ORDER 1. The appellant, a Senior Assistant, who belongs to a Scheduled Caste category, made a claim for promotion to the post of Superintendent Grade II, C that was created in the office of Advocate General in the State of Punjab, in the year 1991. That was a second post which had been created, first having been created in the year 1987. The case of the appellant was that the post created in the year 1991 should be treated as reserved for Scheduled Caste candidate. The claim of the appellant was not accepted and the post was filled by appointing a general category candidate, one Dina Nath Singla, who retired from service on 31-10-1996. The appellant did not challenge the promotion of Dina Nath Singla and the action of post not being filled by a candidate of reserved category in the year 1991. When the post fell vacant on retirement of Mr Singla, again it was filled by appointment of a general category candidate, namely, Respondent 3, on 7-2-1997. The claim that the reservation ought to have been carried to two subsequent recruitment years e was rejected by the respondent State Government. The respondent also took the stand that the two subsequent years means calendar years and not recruitment years, and, therefore, according to the State Government the reservation could be carried forward only up to the year 1993 i.e. two calendar years and not recruitment years.2. The promotion of Respondent 3 to the post of Superintendent Grade II as also non-filling of the said post on the basis of reservation, was challenged by the appellant by filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court. The said petition having been dismissed, this appeal has been filed on grant of leave. 3. In the impugned judgment the High Court after holding that a reserved vacancy (if there is only one vacancy at a particular time) had to be carried forward for two subsequent recruitment years and not two calendar years, rejected the stand of the respondent State that the reservation would lapse in the year 1993. The High Court has held that whenever recruitment takes place subsequent to the first appointment against a post meant for Scheduled Caste candidate reservation has to be carried forward because there is only one vacancy. The first recruitment year was taken by the High Court as 1991. The High Court has held that whenever recruitment takes place subsequent to the first appointment against a post meant for Scheduled Caste candidate reservation has to be carried forward because there is only one vacancy. The first recruitment year was taken by the High Court as 1991. The next recruitment year was taken as 1996 when the post fell vacant on the retirement of Mr Singla. Despite these conclusions, the High Court dismissed the petition noticing that even in 1996 there was only one vacancy and holding on that basis that a candidate from reserved category could not claim appointment on the said single vacancy. 4. The reservation has to be worked out in relation to the post and the concept of vacancy has no relevance. (See R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab1.) 5. How the concept of carrying forward of reservation is to be worked out has been laid down in the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Arati Ray Choudhury v. Union of India2. It would be useful to reproduce paras 21 and 22 from the said decision which read as under: (SCC pp. 94-95, paras 21-22) "The SE Railway runs only two secondary schools for girls, one at Adra and the other at Kharagpur. The vacancy at Adra was filled on 16-8-1966 by the appointment of the senior most Assistant Mistress Smt Gita Biswas. In pursuance of the memorandum dated 4-12-1963 of the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Railway Board revised the Model Roster by their letter of 16-1-1964. The first point in this roster is a reserved point and therefore the Adra vacancy was strictly a reserved vacancy. But there being only one vacancy in the particular year of recruitment, it had to be treated as unreserved and therefore the appointment went to Smt Biswas, an open, not a reserved candidate. This, however, had to be compensated for by carrying forward the reservation, though not over more than 2 subsequent recruitment years. For the purposes of services under the Railway Administration recruitment year means the financial year and the Adra appointment having been made in the financial year 1966-67, it was permissible to carry forward the reservation till the close of the financial year 1968-69. There was no vacancy in 1967-68. For the purposes of services under the Railway Administration recruitment year means the financial year and the Adra appointment having been made in the financial year 1966-67, it was permissible to carry forward the reservation till the close of the financial year 1968-69. There was no vacancy in 1967-68. The vacancy in the post of the Headmistress of the Kharagpur school occurred in the financial year 1968-69 by the retirement of Smt Bina Devi with effect from 31-12~1968. This vacancy, indubitably, had to be treated as a reserved vacancy and since from amongst the 4 Assistant Mistresses, Respondent 8 was the only candidate belonging to a Scheduled Caste, she was entitled to be considered for selection to the post of the Headmistress, to the exclusion of the other 3. The claims, if any, of the petitioner who is not a reserved candidate have to be postponed, though in the normal course it may be quite some years before she gets her turn. The Adra Headmistress and Respondent 8 would seem to have a long tenure in their respective offices. It is urged that only one vacancy occurred in 1968-69 and since the letter of the Railway Board dated 16-1-1964 says that if there be only one vacancy, it should be treated as unreserved, the Kharagpur vacancy must be treated as unreserved. Such a construction would rob the rule of its prime significance and will render the carry-forward provision llusory. Though each year of recruitment is to be treated separately and by itself, a reserved vacancy has to be carried forward over 2 years, if it is not filled in by the appointment of a reserved candidate. The open class reaped a benefit in 1966-67 when a reserved vacancy was treated as unreserved by the appointment of an open candidate Smt Gita Biswas. If the carry-forward rule has to be given any meaning, the vacancy shall have to be carried forward for the benefit of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes until the close of the financial year 1968-69. The Kharagpur vacancy was to be filled in on 1-1-1969 and hence it cannot go to the petitioner who, admittedly, does not belong to the reserved class. The construction sought to be put on the rule by the petitioner would perpetuate a social injustice which has clouded the lives of a large section of humanity which is struggling to find its feet. The construction sought to be put on the rule by the petitioner would perpetuate a social injustice which has clouded the lives of a large section of humanity which is struggling to find its feet. Such a construction is contrary to the plain language of the letter of the Railway Board, the intendment of the rule and its legislative history." 6. We may note that in the present case there is no controversy of a financial year being a recruitment year. Further, as a result of decision in Arati Ray Choudhury case2 the Government of Punjab issued a circular dated 11-10-1974, deciding that "it has now been decided that the reservation with respect to the solitary vacancy so unreserved and carried forward must be given effect to on the occasion next arising when a solitary vacancy occurs in the same cadre". The appellant, relying on this circular, sought review of the judgment, whereby the writ petition was dismissed, but the review petition was also rejected. Therefore, the appellant in these appeals has challenged both the judgments i.e. the one whereby the writ petition was dismissed and also the judgment and order whereby review petition was dismissed. 7. It is evident from the above that the High Court erred in going by the vacancy and not the post. The decision in the cases of R.K. Sabharwal1, Arati Ray Choudhury2 and the circular dated 11-10-1974 make it clear that the post that fell vacant on retirement of Mr Singla in 1996 could be filled by appointment of a candidate from reserved category. It cannot be disputed that the appellant was available from that category to be considered for being promoted to the post which fell vacant on retirement of Mr Singla on 31-101996. In that view, that post could not be filled by promotion of a candidate from general category i.e. Respondent 3. 8. In view of the aforesaid, we set aside the order dated 7-2-1997 and hold that the post in question was required to be filled by a reserved category candidate. The appellant was unjustifiably denied that promotion. He is directed to be appointed from 7-2-1997 i.e. from the date when post was filled by appointment of Respondent 3. The appellant would be entitled to all consequential benefits as well. 9. The impugned judgment is set aside and the appeals are allowed with costs.