(1) LEAVE granted. (2) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties. (3) THE question which arises for consideration in this appeal relates to the applicability of the carry-forward rule in relation to the post reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates in government service in the State of orissa. The appellant belongs to a Scheduled Caste. He was employed as Typist-cum- Despatcher in the office of the Principal Secretariat Institute, Bhubaneswar, orissa. The matter relates to the promotion to the post of Head Typist. One post of Head Typist which was reserved for Scheduled Caste candidate as per the roster fell vacant in the year 1982. Since no Scheduled Caste candidate was available, a candidate belonging to a general category was promoted. Thereafter the post became available only on 30/8/1988. That post was earmarked for a general category under the roster but by application of carry-forward rule it was treated as reserved for Scheduled Caste and the appellant was selected for promotion on the said post by the Departmental Promotion Committee. Respondent 1 who belongs to the general category filed a petition (OA No. 348 of 1989 before the orissa Administrative tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the tribunal") assailing the said promotion of the appellant. The said petition was allowed by the tribunal by judgment dated 5/8/1991. The tribunal has held that the carry-forward vacancy could be continued for three financial years whereafter it cannot be carried forward. According to the tribunal the appointment of the appellant on the post of Head Typist after the lapse of three Arising out of Special Leave Petitions (C) Nos. 17674-75 of 1991 years was illegal. The tribunal directed that Respondent 1 be considered for promotion to the post of Head Typist. (4) FEELING aggrieved by the said judgment of the tribunal the appellant filed this appeal. (5) SHRI Venkataramani, the learned counsel for the appellant, has invited our attention to the recent decision of this court in Harish Chandra Ram v. Mukh Ram Dubey wherein this court has construed the expression "recruitment year" as the year in which the recruitment takes place but not for each of the three successive years in which the vacancy exists. (5) SHRI Venkataramani, the learned counsel for the appellant, has invited our attention to the recent decision of this court in Harish Chandra Ram v. Mukh Ram Dubey wherein this court has construed the expression "recruitment year" as the year in which the recruitment takes place but not for each of the three successive years in which the vacancy exists. (6) PROVISION with regard to reservation of posts for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in orissa is made in the orissa Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services (For Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Act, 1971 and the rules framed thereunder. In Section 7 of the said Act provision is made for carrying forward vacancy for "three years of recruitment". The expression "recruitment year" is defined in Section 2(b) of the Act. Prior to 1987 it meant the financial year during which the recruitment is actually made. By the amendment of 1987 the word "financial year" was replaced by "calendar year" (7) IN the present case after the promotion of a candidate from general category in 1982 the post of Head Typist became available for promotion only in 1988 and there was no recruitment by promotion on that post in between. Therefore, the next recruitment year after 1982 was 1988. Having regard to the carry-forward rule the post of Head Typist which became available for promotion in 1988 had to be assigned to the Scheduled Caste candidate and the Departmental Promotion Committee did so rightly. The tribunal was in error in holding that the said post could not be assigned to a Scheduled Caste as per the carry-forward rule. (8) IN Arati Ray Choadhury v. Union of india on which reliance has been placed by the tribunal, this court was not required to consider a situabon like in the present case and the court has not construed the expression "recruitment year". This question has been considered in the recent decision in Harish Chandra Ram v. Mukh Ram Dubey. (9) THE tribunal was, therefore, in error in setting aside the promotion of the appellant to the post of Head Typist. The appeal is, therefore, allowed, the judgment of the tribunal dated 5/8/1991 is set aside and the petition filed by Respondent 1 is dismissed. The appellant who was reverted in pursuance of the tribunals judgment will be restored to the original position. No order as to costs.