Judgment :- Petitioner joined service of the first respondent company in 1963 and he got promotion as Fireman in 1981. The 4th respondent was promoted to the post of fireman on 27-1-1984. In 1987, petitioner became senior fireman and the 4th respondent became senior Fireman in 1989. The next promotion post is Fire Hydrant Operator/Fire Inspector. One C.N. Ramakrishna Pillai, fire Inspector/F.H. Operator retired on superannuation and the petitioner was directed to act as Fire Inspector/F.H. Operator with effect from 6-2-1993. Petitioner came to know that first respondent has been taking steps to promote the 4th respondent to the post of Fire - Inspector/F.H. Operator that arose consequent on the retirement of Ramakrishna Pillai. Petitioner submitted a representation to the third respondent. An interview was held and the 4th respondent alone was called for interview. Petitioner contends that the 4th respondent alone would be appointed as he is a member of the Scheduled Tribe. Petitioner also contends that he being senior to 4th respondent is entitled to be promoted as F.H. Operator/Fire Inspector. 2. Respondents 1 to 3 filed a counter-affidavit wherein it is contended that a vacancy of Fire Hydrant Operator/Fire Inspector arose in Udyogamandal Division of the first respondent company on 5-2-93 consequent on the retirement of one Ramakrishna Pillai. This post is a promotion post falling in Group (C). In this category, there are 8 posts available in the Division. It is contended that as per the Presidential directives governing promotion of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates, reservation has to be maintained in the matter of promotion of posts falling under this category also. The 4th respondent was working in the feeder category as senior Fireman. He alone is the eligible' candidate. It is further stated that the respondents are following 40 point Roster and point No. 17 in the Roster is reserved for Scheduled Tribe. This vacancy was filled up by a general candidate in the absence of an eligible candidate in that category. The vacancy which arose on account of the retirement of C.K. Thankappan Pillai on 7-7-1992 was filled up by appointing one Ramakrishnan, who is a Scheduled Caste candidate. His appointment was at point No. 22. Point No. 23 in the roster should have been filled up by a Scheduled Caste candidate. But the same was filled up by appointing one M.K. Sadasivan Nair, a general candidate. His appointment was at point No. 22. Point No. 23 in the roster should have been filled up by a Scheduled Caste candidate. But the same was filled up by appointing one M.K. Sadasivan Nair, a general candidate. At the time of filling of point No. 23, the 4th respondent was eligible for promotion, but by mistake it was filled up by appointing a general candidate. This mistake is now being rectified by appointing the 4th respondent to the present vacancy. 3. The 4th respondent also filed a counter-affidavit contending that he is entitled to be promoted to the next higher category. 4.1 heard the petitioner's counsel, standing Counsel for respondents 1,2 and 3 and the counsel for the 4th respondent. The counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is the senior fireman and so he is entitled to be appointed on promotion as Fire Inspector/F.H Operator. The petitioner contends that the reservation in promotion has been held to be unconstitutional and opposed to Article 16(4) of the Constitution. It is also contended that there is only one post to be filled up in the cadre of Fire Hydrant/ Fire Inspector and so there can be no reservation to that post. As regards the reservation in promotion the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (AIR 1993 S.C. 477) (Mandal Commission Report case) this question has been considered in paragraphs 101 to 107. It is true that the earlier decision in General Managers, Rfy. v. Rangachari (AIR 1962 S.C. 36) which has been the law for 30 years has now been overruled by the Supreme Court and it was held that the basis of that decision that the reservation may have been provided in the matter of promotion in some of the Central and State services and that Article 16(4) permits reservation even in the matter of promotion, is not sustainable in principle and ought to be departed from. However, the Supreme Court further observed that such reservation shall continue in operation for a period of five years from the date of this decision and within that period it would be open to the appropriate authorities to revise, modify or re-issue the relevant Rules to ensure the achievement of the objective of Article 16(4). However, the Supreme Court further observed that such reservation shall continue in operation for a period of five years from the date of this decision and within that period it would be open to the appropriate authorities to revise, modify or re-issue the relevant Rules to ensure the achievement of the objective of Article 16(4). In the last portion of paragraph 107 it is also observed by the Supreme Court thus: "We must also make it clear that it would not be impermissible for the State to extend concessions and relaxation to members of reserved categories in the matter of promotion without compromising the efficiency of the administration. The relaxation concerned in Thomas and the concessions namely carrying forward of vacancies and provisions for in-service coaching/ training in Karmachari Sangh are instances of such concessions and relaxations". 5. From the observation of the Supreme Court it is clear that promotion in reservation as such is not held to be illegal and the same is not stopped forthwith. A period of 5 years time has been fixed for amending the Rules relating to reservation in the matter of promotion. Until such time, reservation in promotion has to be followed. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the reservation in promotion extended to 4th respondent is illegal, cannot be accepted. 6. The next contention urged by the petitioner's counsel is that the 4th respondent has been given promotion on the basis of carry forward rules. There was no post as such to be carried forward and on that ground also the 4th respondent is not entitled to get promotion. In the counter-affidavit filed on 11-3-93 by respondents 1 to 3, it is specifically contended that the 4th respondent ought to have been appointed at point No. 23, but that was filled up by one M.K. Sadasivan Nair a general candidate and that mistake is being rectified by appointing the 4th respondent. Promotion in the first respondent company is being regulated by a Roster and the point No. 17 in the roster is reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidate. Even though a vacancy arose at that point it was filled by a general candidate by mistake. Now that mistake is rectified and the 4th respondent is given promotion. So, the petitioner can only aspire to get the next vacancy. 7. Even though a vacancy arose at that point it was filled by a general candidate by mistake. Now that mistake is rectified and the 4th respondent is given promotion. So, the petitioner can only aspire to get the next vacancy. 7. The petitioner contended that in this case the one vacancy that arose has been filled up by promotion. So it is argued that this is 100 per cent reservation, which is opposed to Article 16(4) of the Constitution. This contention cannot be accepted for the reason that the first respondent company follows a Roster for filling up the vacancies of Fire Hydrent Operator/Fire Inspector and when a vacancy earmarked for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe arose it was filled up by appointing a general candidate. The present proposal to promote the 4th respondent is only by way of rectifying the mistake. The learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to some of the observations made in Indra Sawhney 's case to the effect that vacancies that arose in each year have to be taken and if there is only one vacancy the same cannot be filled up by a candidate belonging to reserved category. But, all those observations would be applicable only in a case where the vacancies are filled up by direct recruitment and in the case of a Roster being followed for the purpose of promotion those guidelines cannot be applied. Moreover, the Supreme Court approved all the principles of reservation hitherto followed for the purpose of promotion and made it clear that the same could be continued for another period of 5 years. So the promotion proposed to be granted to 4th respondent is in accordance with the rules now applicable. In any way, the petitioner has not made out a case that he is entitled to be promoted to the post of F.H. Operator/Fire Inspector superseding the claim of 4th respondent. Original Petition is without any merit and the same is dismissed.