JUDGMENT R. N. Prasad, J. The petitioner has filed this writ application for quashing the order of ad hoc promotion of respondent no. 7 dated 13.12.1995, Annexure-11, the order of interchange of roster point no. 2 to roster point no. 4 dated 12.3.1993, Annexure-4, the order rejecting representation of the petitioner dated 19.12.1995, Annexure-14, and also for issuance of a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Electrical Superintending Engineer in the vacancy at roster point no. 2 meant for the members of the Scheduled Castes. 2. The petitioner is a member of Scheduled castes and respondent no. 7 is a member of scheduled tribes. Roster point no. 2 was for scheduled castes and roster point no. 4 was for scheduled tribes. The petitioner was appointed as Asst. Electrical Engineer, Energy Department, Government of Bihar vide notification dated 6.8.1981. He was confirmed on 5.8.1986. Respondent no. 7 was appointed Executive Engineer in the year 1981. 'Kalawadhi' for promotion of an Asst. Engineer to the post of Executive Engineer has been fixed 8 years for general category candidates and 7 years for scheduled castes and sche4uled tribes category candidates. Vide order dated 23.9.1987, Annexure-3, 'Kalawadhi' of the petitioner and three others was reduced. However, the same was not acted upon. The petitioner was promoted as Electrical Executive Engineer with effect from 17.1.1989. 'Katawadhi' for promotion of Executive Engineer to the post of Electrical Superintending' Engineer was 7 years for general category candidates and 6 years for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes category candidates. According to the reduced 'Kalawadhi' Annexure-3, the petitioner completed 'Kalawadhi' for promotion as Electrical Superintending Engineer in August, 1993 and according to the actual date of promotion of the petitioner as Electrical Executive Engineer on 17.1.1989, he completed 'Kalawadhi' for promotion as Superintending Engineer on 17.1.95. 3. There were two cadre posts of the Superintending Engineer in the Department, Out of two cadre posts of Superintending Engineer one post was filled up and one Sri Binod Shankar was promoted as Superintending Engineer, a candidate of general category on 29.4.1987. The remaining one post was at roster point no. 2 meant for Scheduled castes. The State Government vide order dated 12.3.1993, Annexure-4, inter-changed the vacancy at roster point no. 2, meant for Scheduled castes with roster point no. The remaining one post was at roster point no. 2 meant for Scheduled castes. The State Government vide order dated 12.3.1993, Annexure-4, inter-changed the vacancy at roster point no. 2, meant for Scheduled castes with roster point no. 4 meant for scheduled tribes which according to the petitioner was against the provisions of the Bihar Reservation of vacancy in post and services (for Scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and other backward classes) Act, 1991 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Bihar Reservation Act, 1991). 4. Respondent no. 7 filed CWJC No. 11118/94 for issue of a direction for promotion on the post of Superintending Engineer which was disposed of by a Bench of this Court on 24.7.1995 and respondents were directed to consider his case for promotion with effect from due date in the light of recommendation of the Commission within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order Respondent no. 6 Binod Shankar filed Civil Review no. 135/95 against the said order which was disposed of on 9.8.1995 modifying the order date 24.7.1995 and the respondents were directed to consider the case of Madhusudan Bodra, respondent no. 7 for promotion on the post of Superintending Engineer in accordance with law. 1he petitioner also filed CWJC No. 6372/95 for promotion on the post of Superintending Engineer which was disposed of on 29.9.1995 direction him to approach the State Government redressed of his grievance and the Government would consider the same in accordance, with law. The petitioner filed his representation before respondent no. 3 on 30.9.1995 and reminder on 18.10.1995 annexing copy of the order of the High Court. The said representation was rejected vide order dated 19.12.1995, Annexure-14, which has also been changed by amendment of the writ petition. Respondent no. 7, however, was promoted on the post of Electrical Superintending Engineer vide notification dated 13.12.1995, Annexure-11 on ad hoc basis for six months. 5. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos. 1. 2, 3, 4 & 6 it has been stated that the post of Electrical Superintending Engineer was lying vacant since 2.4.1987. The said vacancy was against roster point no. 2 meant for members of the Scheduled castes. No scheduled castes candidate was available for filling up the said post. Respondent no. 1. 2, 3, 4 & 6 it has been stated that the post of Electrical Superintending Engineer was lying vacant since 2.4.1987. The said vacancy was against roster point no. 2 meant for members of the Scheduled castes. No scheduled castes candidate was available for filling up the said post. Respondent no. 7 who was member of scheduled tribe was available for promotion on the post of Electrical Superintending Engineer as he had completed 'Kalawadhi' on 2.4.1987. The State Government vide order dated 12.3.1993, Annexure 4 inter changed roster point no. 2 meant for scheduled castes with roster point no. 4 meant for scheduled tribes. Interchange was approved by the Chief Minister of Bihar. On the said date of interchange no scheduled caste candidate with requisite qualification was available for promotion on the post of Superintending Engineer. 6. The case of respondent no. 7 for promotion on the post of Super intent ending Engineer was being considered but no final order was passed and as such respondent no. 7 filed C.W.J.C. No. 11118/94 which was disposed of on 24.7.1995 directing the respondents to consider his case for promotion in accordance with law. The petitioner also filed C.W.J.C. No. 6372/95 claiming promotion on the post of Superintending Engineer stating that he completed 'Kalawadhi' in the month of January, 1995. The writ petition was disposed of directing the petitioner to approach the State Government for redressal of his grievance. The representation of the petitioner, pursuant to the order passed in the above mentioned writ petition, was rejected vide Annexure-14 as no candidate of scheduled castes category was available either on 2.4.1987, the due on which the post fell vacant or in the year 1993 when the order of interchange of roster point no. 2 with roster point no. 4 was passed The State Government after thorough examination of the matter allowed adhoc promotion to respondent no. 7 for six months pending completion of procedural formality for regular promotion. 7. Respondent no. 7 filed a separate counter affidavit stating inter-alia therein that the writ petition has become in fructuous as the order of ad hoc promotion of respondent no. 7 for six months vide Annexure-11 has already expired and no extension has been granted. There were two cadre posts of Superintending Engineer in the department. Roster point no. 7. Respondent no. 7 filed a separate counter affidavit stating inter-alia therein that the writ petition has become in fructuous as the order of ad hoc promotion of respondent no. 7 for six months vide Annexure-11 has already expired and no extension has been granted. There were two cadre posts of Superintending Engineer in the department. Roster point no. 1 was for general category candidate and one Binod Shankar was promoted with effect from 29.4.1987, Roster point no. 2 was for scheduled caste candidates which was vacant with effect from 2.4.1987 as no scheduled caste candidates with requisite qualification was available for promotion. He completed 'Kalawadhi' for promotion with effect from 2.4.1981. The State Government in the circumstances interchanged roster point no. 2 with roster point no 4 vide Annexure-4. Inspite of order of interchange, Annexure-4, and also recommendation by the Departmental promotion committee for his promotion no order was passed promoting him to the post of Superintending Engineer and as such he filed writ petition which was disposed of directing the respondents to consider his case for promotion in accordance with law. Inspite of the order of the court no final order was passed for his regular promotion by the respondents. However, order for adhoc promotion for six months was passed on 13.12.1995, Annexure-11, but the same was not extended although he was officiating the post of Superintending Engineer since 1989. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the order of interchange of roster point no. 2 with roster point no. 4. dated 12.3.1993, Anrexure-4, and submitted that it is against the provision of Bihar Reservation Act 1991. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that order of interchange is legal and valid as the Government has power to pass such order. The a vacancy at roster point no. 2 was available since 1987 and the order of interchange was passed in the year 1993 i.e. much after three calendar years and as such there is no illegality in order, Annexure-4. 9. It is an admitted position that there was only two cadre posts of Superintending Engineer in the department. The petitioner, who belongs to scheduled caste 'was promoted as Executive Engineer with effect from 17.1.1989. He completed 'Kalawadhi' fixed by the Government on 17.1.1995 for promotion on the post of Superintending Engineer. Respondent no. 7 who belongs to scheduled tribe completed 'kalawadhi' on 2.4. The petitioner, who belongs to scheduled caste 'was promoted as Executive Engineer with effect from 17.1.1989. He completed 'Kalawadhi' fixed by the Government on 17.1.1995 for promotion on the post of Superintending Engineer. Respondent no. 7 who belongs to scheduled tribe completed 'kalawadhi' on 2.4. 1987 for promotion on the post of Superintending Engineer Roster point no. 1 was for general category candidates and one Binod Shankar was promoted as Superintending Engineer with effect from 29. 4. 1987 on roster point no. 1 as general category candidate. Roster point no. 2 was for scheduled castes candidates which could not be filled up as candidate haying requisite qualification was available for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer. On 12.3.1993 roster point no. 2 meant for scheduled Castes was interchanged with roster point no. 4 meant for scheduled tribes with approval of the Chief Minister when the Bihar Reservation Act, 1991 was in force. Respondent no. 7 who belongs to scheduled tribes was granted ad hoc promotion for six months vide notification dated 13.12.1995 when the petitioner who belongs to scheduled caste completed this 'Kalawadhi' on 17.1.1995. 10. To resolve the controversy it is necessary to deal with the provisions relating to reservation under the Bihar Reservation Act, 1991. Sub-section (e) of Section 2 of Bihar Reservation Act, 1991 defines recruitment year which reads as follows:- "2 (e) 'Recruitment year' means the calendar year during which a recruitment is actually made.” 11. Section 4 of Bihar Reservation Act, 1991 deals with reservation for recruitment. Sub-section (3) of Section 4 of Bihar Reservation Act, 1991 says that a reserved category candidate who is selected on the basis of his merit shall be counted against 50% vacancies open merit category and not against the reserve" category vacancies. Sub-section (5) says that the vacancies reserved for the Scheduled castes/scheduled tribes and other Backward classes shall not be filled lip by candidates not belonging to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled tribes and other Backward classes except as otherwise provided in this Act. Sub-section (6) (a) deals with the situation in the case of non-availability of suitable candidates from the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes for appointment and promotion in vacancies reserved for them, the vacancies shall continue to be reserved for three recruitment years and if suitable candidates are not available even in the third year, the vacancies shall be exchanged between the scheduled castes and Scheduled tribes. Sub-section (6) (a) is relevant for the purpose and as such is quoted here-in-below:- "(6) (a) In case of non-availability of suitable candidates from the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes for appointment and promotion in vacancies reserved for them, the vacancies shall continue to be reserved for three recruitment years and if suitable candidates ale not available even in the third year, the vacancies shall be exchanged between the Scheduled castes and scheduled tribes and the vacancies so filled by exchange shall be treated as reserved for the candidates for that particular community who are actually appointed," 12. The Bihar Reservation Act, 1991 came into force with immediate effect except Section 4 which came into force with effect from 1st November, 1990. There were two cadre posts of Superintending Engineer in department. Roster point no. 1 was for general category candidate and one Binod Shankar was promoted with effect from 29.4.1987 at roster point no. 1. Roster point no. 2 was for scheduled caste candidates which fell vacant with effect from the aforesaid date i.e. 29.4.87 as no scheduled caste candidate with requisite qualification was available for promotion. There is nothing on the record to show that any appointment/promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer was made thereafter. 13. The Stat. Government passed an order of interchange of roster point no. 2 meant for scheduled castes with roster point no. 4 meant for scheduled tribes on 12.3.1993, Annexure-4 when the Bihar Reservation Act, 1991 was in force. Sub-section (6) (a) of Section 4 of Bihar Reservation Act, 1991 is in unambiguous terms and says that in case of non availability of suitable candidates from the Scheduled castes and Scheduled tribes for appointment and promotion in the vacancy reserved for them, the vacancy shall continue to be reserved for three recruitment years and if suitable candidates are not available in the third year, the vacancy shall be exchanged between Scheduled castes and Scheduled tribes. Therefore, it is manifest that power of interchange of the Government is not arbitrary rather the State Government is required to act in accordance with the provision of the Reservation Act as indicated above. The recruitment year does not mean three calendar years rather calendar year during which a recruitment is actually made as has been defined in sub-section (e) of Section 2 of Bihar Reservation Act, 1991. The recruitment year does not mean three calendar years rather calendar year during which a recruitment is actually made as has been defined in sub-section (e) of Section 2 of Bihar Reservation Act, 1991. Such provision has been noticed by the Apex Court in the case of Malkhan Singh v-Union of India & ors, AIR 1997 Supreme Court 538 and accepted the position that recruitment year means year in which recruitment is actually made. In the instant case there is nothing on the record to show that any recruitment/promotion was made after the vacancy fell vacant at roster point no. 2 in the year 1987 and as such the order of interchange dated 12.3.1993, Annexure-4 cannot be held to be legal. 14. Learned counsel for the respondents raised a question for determination that now only one post is available to be filed up by promotion on the post of Superintending Engineer and as such the same cannot be treated as reserved. It has to be filled up by the candidates of general category otherwise it would amount to 100% reservation. 15. Before adverting to the question raised by the learned counsel for the respondents it would not be out of place to mention herein that reservation means somewhat special treatment to certain class of people who have no adequate representation in the field of governance of the State. The framers of the Constitution realizing actuality prevailing in the society introduced the provision of reservation in the Constitution of India. Article is of the Constitution of India prohibits discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth. However, by Amending Act, 1951 clause (4) was added and the State was allowed to make any special provision for advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the scheduled castes and the Scheduled Tribes. Article 16 of the Constitution deals with equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. Clause (4) of Article 16 permits the State for making any provision for the reservation in 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. Article 16 of the Constitution deals with equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. Clause (4) of Article 16 permits the State for making any provision for the reservation in 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. Therefore, reservation in the matter of appointment in the offices of the Government or in the offices of the institutions which are state under Article 12 of the Constitution is not violative of Article 16(1) of the Constitution. 16. In the case of Indira Sawhney v. Union of India, AIR 1993 Supreme Court 477, the Constitution Bench while considering the pros and cons of reservation in the matter of appointment and dealing with the theory of past discrimination has held that even today, the caste discrimination is very much prevalent in India particularly in rural areas. The theory cannot be imported to the Indian Conditions where Hindu society even today is suffering from the firm grip of discrimination based on caste system. The vastness and richness of the material unearthed by various commission inclusive of State's Commissions unambiguously and pellucidly reveal that in our country, the representation of SEBCs in the services under the State is grossly inadequate when compared to the representation of the advanced class of citizens leave the complete absence of reservation for SEBCs in the central services. This inadequate representation is not confined to any specific section of the people but all those who fall under the group of social backwardness whether they are Sudras of Hindu community or similarly situated other backward classes of people in other communities, namely, Muslim, Sikh, Christians etc. 17. The Constitution Bench while dealing with reservation in promotion has held that denying reservation in the matter of promotion does not have the effect of confining the backward classes of citizens to lowest cadres. It is well known that direct recruitment takes place at several higher levels of administration and not merely at the level of class 4 and 3, such as All India Services and at the level of District Judges. It is well known that direct recruitment takes place at several higher levels of administration and not merely at the level of class 4 and 3, such as All India Services and at the level of District Judges. It has also been held that its decision on this aspect of reservation shall operate only prospectively and shall not affect promotions already made whether on temporary, officiating or regular/ permanent basis and where ever reservation already provided in the matter of promotion either in central services or State Services or any other Corporation, authority or body falling under the definition of 'State' in Article 12, such reservation shall continue in operation for a period of 5 years from the date of judgment. 18. Therefore, it is obvious that the Constitution Bench held that Article 16(1) and 16(4) do not apply to appointment by promotion. They would be applicable only at the initial appointments. However, it was directed that where-ever reservations have already been provided in the matter of promotion such reservation shall continue in operation for a period of 5 years from the date of judgment. Before expiry of the said period of 5 years Article 16(4)(A) was introduced vide 77th Amendment Act, 1995 which says that nothing in this Article shall prevent the State from making any provision in reservation in the matter of promotion to any class or classes of posts in the service under the State. The aforesaid provision has been introduced in the Constitution only with a view to provide adequate representation in governance of the State and to bring unequal at par. 19. Now coming to the question raised by the learned counsel for the respondents as to whether a single post can be filled up by promotion from the candidates of reserved category or not, it would not be out of place to mention that reservation in employment is not unconstitutional as has been held by the Apex Court in several decisions including in the case of Indira Sawhney case (supra). The Apex Court considered the aforesaid aspect of the matter in the case of R. K. Sabharwal & ors-v-State of Punjab, 1995 (2) S. C. C-745 and held that when the total number of posts in the cadre are filled up by operation of the roster then the result envisaged by the impugned instruction is achieved. There is no Justification to operate roster thereafter. There is no Justification to operate roster thereafter. The running account is to operate only till quota provided under the impugned instruction is reached and not thereafter. The vacancies arising in the cadre after initial posts are filled will pose no difficulty. As and when there is vacancy whether permanent or temporary on a particular post the same has to be filled up from amongst the category to which the post belongs in the roster. However, in the event of non-availability of reserved candidates at the roster point it would be open to the State Government to carry forward the point in a just and fair manner. Therefore, it is obvious that if the, vacancies are to be filled up by promotion by rotating the roster point then such vacancy has to be filled up from amongst the category to which the post belonged in the roster. 20. Again such matter came for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of Union of India & anr-V-Madhav S/o Gajanand & anr, 1997 (2) S. C. C-332 and the Apex Court considering several decisions including Article 16 (1) and 4 (A) of the Constitution introduced by 77th Amendment Act, 1995 held that even though there is single post in the cadre and the Government had applied the rule of rotation and the roster point to the vacancies that had arisen in the single point post and were sought to be filled up by the candidates belonging to the reserved categories at the point on which they are eligible to be considered, such rule is not violative of Article 16 (1) of the Constitution. Similar view has been expressed in the case of Union of India & ors-v-Brij Lal Thakur, 1997 (4) S. C. C. 278 and has rejected the plea that application of reservation to a single post was violative of right of equality under Article 16 (1) of the Constitution. 21. Similar view has been expressed in the case of Union of India & ors-v-Brij Lal Thakur, 1997 (4) S. C. C. 278 and has rejected the plea that application of reservation to a single post was violative of right of equality under Article 16 (1) of the Constitution. 21. Such controversy was again considered by the Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Gupta & anr-v-State of U. P. & ors, 1997 (5) S. C. C. 201 and the Apex Court after considering several decisions including Indira Sawhney's case and Article 16 (4) (A) of the Constitution introduced by 77th Amendment Act, 1995 held that reservation in promotion for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled tribes is part of constitutional scheme for social and economic justice and appointment by promotion to reserved post is not violative to the Constitution of India. 22. Again in the case of Suresh Chandra v-J. B. Agrawal and others, 1997 (5) S. C. C. 363 the Apex Court held that if the rule of roster is applied to a single post cadre and if vacancy arises against a reserved post in accordance with the rule of roster, necessarily, so long as the reserved candidate is found fit for promotion, one is required to give place to fill up the post in accordance with the roster point otherwise roster point itself would be rendered illusory. 23. In the instant case it has already been stated that there were only two cadre posts of Superintending Engineer in the Department. One was filled up by a general category candidate at roster point no. 1 and the remaining post was existing at roster point no. 2 meant for Scheduled castes. It has already been stated that interchange of roster point no. 2 with roster point no. 4 was illegal. Therefore, it is evident that for filling up the post, roster point was applied by the Government and even if it is single post the same has to be filled up by a candidate of reserved category for whom roster point is available. 2 with roster point no. 4 was illegal. Therefore, it is evident that for filling up the post, roster point was applied by the Government and even if it is single post the same has to be filled up by a candidate of reserved category for whom roster point is available. The law has already been settled by the Apex Court in this regard and it has been made clear that if roster point is applied for filling up vacancy by promotion the same has to be filled up by the candidate belonging to the same category at the roster point and as such the question raised by learned counsel for the respondents has no substance at all and it is held that even in case of single post if roster is applied and filled on by a candidates of reserved categories the same cannot be treated 100% reservation and the same cannot be held to be violative to the provisions of the Constitution of India. 24. Thus on consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, as indicated above, this writ application is allowed and the order of interchange dated 12.3.1993, Annexure-4, and rejection of representation of the petitioner vide order dated 19.12.1995, Annexure-14, are hereby quashed. The order of adhoc promotion for six months vide Annexure-11 is not being quashed as respondent no. 7 himself has stated in his counter-affidavit that the same has already expired and no extension has been granted. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion in accordance with rule and the observations made in this Judgment and pass necessary orders within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of copy of the judgment However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost.