Judgment :- V.S. Sirupurkar, J. The present writ appeal is against the judgment of the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. In that writ petition, the appellant claimed quashing of the order promoting the second respondent and for a direction that he should be promoted instead of the second respondent. The following facts will be helpful to understand the controversy. 2. Both the petitioner as well as the second respondent were serving as physiotherapists under the first respondent Madras Port Trust. While the petitioner entered the service somewhere in the year 1984, more particularly on 2.8.1984, the second respondent entered the service much before that i.e., somewhere in the year 1975. A scheme was floated by the Central Government vide order dated 16.10.1996, wherein it was proposed to give the notional promotions of one time measure to all such persons holding Class III and Class IV posts who had completed 15 years of service. The relevant Clause is as under: “(C) This personal promotion will be one time promotion and all employees who have completed 15 years or more as on 30.6.1995 will get this personal promotion.” This promotion was to be in the nature of personal promotion and it was available to all the persons who had completed 15 years of service. Therefore, obviously there was no question of creation of any number of posts for that purpose. Ordinarily, all the persons who were entitled to these promotions because of the length of their service would have got the same and the equal number of posts, then would have been deemed to have been created for that purpose. 3. However, as for the SC/ST candidates the rule was slightly different. The rule says as follows: “(e) A separate 40 point roster applicable to promotions should be maintained for promotion to personal points under this scheme. 3. However, as for the SC/ST candidates the rule was slightly different. The rule says as follows: “(e) A separate 40 point roster applicable to promotions should be maintained for promotion to personal points under this scheme. If sufficient number of candidates belonging to SC/ST having 15 years of service in the same scale do not become eligible for promotion against the points reserved for SC/ST candidates in the 40 point roster, to the extent of shortfall, SC/ST candidates will be given promotion to the personal posts, even if they do not have 15 years of service, subject to the condition that they have rendered minimum 10 years of service in the same scale as on 30.6.1995.” Therefore, it was obvious that the promotions were to go as per the roster in case of reserved candidates and, if according to the roster the promotional post was to go to a scheduled caste candidate and such scheduled caste candidate was not available having 15 years of length of service causing a short fall, then even the scheduled caste candidate who had completed 10 years of service would be entitled to the promotion. It is precisely on this ground that the writ petition came to be filed by the writ petitioner, when he found that he was not promoted but it was the second respondent who was promoted by the impugned order dated 20.2.1997. 4. In his writ petition, the petitioner pointed out that he had completed 10 years of service on the relevant date i.e., on 30.6.1995 and the second respondent had in fact not completed 15 years of service and she could not be said to be senior to him because she had joined the service after one break only on 17.6.1987. He pointed out that she had applied for leave as she wanted to leave to Libya between 1.4.1985 and 31.1.1986 and even after the leave period she did not join her duty and hence a show cause notice was issued to her and subsequent disciplinary proceedings were initiated. In pursuance of those proceedings, she was discharged from duty on 25.8.1986, but she was allowed to join back on 17.6.1987 on condition that, (i) She would be appointed on the minimum pay scale. In pursuance of those proceedings, she was discharged from duty on 25.8.1986, but she was allowed to join back on 17.6.1987 on condition that, (i) She would be appointed on the minimum pay scale. (ii) She was to be on probation for two years, and (iii) She should not claim condonation of break in service from the date of discharge viz., 20.5.1986 to the date of re-appointment i.e., on 17.6.1987. 5. On the basis of these facts, the petitioner claimed that he was the senior most person available and he being a Scheduled Caste candidate, he was entitled to be granted the personal promotion under the scheme. This writ petition was opposed by both, department as well as the second respondent. The department took the stand firstly that, though the promotion under the scheme was to be given as per the roster and though the first point of the roster was reserved for Scheduled Caste community, yet since it was a single post, the post could not be granted to a Scheduled caste candidate. They took a slightly strange stand suggesting that they had created only one post and therefore that one post went rightly to the second respondent who had joined way back in 1975 and she was much senior having completed 15 years of service as on 30.6.1995. In short, the department took the view that this was a single post as the department had created only one post and therefore it could not have gone to the Scheduled Caste candidate as per the order dated 29.4.1975 bearing O.M.No.1/9/74-Esst. (SCT). As regards the second respondent, the department took a stand that the absence of the second respondent after she was allowed to be reinstated were regularised and she was to be given all the benefits excepting the seniority and therefore it was obvious that she had put in 15 years of service as on 30.6.1995 and as such, she was entitled to be promoted and the promotion granted to her was correct. The second respondent also more or the less took the same stand defending her promotion. 6. On this, the learned single Judge took the view that the second respondent was correctly promoted as she had completed 15 years of service as on 30.6.1995. The second respondent also more or the less took the same stand defending her promotion. 6. On this, the learned single Judge took the view that the second respondent was correctly promoted as she had completed 15 years of service as on 30.6.1995. The learned single Judge also accepted the stand taken by the department that there was only one post and therefore that one post had to go only to the second respondent and not to the petitioner. In paragraph 7, the learned Judge noted that there were four physiotherapist posts attached to the first respondent and in the light of the order passed by the first respondent dated 12.7.1991, the second respondent was the senior most in service and she having already completed 15 years of regular service was bound to be promoted. He also found that the petitioner was the junior most among the physiotherapist attached to the first respondent. 7. This judgment was assailed by the learned senior counsel Mr.B.Kumar, who urged before us that there would be no question of finding fault with the promotion granted to the second respondent. The learned senior counsel very fairly contended that, in that behalf the petition was slightly mistaken. The learned counsel argued that even if the second respondent is granted the promotion, yet there was no reason as to why the petitioner could not have been granted the promotion, as the petitioner, on the relevant date had completed 10 years of service and there was undoubtedly a shortfall in the scheduled caste appointments if the standard roster had been made applicable. 8. As against this, the learned counsel for the first respondent supports the judgment on the ground that the second respondent was the senior most among the physiotherapist and therefore she was rightly given the promotion. He also reiterates his earlier stand that this was a single post and there was no question of reservation applicable to it and therefore the petitioner could not have claimed that post on the basis of reservation. 9. In our opinion, the appeal must succeed on the true and correct interpretation of the scheme dated 16.10.1966 formulating the scheme. It has to be seen here that this was not a case where particular number of posts were to be created first and then the promotion was to be granted. 9. In our opinion, the appeal must succeed on the true and correct interpretation of the scheme dated 16.10.1966 formulating the scheme. It has to be seen here that this was not a case where particular number of posts were to be created first and then the promotion was to be granted. In fact, under Clause ‘c’ of the scheme, all those persons who would be completing 15 years of service as on 30.6.1995 would have been entitled to be promoted and this promotion would have been an one time personal promotion. Hence, there was no question of creating a particular number of posts. Insofar as the scheduled caste candidates are concerned, the scheme was that the roster was to be made applicable and if there was a shortfall of scheduled caste candidates on account of the scheduled caste candidates of 15 years of service not being available, then even a scheduled caste candidate who has completed 10 years of service was to be granted the promotion to fill up the short fall. Now, if we apply this to the present situation, we find from the counter of the first respondent and more particularly in paragraph 4 thereof that, under the 40 point roster for filling up the post of physiotherapist, the first point is reserved for S.C. community. Now, if there was no S.C. candidate available with 15 years of service, the post could not have been filled up and there would have been a shortfall in respect of the promotion to the S.C. candidate. Therefore, under Clause ‘e’ a scheduled caste candidate having even 10 years of length of service would have been entitled to be promoted under the scheme and undoubtedly as on 30.6.1995, the petitioner had completed 10 years. Therefore, on that day itself the petitioner would have been entitled for this personal one time promotion. We are afraid this has been completely missed out by the department and the department has wrongly chosen to rely on the so called order dated 29.4.1975 bearing O.M.No.1/9/74-Esst.(SCT). Therefore, on that day itself the petitioner would have been entitled for this personal one time promotion. We are afraid this has been completely missed out by the department and the department has wrongly chosen to rely on the so called order dated 29.4.1975 bearing O.M.No.1/9/74-Esst.(SCT). The department took the view that under this order, if there was only one single vacancy in the initial recruitment year meant for a SC candidate as per the roster, it would be treated as “unreserved” and filled by an open candidate in that year, but the reservation would be carried forward to the subsequent recruitment year and then filled it by a SC candidate. We are afraid the department has taken a completely incorrect view of that matter. In the first place, the order dated 29.4.1975 would not apply to the present situation because, this is not a case of initial recruitment. Present was a scheme providing for the one time personal promotion in order to avoid stagnation. Therefore, when under the scheme the roster was ordered to be administered, then that roster could not have been avoided on the specious ground that there was only one post available. We have already pointed out and even at the cost of repetition, we point out again that there would be no question of creating any particular number of posts for the implementation of the scheme. In fact, all those persons who had completed 15 years of service would be entitled. Therefore, we have no doubts in our mind that the second respondent was always entitled to be promoted. The question however is, whether the petitioner was also entitled. It is obvious that, because the first point in the roster had to go to the S.C. Community and because there was no S.C. candidate having completed 15 years of service, that point would have remained omitted thus causing a shortfall in the promotions to be given to the S.C. community and therefore the petitioner who had completed only 10 years of service would have been entitled to be promoted. 10. The learned single Judge has clearly missed the relevant provision in the scheme at Clause ‘e’ and in our opinion, the petitioner must succeed, however without disturbing the second respondent who according to us, was also rightly promoted. It is directed that the petitioner be treated to have been promoted with effect from 30.6.1995. 10. The learned single Judge has clearly missed the relevant provision in the scheme at Clause ‘e’ and in our opinion, the petitioner must succeed, however without disturbing the second respondent who according to us, was also rightly promoted. It is directed that the petitioner be treated to have been promoted with effect from 30.6.1995. At the same time, the promotion granted to the second respondent shall not be disturbed. We are informed that because of the stay order granted in the writ petition by the learned single Judge, the second respondent has not so far been paid her salary. We direct that her salary should also be cleared as early as possible. The appeal is therefore allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected C.M.P.No.13769 of 2000 is closed.