Judgment S. B. Sinha, J. 1. -this application is directed against an order dated 10-9-1991 whereby the respondents had been promoted to the post of Headmasters. 2. The petitioners are said to be the Science Graduates and they are drawing the scale of Trained Graduates since 8 8-1991. 3. Admittedly the Governor of Bihar promulgated ordinances from time to time for taking over of the elementary Schools which comprise of both Primary and Middle schools The schools belonging to Municipal corporations and Municipalities ; various District Boards are established and opened under the Improvement and Extension Programmer and aided or unaided schools run and managed by the governing bodies were taken over. The said ordinances were repealed by a legislative Act known as Bihar non-Government Elementary Schools (Taking Over of Management and Control)Act, 1976, (hereinafter referred to as the 1976 Act ). 4. Section 7 of the Act vests the State Government with the power to frame rules. However, admittedly no rules have yet been framed. 5. The State of Bihar, however, issued various executive instructions in purported exercise of its power under Sec.8 of the 1976 Act. In terms of the said executive instructions for the purpose of appointment. Promotion and transfer etc , a Committee was constituted known as District education Establishment Committee. 6. Admittedjy, the scales of pay admissible to the teachers of elementary schools were divided into three grades by a notification dated 18-12-1984. Thus seniority is dependent upon entering into a particular grade and not from the date of initial appointment. A scheme was made by the State Government purported to be under a crash programme commonly known as UNICEF scheme pursuant whereof separate units for Science teachers in all the three scales namely Trained Matric, Trained Intermediate and Trained Graduate, were sanctioned. The petitioners although were initially appointed ander the said scheme, later on they wsre absorbed by the State of Bihar. 7. The District Education Establishment Committee took up the matter of promotion to the post of Headmaster in its meeting dated 4-5-1989 and those teachers whose names appear upto serial No.297 to 332 were directed to be promoted. 8. According to the petitioners, although they were promoted but the district Superintendent of Education did not issue any promotion order for extraneous reasons. 9. 8. According to the petitioners, although they were promoted but the district Superintendent of Education did not issue any promotion order for extraneous reasons. 9. It is stated that eight appointment letters were issued bearing Memo nos.934 to 941 in terms whereof the petitioners were posted an the vacant posts of the Headmasters but it was directed that they would be getting the same scales of pay meaning thereby the Trained Graduate Scales. A sample copy of the said order is contained in Annexure-2 to the writ application. 10. The petitioners contention is that the said orders besides being contrary to the decision of the Establishment Committee, is also inconsistent with the direction issued by the Principal Secretary-cum-Commissioner, department of Human Resources Development, whereby it was directed that orders of Resources Development whereby it was directed that orders of promotion to the vacant posts of Headmaster must be issued by 15-2-1990 (Annexure-3 ). 11. Allegedly the petitioners filed representations but no order has bnee passed thereupon. The petitioners allegedly filed a writ application being CWJC No.3914 of 1991. The petitioners, however, came to learn that by an order dated 10-9-1991, 91 persons belonging to the Scheduled Caste, were given promotion. The said order is contained in Annexure-4 to the writ application. 12. According to the petitioners two persons have refused to join the posts of Headmaster and seven persons were posted the schools where the petitioners are working as Headmasters. The petitioners have contended that total number of vacancies in the posts of Headmaster in the district of vaishali are 19 and in view of the order contained in Annexure-4 to the writ application, 100% reservation have been made out. 13. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent nos.5 to 11 are promoted pursuant to the decision of the District Education establishment Committee. 14. It has been contended that in terms of new gradation list prepared in the year 1991 it would appear that there had been a backlog in the matter of promotion of teachers belonging to Scheduled Caste, and therefore the District Education Establishment Committee took a decision to promote the respondent Nos.5 to 11. 15. 14. It has been contended that in terms of new gradation list prepared in the year 1991 it would appear that there had been a backlog in the matter of promotion of teachers belonging to Scheduled Caste, and therefore the District Education Establishment Committee took a decision to promote the respondent Nos.5 to 11. 15. It has further been stated that so far as the matter relating to the promotion of those teachers whose names appear at serial Nos.297 to 332 of the gradation list is concerned, the qualification of teachers and their claims etc. are being enquired into. 16. The respondent Nos.5 to 11 have also filed a counter affidavit. Alongwith the said counter affidavit the resolution of the Managing committee dated 27-6-1991 and 22-8-1991 which are contained in Annexures 1/a and 2/a thereto have been annexed. 17. The respondents have also contended that from a perusal of the annexure-2 to the writ application it would appear that they had been posts of Headmaster by way of an ad hoc arrangement and they had not been given the post of Headmaster on a permanent basis ; whereas the respondent Nos 5 to 11 have been promoted as Headmasters on a permanent basis in the scale of pay of Headmaster. 18. It has further been contended that the District education Establishment Committee in its resolution dated 27-6-1991 directed as follows : 19. It was also contended that the respondent Nos.5 to 11 had been appointed in the permanent post of Headmasters in view of the aforementioned decisions. 20. It has further been contended that the Government letter dated 20-12-1989 as contained in Annexure-3 to the writ application stands super-ceded by letter No.111 dated 11-3-1991 whereby the respondents have been promoted. 21. Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has raised only a short question in support of this application. The learned counsel submitted that the promotion of the respondent nos.5 to 11 amounts 100% reservation which is not permissible in law. It has further been submitted that there was absolutely no reason as to why the petitioners were not promoted to the post of Headmaster on a permanent basis. The learned counsel appearings to be correct. 22. The learned counsel submitted that the promotion of the respondent nos.5 to 11 amounts 100% reservation which is not permissible in law. It has further been submitted that there was absolutely no reason as to why the petitioners were not promoted to the post of Headmaster on a permanent basis. The learned counsel appearings to be correct. 22. It is true that an employee does not have any fundamental right of promotion but in terms of Article 16 of the Constitution of India he has a right to be considered therefor. Such consideration for promotion must be an objective considerations and not subjective ones. There cannot be any doubt that the State can formulate its reservation policy. But such a reservation policy must confirm to the provisions of article 15 of the Constitution of India. 23. It is now well known by a reason of various decisions the Supreme court of India that the reservation of posts for the reserved category of employee should not exceed 50%. 24. It is also well settled that even the roster cannot be carried forward what is more than three years. Reference in this connection may be made to 1988 (?) SCC 214, 1992 (1) PLJR 513 and a recent bench decision of court in Chandrika Prasad V/s. State of Bihar, 1993 PLJR 204. 25. In Indra Sawheny V/s. Union of India, 1993 SC 477, it has been held : "we may reiterate that a carry forward rule need not necessarily be in the same terms as the one found in Devadasan. A given rule may say that the unfilled reserved vacancies shall not be filled by unreserved category candidates but shall be carried forward as such for a period of three years. In such a case, a contention may be raised that reserved posts remain a separate category altogether In our opinion however, the result of application of carry forward rule, in whatsoever manner it is operated, should not result in breach of 50% rule. " 26. It is, therefore, clear that the contention of the State as also the district Education Establishment Committee to the effect that the respondent No 5 to 11 were entitled to promotion on a permanent basis in view of the fact that no teacher from the Scheduled castes quote was available appear to be wholly unjustified. 27. " 26. It is, therefore, clear that the contention of the State as also the district Education Establishment Committee to the effect that the respondent No 5 to 11 were entitled to promotion on a permanent basis in view of the fact that no teacher from the Scheduled castes quote was available appear to be wholly unjustified. 27. The State is bound to act within the four corners of its reservation policy. It is also bound to act within the limits of Clauses 1 and 4 of article 15 of the Constitution of India. 28. In this view of the matter, in our opinion, the respondent have committed a serious illegality in lignoring the cases of the petitioners although they were entitled to be considered for promotion on a permanent basis the same has not been done in terms of the policy of reservation of the state of Bihar, which, as noticed hereinbefore, is inconsistent with the provisions of Article of the Constitution of India. 29. In the result, this application is allowed and the respondents are hereby directed to consider the cases of all eligible teachers for promotion to the post of Headmasters. While doing so. they may apply the roster system but carry forward of the back-log should not be made for a period of more than three years and in any event the same should not exceed 50% quota. 30. The District Establishment Committee must take a decision in matter within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order in a duly constituted meeting and the competent authority should pass an appropriate order in accordance with law within three weeks thereafter. Till the determination of the claim of the petitioner vis-a-vis the respondent nos 5 to 11 and all other eligible candidates, status quo as obtaining today shall be maintained. 31. This application is allowed with the aforementioned directions but without any order as to costs. Application allowed.