Judgment : In this writ petition the petitioners have challenged the validity of the recruitment rules for the post of Assistant Director of Tourism (Public Relations) in the Tourism Department, Government of West Bengal and the arbitrariness of the action of the respondent State authorities in excluding petitioner No.1 from consideration for promotion to the post of Assistant Director of Tourism (Public: Relations). In the writ petition, it has been submitted that the petitioner No.1 has been working as a Tourist Officer in the Regional Tourist Office, Darjeeling under the said Department of the State Government of West Bengal throughout the last 22 years as its substantive incumbent. The petitioner's record of service is unimpeachable as no adverse assessment had ever been communicated in this long span of 20 years of service in the said post. It is further submitted that the confirmed Tourist Officer, Project Officer, Tourism Development Officer, Managers of Tourist Lodges, Managers-cum-Caretakers of Tourist Lodges are all in common eligible for promotion to only 2 posts in the Department, viz. the Assistant Director of Tourism (Public Relations) and the post of Assistant Director of Tourism (Head Quarters). Thus, the chances of promotion of such eligible Officers including petitioner No.1 are very dim. 2. A temporary vacancy arose in the post of Assistant Director of Tourism (Public Relations). Petitioner No.1 made a representation on 16.11.1990 for consideration for promotion to the said post in view of her stagnation in the same post for an unusually long period. The Respondent Authorities, needless of the merits of her representation, chose to proceed to arrange for direct recruitment to the said temporary vacancy. This proposed appointment by invitation of candidates in the open market virtually blotted out the bleak promotional chances. Thus, the petitioner No. 1 has been forced to vegetate even after 22 years of unblemished service in a post at a feeder level. What is more, the direct recruitment again was reserved for appointment of scheduled caste candidate. 3. The reservation of the post for scheduled caste is also challenged. 4. It is further submitted that there are separate rules framed by the State Government for appointment to the post of Assistant Director of Tourism (Public Relations). The said rules were framed in exercise of the powers conferred by Article 309 of the Constitution of India and were published as Notification No. 6839-TW dated October 12, 1987. 4. It is further submitted that there are separate rules framed by the State Government for appointment to the post of Assistant Director of Tourism (Public Relations). The said rules were framed in exercise of the powers conferred by Article 309 of the Constitution of India and were published as Notification No. 6839-TW dated October 12, 1987. The said rules are set out in part as is relevant to the present controversy :- "Government of West Bengal Tourism Department 2, Brabourne Road, 4th. Floor, Calcutta-1 No. 6839-TW October 12, 1987 NOTIFICATION In exercise of the power conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and in supersession of the rules published with this Department Notification No. 3719-TW/1T-315/70 dated 5th July, 1976 the Governor is pleased hereby to make the following rules regulating the recruitment to the post of Assistant Director of Tourism (Public Relations) under the Tourism Department, Govt. of West Bengal. Rule The method of, and the qualifications required for, recruitment to the post of Assistant Director of Tourism (Public Relations) under the Tourism Department, Government of West Bengal, shall be as detailed below : 1. Name of the post : Assistant Director of Tourism. 2. Method of recruitment : (i) By selection (direct recruitment) or (ii) by transfer from permanent posts of Assistant Director of Information, Assistant Director of Public Relations, or Information Officer under the Information and Cultural Affairs Department in consultation with the Public Service Commission, West Bengal, or (iii) by transfer from the West Bengal Civil Service (Executive) Officers, or (iv) by promotion from officers of the rank of Tourist Officer, Tourism Development Officer, Project Officer (Mirik Tourism Project), Manager Grade I and Manager Grade II of Tourism Department in consultation with the Public Service Commission, West Bengal". 5. From the rules it is clear that the mode of recruitment has four alternatives: (i) Direct recruitment, (ii) by transfer from permanent incumbents of Assistant Director of Information, Assistant Director of Public Relations or Information Officer under the Information and Cultural Affairs Department in consultation with the Public Service Commission, (iii) Deputation from West Bengal Civil Service (Executive) Officers, or (iv) Promotion from Officers of the next below rank. 6. 6. The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondent authorities have acted unfairly and arbitrarily in choosing direct recruitment in preference to the mode of recruitment by promotion, though the second mode was only just and fair in view of the stagnation in the Officers at the lower level. 7. The respondent authorities is their affidavit-in-opposition, however, justified direct recruitment on the ground that the vacancy of the post of Assistant Director of Tourism (Public Relations) has to be filled up from scheduled caste candidates as per provisions of the West Bengal Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of Vacancies in Service and Posts) Act, 1986 read with Notification No. 136 PW IEC dated March 27, 1990 of the Scheduled Castes and Tribes Welfare Department, Government of West Bengal. As there was no scheduled caste candidate in the gradation list of officers eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Director of Tourism (Public Relations), the Department had to take resort to direct recruitment from the open market. According to the submission of the respondent authorities the direct recruitment having been a compulsion, their action cannot be impeached on grounds of arbitrariness or unreasonableness attracting Article 14, specially when the Notification No. 6839-TW dated October 12, 1987, as aforesaid, contemplates four alternatives, of which direct recruitment is the first one. The direct recruitment is all the more unassailable since the recruitment was made through the Public Service Commission, West Bengal. There was no escape from the course of action taken since the post had perforce to be tilled up by a scheduled caste candidate. There was no deliberate ouster of the claim of the petitioner, the petitioner not being a scheduled caste candidate. 8. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners emphasised the degree of arbitrariness in disregarding the legitimate claim of the petitioner No.1 whose aspiration for promotion after unblemished service of over two decades has been rudely shattered. In order to emphasis the beneful effect of such shabby treatment of competent officers in the Department, the decision of this Court in (1) Smt. Purbani Mitra & Ors. In order to emphasis the beneful effect of such shabby treatment of competent officers in the Department, the decision of this Court in (1) Smt. Purbani Mitra & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Ors., delibered on December 22, 1989 has been cited, where I had the occasion to observe that if no further promotional channel is provided to a good officer in recognition of his/ her creditable service, it will affect the efficiency and integrity of the service. Morale of the Departmental Officer will be acutely affected. The learned Counsel further observed that apart from its bad effect on the morale of the Departmental Officers aspiring for promotion for long, the appointment of a new incumbent in the post without any expertise or experience in the promotion of tourism industry is otherwise also not at all expedient to the interest of the service. 9. The learned Counsel also assailed the rules for recruitment of incumbent to the post of "Assistant Director of Tourism" (Public Relations) as framed by Notification No. 6839- TW dated October 12, 1987 for not having provided for opportunity of advancement by way of promotion. In that context he relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in (2) Council of Scientific and Industrial Research & Anr. v. K.G.S. Bhatt & Anr., reported in AIR 1989 SC 1972 , where the Supreme Court held that opportunity of advancement by promotion has to be given in the public or private organisations since the person appointed is not just for a job but for the whole career. In that case the candidate was left without opportunity of promotion for about 22 years. The Supreme Court observed as follows :- "This is indeed a sad commentary on the appellant's management. It is often said and indeed, adroitly, that an organisation public or private does not 'hire a hand' but engages or employs a whole man. The person is recruited by an organisation not just for a job, but for a whole career. One must, therefore, be given opportunity to advance. This is the oldest and most important feature of the free enterprise system. The opportunity for advancement is a requirement for progress of any organisation. It is an incentive for personnel development as well." 10. The person is recruited by an organisation not just for a job, but for a whole career. One must, therefore, be given opportunity to advance. This is the oldest and most important feature of the free enterprise system. The opportunity for advancement is a requirement for progress of any organisation. It is an incentive for personnel development as well." 10. The petitioner also referred to the Full Bench decision of the Supreme Court in (3) Food Corporation of India v. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industry, reported in 1991(1) SCC 71. The Supreme Court emphasised that due regard of legitimate expectation is necessary part of service jurisprudence and essential principle of rule of law. The legitimate expectation may be an enforceable right in case of failure of the state to give due weight to it and any decision taken in its disregard is also open to judicial review. Therefore, the method of direct recruitment may be in the circumstances of a case arbitrary, illegal and, therefore, in substance violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This doctrine of legitimate expectation gets assimilated in the rule of law and operates in our legal system. The following observations of the Supreme Court were particularly referred to :- "In contractual sphere as in all other State actions, the State and all its instrumentalities have to conform to Article 14 of the Constitution on which non-arbitrariness is a significant facet. There is no unfettered discretion in public law. A public authority possess powers only to use them for public good. This imposes the duty to act fairly and to adopt a procedure which is 'fairplay in action.' Due observance of this obligation as a part of good administration raises a reasonable or legitimate expectation in every citizen to be treated fairly in his interaction with the State and its instrumentalities, with this element forming a necessary component of the decision-making process in all State actions. To satisfy this requirement of non-arbitrariness in a State action, it is, therefore, necessary to consider and give due weight to the reasonable or legitimate expectations of the persons likely to be affected by the decision or else that unfairness in the exercise of the power may amount to an abuse or excess of power apart from affecting the bona fides of the decisions in a given case. The decision so made would be exposed to challenge on the ground of arbitrariness. Rule of law does not completely eliminate discretion in the exercise of power, as it is unrealistic, but provides for control of its exercise by judicial review." "The mere reasonable or legitimate expectation of a citizen, in such a situation, may not by itself be a distinct enforceable right, but failure to consider and give due weight to it may render the decision arbitrary, and this is how the requirement of due consideration of a legitimate expectation forms part of the principle of non-arbitrariness, a necessary concomitant of the rule of law. Every legitimate expectation is a relevant factor requiring due consideration in a fair decision-making process. Whether the expectation of the claimant is reasonable or legitimate in the context is a question of fact in each case. Whenever the question arises, it is to be determined nor according to the claimant's perception but in larger public interest wherein other more important considerations may outweigh what would otherwise have been the legitimate expectation of the claimant. A bona fide decision of the public authority reached in this manner would satisfy the requirement of non-arbitrariness and withstand judicial scrutiny. The doctrine of legitimate expectation gets assimilated in the rule of law and operates in our legal system in this manner and to this extent. 11. On the question of the post being a reserved post for scheduled caste the learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the post is the only post in the cadre. It is a single-post cadre. For this purpose attention was drawn to Notification No. 6839-TW dated October 12, 1987 already set out hereinbefore. 12. In order to establish that the Assistant Director of Tourism (Public Relations) is a cadre by itself, it is pointed out that the rules in the said Notification are meant exclusively for the said post. It is not the case that all Assistant Directors of all branches combine to from one cadre. Now there is only one post of Assistant Director of Tourism (Public Relations), therefore, it is a single-post cadre. Next argument urged is that the principle of reservation does not operate where a cadre is only one post. For this purpose the following passage from the decision of the Supreme Court in (4) Dr. Now there is only one post of Assistant Director of Tourism (Public Relations), therefore, it is a single-post cadre. Next argument urged is that the principle of reservation does not operate where a cadre is only one post. For this purpose the following passage from the decision of the Supreme Court in (4) Dr. Chakradhar Paswan v. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in AIR 1988 SC 959 , has been adverted to :- "......So 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. These principles unmistakably lead us to the conclusion that is there is duly 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 the post. A reservation which would come under Art. 16(4), presupposes the availability of at least more than one post in that cadre." 13. There also as in the present case, an attempt was made to group three Directors of different streams, viz - (1) Indigenous Medicine, (ii) Homeopathy and (iii) Unani. The Supreme Court refused to accept the grouping and held that All the three posts could not be grouped together from the view point of reservation. Likewise, the post of Assistant Directors of Tourism for different streams-(i) Public Relations, (ii) Headquarters and (iii) Darjeeling Gorkha Mill Council-has been sought to be grouped into one cadre, but it is submitted that the very framing of different rules for appointment in the different posts of Assistant Directors goes to show that here are different single-post cadres. In fact the decision of the Supreme Court in Dr. Chakradhar Paswan (supra) furnishes a complete anology to the facts of the present case. The two cases are so much alike on facts that a different decision is simply ruled out. 14. The ratio in Dr. Chakradhar Paswan's case (supra) has been reaffirmed in a more recent decision of the Supreme Court in (5) Vhide Girls' Education Society v. Education officer, Zila Parishad, Nagpur & Ors., reported in 1993 Supp. (3) SCC 527, where the Supreme Court held that the single post of Head Mistress in an educational institution could not be reserved for a Scheduled Caste candidate. (3) SCC 527, where the Supreme Court held that the single post of Head Mistress in an educational institution could not be reserved for a Scheduled Caste candidate. Where a cadre has a single post, the post is an unreserved post. 15. I have given careful consideration to respective contentions and I come to the conclusion that the ouster of the petitioner No.1 from consideration for promotion is marked by arbitrariness as it strikes at the guarantee contained in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The plea of compulsion of direct recruitment on account of alleged reservation of the post for the Scheduled Caste candidates is not tenable. No such compulsion is perceivable in the light of what transpires in the Notification dated October 12, 1987 containing exclusively the rules of recruitment to the post of Assistant Director of Tourism (Public Relations). The said Notification clearly shows that this post is by itself a cadre and cannot be grouped with the other posts of Assistant Directors so as to form a multiple-post cadre. 16. The reservation for the post for Scheduled Caste and consequential compulsion of direct recruitment which is the sheet-anchor of the case built up by the learned Counsel for the respondent authorities collapses as the Notification dated October 12, 1987 takes away its foundation. The Notification manifestly shows that the post vacant was a one-post cadre and could not have come within the field of reservation. The reservation postulates necessarily the existence of more than one post in a cadre. In this connection I take note of the decision of the Supreme Court in (6) Indra Sawhney & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., reported in AIR 1993 SC 477 , (the Mondal Commission case) where it has been laid down that the reservation in service could be 50% and that too to be applied by taking a year as the unit. This also makes reservation in the case of a one-post cadre impossible. 17. It has been submitted on behalf of the respondent authorities that the direct recruitment having been effected through the agency of the Public Service Commission, the same is above questioning in a writ proceeding before the High Court. This contention is without merit. This also makes reservation in the case of a one-post cadre impossible. 17. It has been submitted on behalf of the respondent authorities that the direct recruitment having been effected through the agency of the Public Service Commission, the same is above questioning in a writ proceeding before the High Court. This contention is without merit. Any Act of the State or any instrumentality of the State that is ultra vires any provisions of the Constitution or otherwise violative of law or the principles of natural justice is open to judicial review by the High Court, and in an appropriate case it is not only open but proper for the High Court to issue direction requiring the authority to give promotion to an eligible employee who is denied his due promotion. In the present case justice has not been done to petitioner No.1, and also other eligible officers, who, being experienced Tourist Officers of the Department for decades, should not have been deprived of the promotion which is overdue. Apart from that injustice, there has also been the violation of Article 14 which strikes at arbitrariness. It also violatives Article 16(1) to the extent it denies opportunity of promotional benefit which the petitioner No. 1 as well as others are eligible for. 18. The learned Counsel for the respondent authorities have cited the decision in (7) The Comptroller and Auditor General of India, New Delhi & Anr. v. K. S. Jagannathan & Anr., reported in AIR 1987 SC 537 as well as in Mondal Commission case (supra) for the proposition that the reservation in favour of backward classes of citizens does not violate the fundamental rights to equality of opportunity guaranteed by Article 16(1) of the Constitution. Such special treatment to the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes is contemplated by Article 16(4) and can be made not only in respect of initial recruitment but in respect of promotions to be made to a higher post. The real issue here is not whether reservation conflicts with equal opportunity. There is no contraversy that special treatment for the backward classes of the people does not militate against the principle of the right to equal opportunity. But neither the right to equal opportunity nor the right to special opportunity of the weaker section of the people is uncontrolled or unrestrained. It is the balance that achieves the equality. There is no contraversy that special treatment for the backward classes of the people does not militate against the principle of the right to equal opportunity. But neither the right to equal opportunity nor the right to special opportunity of the weaker section of the people is uncontrolled or unrestrained. It is the balance that achieves the equality. In the present case the matter lies outside the scope of reservation, the cadre being a single-post cadre. 19. It has to be mentioned here that one Pratul Kumar Sardar, who was purportedly selected for direct recruitment, filed an application praying for an order vacating the interim order dated October 11, 1991 passed by Monoranjan Mullick, J., directing the respondent authorities not to fill up the vacant post until disposal of the writ petition. Since I am of the view that the direct recruitment treating the post as a reserved post for Scheduled Caste is ultra vires, illegal and inoperative, the question of filling up the post by direct recruitment cannot arise. Therefore, the said application is not relevant. 20. For the reasons aforesaid, I hereby set aside and cancel the selection of the incumbent by direct recruitment and direct the respondent authorities to fill up the vacancy in the said post of Assistant Director of Tourism (Public Relations) by promotion from amongst eligible departmental officers including petitioner No.1. 21. The respondents are directed to send the names of the petitioners alongwith other candidates to the Public Service Commission for consideration and thereupon on the advice of the Public Service Commission appointment shall be made in the post. In recommending the case of the petitioners for the aforesaid post seniority of the petitioner No.1 shall be taken into account. Let xerox copy of this order be given to the learned Advocate for the parties.