserved vacancies and a final select list will be prepared in the light of the resolution dated 31-1-1976. ( 43 ) BY a later resolution dated 5-5-1987, Government decided to apply reservation to SC/st employees from (i) Class IV to Class IV; (ii) Class IV to Class III (iii) within Class III, (iv) Class III or Class II, (v) within Class ii and (vi) Class II to the lowest rung or category in Class I in grades or services in which the percentage of promotion is 33 1/3% or more with effect from 1/04/1977. ( 44 ) ON 27-1-1978, a clarification was issued in connection with preparation of select list for promotion that reservations or promotions were to be effected in light of reservation of post for ST/sc persons. ( 45 ) BY a resolution dated 8-4-1978, it was directed that while effecting promotions, even to selection grade posts, orders regarding reservation for SC/ sts in promotion made on the basis of seniority subject to fitness would apply. ( 46 ) A booklet issued on 22-4-1983 by the State of Gujarat in the General administration Department containing collection of orders regarding reservation for ST/sc, Socially and Economically backward and physically handicapped persons in Government Service. It enlisted relevant Govt. circulars and resolutions. It also enlisted Government policy flowing from these circulars and resolutions holding the field on that day. It enlisted relevant Govt. circulars and resolutions. It also enlisted Government policy flowing from these circulars and resolutions holding the field on that day. In para 22 of the said booklet, alongwith its two sub-paras a provision was made that benefit be riven to sc/st employees at the time of retrenchment. When translated into English, they read as under : 22. 1 At the time of retrenchment any SC/st employees in seivice. if otherwise liable to be retrenched according to their seniority should not be discharged. However, their strength in Class III and IV service in any office should not exceed percentage of the post for such employees as worked out as per roster system and in the light of recruitment rules and to that extent, Government employees belonging to other castes should be discharged. But when question of seniority is to be decided between permanent employees and temporary Government servants, then in that eventuality, even though temporary employees may be beloning to backward class, they may be liable to be retrenched without taking into consideration that aspect. 22. 2 At the time of retrenchment, total posts kept reserved for SC/ ST should be taken into consideration and out of them, retrenchment may be effected of backward class employees to the extent their strength exceeds the reserved percentage of posts kept for them. ( 47 ) BY a Government resolution dated 18-6-1984, in the Administration department, it was laid down that in many cases, it was found that size of select list was unnecessarily kept large. Consequently, ST/sc employees could not get promotion within a year. Government, therefore, amended the earlier resolution dated 22-4-1983 regarding preparation of select list and added para 8 (1) to the effect that within six months of preparation of select list for promotion, matter should be reviewed and if it was found by the end of the year that anticipated vacancies were likely to fall to great extent and consequently by the end of the year, many candidates enlisted in the list may go without being promoted and if one-third of candidates in the list had not obtained promotion, the number of vacancies should be reconsidered and size of the select list must be reduced and in the revised select list, considering the reserved vacancies as per roster, ST/sc employees should be adjusted against their reserved vacancies. ( 48 ) AFORESAID are the relevant circulars and resolutions which held the field till 1985 when the situation underwent a change. There were antireservation agitations in the State of Gujarat. In their wake, Government appointed Sadhwani Committee to go into the question and to recommend suitable measures for streamlining the reseivation policy for its future operation. Representatives of SC/st as well as of general category of employees were heard and the Sadhwani Committee made certain recommendations which were accepted by the State of Gujarat and the reservation policy was duly modified and various Government resolutions and circulars were issued in the light of sadhwani Committee recommendations. The reservation policy as promulgated by the State under Art. 16 (4) will, therefore, have to be read in the light of subsequent resolutions and circulars issued by the Government having accepted necessary recommendations of the Sadhwani Committee. We will now refer to these resolutions and circulars. By resolution dated 17-5-1985 issued by the GAD it was provided that select list of employees found fit to be promoted should be so arranged that number of employees on the select list should not exceed three times vacancies. It was further provided that when employees belonging to SC/ ST were not available on the select list in sufficient number to fill up the reserved vacancies, then without looking at their seniority, such employees even though lower in seniority, should be taken into consideration for being included in the select list. By a later resolution dated 10-12-1985, it was directed that instructions issued in connection with preparation of select list and for inclusion of SC/ st employees in such list, should be scrupulously followed. ( 49 ) THEN, is found resolution dated 17-1-1986 issued by the General administration Department in connection with recommendation No. 4 of sadhwani Committee. The subject of the resolution is about reservation of posts for SC/st in promotional avenues. The resolution recites that original policy of reservation as reflected by resolution dated 31-1-1976 is modified as under: roster and carry-forward procedure shall be postponed in those cadres where ST employees had got representation as per reservation percentage plus 1% more. The subject of the resolution is about reservation of posts for SC/st in promotional avenues. The resolution recites that original policy of reservation as reflected by resolution dated 31-1-1976 is modified as under: roster and carry-forward procedure shall be postponed in those cadres where ST employees had got representation as per reservation percentage plus 1% more. It was further provided therein that with a view to maintaining representation of SC/st in the promotional posts, the concerned competent authorities should recalculate the posts occupied by such categories and care should be taken to see to it that in those promotional posts where representation of SC/st was less than the reserved quota plus 1%, roster and carry-forward system should be so implemented for such posts that representation of SC employees in such categories of posts is permanently maintained to the extent of reserved percentage plus one more percentage. ( 50 ) BY a resolution dated 26-9-1986, it was provided that if vacancies reserved for SC/st promotees cannot be filled in due to non-availability of such employees, then. such posts should be carried forward for three recruitment years and after three recruitment years, if such posts are still not filled in, then such posts should be filled in by direct recruitment. ( 51 ) BY another resolution of the same date, it was provided that reserved posts carried forward on account of non-availability of reserved types of candidates should not ordinarily be dereserved. ( 52 ) ON similar lines were issued resolutions dated 10-7-1989 and 4-8- 1989. ( 53 ) THE resolution dated 10-7-1989 issued by the General Administration department is worthnoting in this connection. It was noted therein that because of austerity drive many posts reserved for SC/st could not be filled in for making up quota and the result was that there was lot of backlog in this connection- It was found necessary to maintain represention of SC/st in these posts and hence, the Government had decided that when the question of filling up vacancies for such communities arises in future and when posts were carried forward by way of backlog, such restrictions should not be applied. ( 54 ) THESE relevant circulars and resolutions issued by the State of Gujarat after 1985 clearly bring out in sharp focus a change in the earlier reservation policy promulgated under Art. 16 (4) by earlier resolution of 31-1-1976. ( 54 ) THESE relevant circulars and resolutions issued by the State of Gujarat after 1985 clearly bring out in sharp focus a change in the earlier reservation policy promulgated under Art. 16 (4) by earlier resolution of 31-1-1976. The latest position regarding policy of reservation adopted by the State clearly postulated that there should be reservation quota of vacancies for SC/st in promotional avenues and effort should be made at all times to maintain such quota on permanent basis. ( 55 ) IT is now time for us to deal with the points for consideration seriatim. Point No. 1 : So far as this point is concerned, earlier resolution holds the field as on 31-1-1976, as seen above. It is true that pursuant to the said resolution, as amended from time to time, roster was introduced and it was provided that these roster points were to be utilised for ascertaining number of reserved vacancies for the posts in the promotional cadre. This resolution came up for consideration of this Court firstly before the learned single Judge P. D. Desai, J, who by his judgment in Special Civil Application no. 3600 of 1980 decided on 9/03/1981, took the view that the points in roster are only for deterrriining number of vacancies to be reserved and that a person included in the select list even if he belongs to that category, cannot claim the right to be promoted at the point of roster. This view was confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court (Corarn : b. J. Divan, C. J. and G. T. Nanavati, J.) in L. P. A. No. 81 of 1981. These decisions have interpreted the terms of resolution dated 31-1-1976. On the clear language of this resolution especially paras 2 and 2. 1, no other view who possible. The effort made by the learned Advocate for the respondents to persuade us that these decisions require reconsideration cannot be countenanced fur the simple reason that on the express terms of the resolution, no other view is possible. It is of course true that the learned Advocates of the respondents, relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Hira lal v. Dist Judge, Ghaziabad, 1983 (3) SCC 371 , submitted that the Supreme court had clearly ruled that when roster points are fixed and roster is applied, vacancies have to be filled in Strictly according to roster points. That decision cannot be of any avail to the respondents for the simple reason that the supreme Court was concerned with the direct recruitment in the light of roster points. So far as promotion to be effected in the light of roster points is concerned, the said decision cannot be of any avail especially when a clear-cut policy emanates from the aforesaid resolution dated 31-1-1976 and it is that policy which was promulgated by the State under Art. 16 (4 ). Consequently, it is not possible to agree with the learned Advocates of the respondents that concerned SC/st candidates who are brought on the select list in the light of vacancies reserved for them in the promotional cadre, must necessarily be given promotions against the roster point vacancies, irrespective of their ranking in the select list. All that can be held in their favour is that they can claims accelerated promotion on the earmarked reserved posis in the promotional cadre in a recruitment year. Role of roster points is only for determining the number of reserved vacancies of posts in the promotional cadre. To illustrate how reservation policy for regulating promotions of ST/sc employees in the promotional cadre in the light of resolution dated 31-1-1976 can work out in practice, the following example can conveniently be taken : If there are 10 vacancies to be filled in in a given recruitment year and if reserved quota of ST/sc employees is 20%, then out of such 10 vacancies, 2 will have to be reserved for SC/st and 8 will go to general category. When a combined select list of eligible candidates is prepared and arranged in the light of inter-se seniority of these selected candidates, vacancies will have to be filled in according to ranking of concerned candidates on the select list. If first 8 vacancies are filled in by working such select list and if all of them go to general category of employees, then, for the last two vacancies, general category candidates even though standing higher up in the select list, have to be bypassed and ST/sc employees standing however lower down in the select list have to be picked up so that these two vacancies can be made available in the given recruitment year to such ST/sc candidates and to that extent, general category of candidates in the select list would stand pro tanto bypassed. This exercise is to be undertaken for them for every recruitment year. ST/sc employees cannot insist merely on the basis of roster point that if in the roster, first vacancy is earmarked for st/sc, the very first vacancy be given to such candidate even though he may not stand at top of the select list for a given recruitment year. That type of contention is contraindicated by the clear terms of resolution dated 31-1-1976 as interpreted by this Court as aforesaid. But at least 20% of vacancies in any recruitment year will have to be filled in by ST/sc employees on the select list, however, lower down they may be, in the seniority and ranking. The first point is answered as under. The rosier system does not guarantee to the reserved category of employees any right to be considered for being appointed, if otherwise eligible to the roster point vacancies as such. But they can certainly claim accelerated promotion of earmarked reserved posts in the promotional cadre in any recruitment year treating the roster points only for determining number of reserved vacancies of posts in promotional cadre. The first part of point is accordingly answered in the negative, while the second part in the affirmative. ( 56 ) POINT No. 2 : So far as this point is concerned, in the light of reservation policy pursued by the State under Art. 16 (4) as modulated from time to time and as adopted to it as discussed earlier, no doubt is left in our mind that this policy of reservation ensures that a fixed percentage of posts in the promotion cadre is always manned by and reseived for such SC/st employees. To recapitulate, resolutions of 17-5-1985 and 10-7-1989 clearly bring out this position. In no uncertain terms, the State through the General Administration department has proclaimed its reservation policy under Art. 16 (4) as modified by these resolutions that efforts should be made at all times to ensure that reservation quota of promotional posts for such candidates is maintained permanently. It is, therefore, not possible to agree with Miss Doshit for the respondent-authorities that there is no such policy emanating from the resolutions and that old policy reflected by resolution dated 31-1-1976 only holds the field. In fact, resolution dated 31-1-1976 itself in terms is modified and modulated by later resolutions as seen earlier. It is, therefore, not possible to agree with Miss Doshit for the respondent-authorities that there is no such policy emanating from the resolutions and that old policy reflected by resolution dated 31-1-1976 only holds the field. In fact, resolution dated 31-1-1976 itself in terms is modified and modulated by later resolutions as seen earlier. Consequently, the said resolution dated 31-1-1976 will have to be read in light of later modifications and cannot be read in isolation. It can easily be visualised therefore that though 31-1-1976 resolution holds the field so far as entry points in the promotional cadre are concerned and for regulating these entry points, later subsequent circulars and resolutions as referred to above clearly modulate its effect and guarantees a fixed quota of reserved posts in the promotional cadre for such SC/st promotees who have been brought in higher promotional cadre via operation of roster points and carry forward rule. Once this conclusion is reached, it becomes obvious that reservation policy followed by the State under Art. 16 (4) as on dale, clearly falls in line with the reservation policy followed by the state of Maharashtra and which has been referred to by the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in AIR 1987 Bom 123 (supra ). The distinction sought to be drawn between the two policies by Miss Doshit for the respondent- authorities, therefore, pales into insignificance and has to be treated as distinction without any real difference. Once the G. R. of 17-1-1986 and 19-7-1989 are read along with the G. R. dated 16-4-1983 discussed above, it becomes obvious that they projected the following clear-cut policy of reservation enunciated by the State under Art. 16 (4) : (1) SC/st candidates who are otherwise eligible for promotion in every recruitment year, be promoted in such a way that at least 23% of their quota of vacancies are filled in by such eligible SC/st candidates, however lower or higher they may be on the select list in the light of their interse seniority. (2) After they enter promotional cadre, it should be seen that they occupy the promotional posts against their reserved quota of 23% and such occupation should be kept intact permanently and should not be allowed to fall down below reservation quota of posts. (2) After they enter promotional cadre, it should be seen that they occupy the promotional posts against their reserved quota of 23% and such occupation should be kept intact permanently and should not be allowed to fall down below reservation quota of posts. (3) Whenever any reversion or retrenchment is to be effected from the promotional cadre, those SC/st candidates who are found to be occupying reserved percentage of posts in this cadre and who are not in excess of their quota of reservation even after the posts are reduced, cannot be disturbed and cannot be either terminated by way of retrenchment or reverted to lower cadre of posts as the case may be and to that extent, they are to be treated as insulated aginst such retrenchment or reversion as the case may be. Consequently, point No. 2 will have to be answered in the affirmative. ( 57 ) POINT No. 3 : So far as this point is concerned, as a sequitur to our discussion and answer to point No. 2, it has to be held that general rule of seniority has to be departed from so far as SC/st category of employees are concerned and that immunity can be claimed for such employees from reversion even though they may be junior in promotional cadre if fixed percentage of reserved quota is not exceeded by them. This is a logical corollary to our finding that there is fixed quota of SC/ ST employees in promotional cadre as reflected by the relevant G. Rs. holding the field. In fact, this is the thurst of the policy followed by the State under Art. 16 (4) and so long as that policy holds the field, the said immunity from reversion would remain available to SC/st promotees. How this policy can be worked out at the exit point which is mirror image of entry point, can be better illustrated as under : ( 58 ) IF there are 100 promotional posts in a given cadre in an office and if reservation for ST/sc category in such promotion posts is 20% then 80 posts can be occupied by general category employees and 20 posts will have to be kept reserved for SC/st employees. If these posts are reduced on administrative grounds to 50, then at least 10 posts will have to be kept reserved for ST/sc employees and 40 posts will be for occupation by general category of employees. If such 50 posts are reduced and the available posts fall down from 100 to 50 and if 50 employees are required to be reverted, if reserved category of posts occupied by promotees are only 8, then, none of them can be touched and all 50 reversions will have to be effected from general category of employees. Result would be that there would be 8 reserved category promotees and 42 general category of promotees who would remain in the office in the promotional cadre. If on the other hand, at a given point of time, SC/st promotees occupy 12 posts out of 100 posts, which would be less than 20 of available posts, and if 50 posts are reduced due to administrative exigency and if 50 reversions are to be effected, then, out of remaining 50 posts, reserved category of posts would be only 10 (being 20% of 50 ). Under these circumstances, two junior most ST/sc employees will have to be reverted and 48 general category employees according to their inter se seniority will have to be reverted. This happens because available ST/sc candidates in the light of the remaining posts in the office would exceed reserved quota by two posts and to that extent they will have 10 give way in the light of juniority vis-a-vis general category employees in the promotion cadre. Thus, out of 50 reduced posts, 48 posts will go to the share of general category of employees and two junior most sc/st employees will also get reverted as per their inter se seniority with general category employees. Other 10 ST/sc employees will be retained against the reserved percentage of posts meant to be occupied by them. That is how policy of reversion should be effected in the light of reservation policy adopted by the State under Art. 16 (4 ). Point No. 3, therefore, will have to be answered in the affirmative. ( 59 ) POINT No. 4 :- As Point No. 3 answered in the affirmative, the alternative contention put forward by the learned Advocates for the respondents would cot survive. Point No. 3, therefore, will have to be answered in the affirmative. ( 59 ) POINT No. 4 :- As Point No. 3 answered in the affirmative, the alternative contention put forward by the learned Advocates for the respondents would cot survive. ( 60 ) FINAL order : In the light of our decisions on these points, it Las to be held that the petitioners in these petitions are not justified in contending that while effecting reversion from the promotional posts, reserved category of candidates if junior to them in the promotional cadre should be reverted first ipso facto without considering whether they are entitled to retain these reseived posts against the quota or percentage of reserved post in the light of available promotional posts even after such reduction of posts. Prayer (A) in Special Civil Application No. 5370 of 1990 which proceeds on such wrong assumption as discussed above, has to be rejected. So far as prayer b is concerned, it relates to challenge to proviso to Rule 5. That question is being examined separately by this very Bench in another group of petitions where the learned Advocate of the petitioners has raised this contention and hence, so far as this question is concerned, it is kept open and will abide by the result in other group of petitions where the question of proviso to Rule 5 is being considered. So far as Special Civil Application No. 5937 of 1990 is concerned, prayer 21 (1) cannot be granted as it proceeded on the basis that while effecting reversion junior persons must be reverted first even though they may be belonging to SC/st category and may be occupying the posts against their reserved quota. Similar, prayer 21 (11) also cannot be granted on this very ground. So far as prayer 21 (111) is concerned, it raises the question of vires of proviso to Rule 5 of the Rules. That question is kept open for decision and will abide by the result in other group of petitions wherein this question is on the anvil. So far as prayer 21 (IV) is concerned, it will stand rejected so far as challenge to seniority list dated 15-7-1989 is concerned centering round the question whether SC/st candidates must he reverted first, irrespective of quota of reservation posts guaranteed to them. So far as prayer 21 (IV) is concerned, it will stand rejected so far as challenge to seniority list dated 15-7-1989 is concerned centering round the question whether SC/st candidates must he reverted first, irrespective of quota of reservation posts guaranteed to them. So far as other challenge to the seniority list is concerned, it will abide by the result of companion petitions wherein vires to proviso to Rule 5 of the Rules is on the anvil. So far as Special Civil Application No. 5134 of 1990 is concerned, prayer 20 (1) cannot be granted as it is based on the premise that respondent-Authorities should be directed to revert respondents Nos. 3 and 10 on the principle of last come first go as these respondents are found to be occupying posts against reserved percentage of posts. So far as prayer 21 (11) is concerned, it also cannot be granted for the same reasons for which prayer 20 (1) cannot be granted. So far as prayer 20 (III) is concerned, as it relates to question of vires to proviso to Rule 5, this question is kept open and will abide by the result of this question in the companion petitions which are being decided separately. However, before parting with this judgment, it must be held that the concerned Collectors shall have first to decide whether SC/st category of employees who are not reverted and who are retained in promotional posts fall within the permissible reservation percentage or quota of p-omotional posts which survive after reduction of posts or whether they exceed the quota and if they exceed such percentage of quota then the excess number of SC/st employees who are junior most SC/st employees will have to be reverted along with general category promotees according to their inter se seniority. Accordingly, reversion may be effected of the concerned employees whether belonging to general category or SC/st in the concerned Collectorates. If the impugned reversion orders meet this test, then they can be implemented. If not, fresh appropriate reversion orders may be passed if required, keeping in view the observations and directions contained in this judgment. All these three petitions will stand disposed of accordingly subject to the aforesaid directions, clarifications and observations. There will be no order as to costs in each of them. Interim reliefs granted therein will stand vacated. .