Judgment :- P.K. Misra, J: The aforesaid writ petitions are directed against the common order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.Nos.296 and 777 of 2000 dated 24.1.2001. 2. The aforesaid two O.As before the Central Administrative Tribunal were filed by the present Respondent No.3 in W.P.NOs.4467 & 4468 of 2001 (hereinafter referred to as “the applicant”). The Tribunal under the impugned order, quashed the order dated 10.12.1999, where under the writ petitioner in W.P.NOs.4467 & 4468 of 2001(hereinafter referred to as “the petitioner”) was promoted, and it was further directed that the vacancy should be filled from among the eligible candidates for appointment as Head Clerk by promotion or on deputation as per recruitment rules in force and to take a decision on the question as to whether such post is a single post or not. 3. The facts giving rise to the present writ petitions are as follows: - The petitioner initially joined as a Class IV employee in the Central Cattle Breeding Farm under the Animal Husbandry and Dairying Department of the Central Government. In course of time, he was promoted as Upper Division Clerk and posted at Central Cattle Breeding Farm, Suratgarh in Rajasthan and subsequently, he was sent on deputation to Bio-Fertilizer Development Centre in Bangalore. At that time, the petitioner received a circular bearing Ref.No.1-1-/95/RSFP/ESTT/1043 TO 1110 dt.1.8.95 inviting applications for the post of Head Clerk, which was reserved for Scheduled Caste Community. Such post was to be filled up by promotion of Upper Division Clerks in the Regional Station for Forage Production and Central Cattle Breeding Farm with 5 years continuous service in the grade, failing which by transfer on deputation from Upper Division Clerks with 5 years continues service in the grade in the Subordinate Offices of the Ministry of Agriculture. Pursuant to the said notification dated 1.8.1995, the petitioner applied for the post of Head Clerk, which was a selection post as per the Recruitment Rules, 1968. The selection process by promotion was initiated by the DPC on the basis of 1968 Rules and such selection process was completed on 22.3.1996, before the Rules were amended on 10.4.1996. The petitioner was promoted and deputed in the post on 1.2.1997 and he joined the post of Head Clerk on 24.2.1997 and subsequently, such deputation was extended. The selection process by promotion was initiated by the DPC on the basis of 1968 Rules and such selection process was completed on 22.3.1996, before the Rules were amended on 10.4.1996. The petitioner was promoted and deputed in the post on 1.2.1997 and he joined the post of Head Clerk on 24.2.1997 and subsequently, such deputation was extended. At that time, Respondent No.3 in WP.Nos.4467 & 4468 of 2001, the applicant before the Tribunal, who does not belong to Scheduled Caste Community, made a representation to the Government in January, 1999. Subsequently, on the basis of internal communication of the Department indicating that the question of promotion on regular basis should be considered on the basis of old Rules, an order was passed on 10.12.1999 promoting the petitioner on regular basis with effect from 24.2.1997, the date on which he had joined. Subsequently, a letter dated 16.12.1999 was issued approving such promotion. In the meantime, Respondent No.3 filed O.A.No.1242 of 1999 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, wherein a direction was issued to consider the representation dated 16.1.1999, filed by him. On 15.2.2000, such representation was rejected by the Union of India, wherein it was indicated that promotional process was prior to amendment of the Rules and the recommendation made by DPC was valid. Thereafter, Respondent No.3 in W.P.Nos.4467 & 4468 of 2001 filed O.A.No.296 of 2000 challenging the promotion of the petitioner contending that there was a single vacancy and there could not have been any reservation. Subsequently, O.A.No.777 of 2000 was filed by him challenging the order of promotion dated 10.12.1999, whereunder the earlier promotion of the present petitioner had been made regular. Under the impugned order, the Tribunal has quashed the order of promotion of the petitioner and directed for reconsideration of the question of promotion, on the following conclusions:- “19. In the light of the discussion in the preceding paras, (a) We set aside the impugned order dated 10.12.99 promoting the third respondent with retrospective effect from 24.2.97. (b) We hold that the third respondent was offered appointment and was also in fact appointed as Head Clerk on deputation basis only w.e.f. 24.2.97 initially for a period of one year which was later on extended by another year. (b) We hold that the third respondent was offered appointment and was also in fact appointed as Head Clerk on deputation basis only w.e.f. 24.2.97 initially for a period of one year which was later on extended by another year. (c) We direct the official respondents to treat the post as vacant after the period of deputation of the third respondent was over and take steps within two months to select a candidate from among the eligible candidates for appointment as Head Clerk by promotion or on deputation as per recruitment rules in force. (d) We direct the respondents to take a decision within a month on the question whether the post in the regional station at Alamadhi, Chennai is a single cadre post or not based on our discussion in para 18 above and if the post in the regional station Alamadhi is a single cadre post, treat it as unreserved and if it is not a single cadre post but when there is a single vacancy then treat it as unreserved in the year of occurrence of vacancy and carry forward the reservation to the subsequent years and fill up the post accordingly. (e) We set aside the reply dated 15.2.2000 and 18.2.2000 sent to the applicant and we direct that the applicant and similarly placed persons like the applicant be all considered as eligible for promotion and consider them accordingly as per recruitment rules in force.” Against the aforesaid order, these writ petitions have been filed. 4. The main contention raised by the petitioner is to the effect that the post itself has been reserved as per notification dated 1.8.1995 and the applicant before the Tribunal, who does not belong to reserved category has never challenged such reservation nor he had applied pursuant to the Circular issued by the Department inviting applications. It is further contended that such applicant had kept quiet at that stage and only after long delay, he had filed a representation on 16.1.1999. It is contended that since the applicant before the Tribunal was not at all eligible to be considered for promotion, he had no right to challenge the promotion of the petitioner. 5. The main question which arises for consideration is as to whether the post was a single post, in which event such single post could not have been reserved. It is contended that since the applicant before the Tribunal was not at all eligible to be considered for promotion, he had no right to challenge the promotion of the petitioner. 5. The main question which arises for consideration is as to whether the post was a single post, in which event such single post could not have been reserved. If it is found that the post was a single post, obviously there could not have been any reservation. The stand of the Government is also to the similar effect. 6. There is no dispute that the selection process started pursuant to notification dated 1.8.1995. Such notification relates to filling up posts of Head Clerk in the Regional Station for Forage Production & Demonstration and was specifically reserved for Scheduled Caste Community. At the relevant time, Rules had been framed under Article 309, which is known as “The Regional Stations for conducting demonstration of forage production (Class III and Class IV posts) Recruitment Rules, 1968”. As per Rule 2, such Rules are applicable to the posts specified in column 2 of the Schedule. Such schedule indicates that there are five posts. As per Rule 6 read with column 6, it is apparent that it was a selection post. It is thus obvious that notification dated 1.8.1995 was in accordance with the Rules in existence and as per the notification, the post of Head Clerk was reserved for Scheduled Caste Community. As a matter of fact, the process of selection was also completed before the amendment of Rules and at any rate, the applicant before the Tribunal had not challenged the notification dated 1.8.1995 at any time and since such notification is also in accordance with the existing Rules, the applicant before the Tribunal was not at all eligible for claiming the post of Head Clerk. 7. It is of course true that as per the initial notification, appointment was to be made for a limited period, which was likely to be extended from time to time, but the fact remains that the initial selection was on the basis of the existing Rules. Since the petitioner was selected as per the existing Rules and the notification, the subsequent departmental communication observing that the promotion could be made regular cannot be said to be arbitrary. Since the petitioner was selected as per the existing Rules and the notification, the subsequent departmental communication observing that the promotion could be made regular cannot be said to be arbitrary. The applicant before the Tribunal of course has stated that when the promotion was made regular, he was forced to challenge. However, the fact remains that the post was a reserved post for Scheduled Caste Community and as such, the applicant before the Tribunal has no locus standi to challenge the selection of the petitioner. 8. The Tribunal has not at all referred to the provisions contained in the Rules and the fact that the notification reserving the post had not been challenged, is also ignored by the Tribunal. Without considering all these aspects, the Tribunal has quashed the order of promotion and has directed for reconsideration of the matter. In our opinion, since all the relevant factors have not been considered, the order of the Tribunal cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed. 9. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.