Judgment :- (1.) THE Inland Waterways Authority of India is a body under the Ministry of Shipping, Government of India. It was established on October 27, 1986. On August 26, 1992 the appellant authority framed seniority-cum-promotion/recruitment regulation being Inland waterways Authority of India (Recruitment, Seniority and Promotion)Regulation, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the "said regulation of 1992"). Under the said regulation of 1992 the post of Assistant Director was to be filled up 50% by promotion and 50% by transfer on deputation failing which by direct recruitment. On January 19, 1995 the respondent No. 1 was appointed in the post of Technical Assistant as a direct recruit. Since he was a diploma engineer as per the regulation of 1992 so amended in 1993 he became entitled to be considered for promotion in the post of Assistant director after five years experience in the feeder post. Thus he was entitled to be considered for promotion on or after January 19, 2000. Respondent no. 1 was a schedule caste candidate and was entitled to have special benefit as per the reservation policy of the Government. As per the roster the first post of the Assistant Director was to be filled up taking a scheduled caste candidate and thereafter the 7th post was reserved for the scheduled caste. There were altogether 13 posts of Assistant Directors. At that time there were six direct recruited Assistant Directors and one promotee Assistant director working on January 19, 2000. The promotee officer was from general category. On April 12, 2001 three more officers were promoted from general category. Subsequently, three Assistant Directors were promoted to the higher post of Deputy Director and by their subsequent promotions three posts of Assistant Director fell vacant. Representation was made by the respondent No. 1 for his consideration in the scheduled caste category. Same was not adhered to. In 2002 three more officers were appointed in the post of Assistant Directors. On April 26, 2002 another general category officer was promoted in the post of Assistant Director without considering the case of the respondent No. 1 as scheduled caste candidate. In 2002, after the promotion of Sri V. N. Mishra there were six direct recruited Assistant directors and five promotee Assistant Directors, all from general category. On April 26, 2002 another general category officer was promoted in the post of Assistant Director without considering the case of the respondent No. 1 as scheduled caste candidate. In 2002, after the promotion of Sri V. N. Mishra there were six direct recruited Assistant directors and five promotee Assistant Directors, all from general category. (2.) BEING aggrieved and dissatisfied with the non-action on the part of the appellant authority respondent No. 1 moved a writ petition in September, 2002. The writ petition was heard on merits after exchange of affidavits. The learned Single Judge by judgment and order dated May 23, 2003 allowed the writ petition by quashing the promotion orders dated April 12, 2001 and april 26, 2002 by which the private respondents in the said writ petition had been promoted and directed consideration of the respondent No. 1 for promotion as scheduled caste candidate. Hence, this appeal (FMA No. 1539 of 2003) by the appellant. (3.) DURING the pendency of the appeal the appellant authority gave promotion to the respondent No. 1 vide office order dated June 22/23, 2004. (4.) THE promotees were also made parties to the writ petition. Despite service they did not appear before His Lordship. However, after their promotions were set aside by His Lordship they preferred a separate appeal being F. M. A. No. 1538 of 2003 which was also heard by us along with FMA no. 1539 of 2003. (5.) WE heard the appeals on the above-mentioned date. Since the respondent No. 1 got promotion in the post of Assistant Director subsequently only question need be considered in these appeals is whether he should be given retrospective benefit from April 12, 2001 when the first promotion was given after he became entitled and if so whether the promotional orders set aside by the learned Single Judge could be revived after placing the respondent No. 1 appropriately in the seniority list. (6.) MR. Anoop Bose, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants (FMA no. 1539 of 2003) contended that as per the roster the 7th post was reserved for scheduled caste. There were originally seven posts which was subsequently enhanced to 11, out of that 50% was reserved for the direct recruits and 50% for the promotees. Hence, after promotion of six Assistant directors in general category the respondent No. 1 was entitled to be considered in schedule caste category. There were originally seven posts which was subsequently enhanced to 11, out of that 50% was reserved for the direct recruits and 50% for the promotees. Hence, after promotion of six Assistant directors in general category the respondent No. 1 was entitled to be considered in schedule caste category. Such situation came only in 2004 when the respondent No. 1 was given promotion. As such he could not be considered in such category earlier. Mr. Bose, further contended that, since he became eligible in 2000 in all subsequent promotional process his case was considered along with the general candidates. However, he could not be given promotion by maintaining merit-cum-seniority formula. Mr. Bose further contended that all promotees were senior to the respondent No. 1 and he was not superceded by anyone of them. Mr. Bose placed heavy reliance on the Apex Court decision in the case of R. K. Sabarwal vs. State of Punjab and Ors. , reported in All India Reporter, 1995, Supreme Court, Page 1371 and contended that the authority followed the Apex Court decision and issued appropriate circular appearing at pages 210-219 of the Paper Book. The apex Court in the said decision directed maintenance of the post based roster in place of vacancy based roster. The authority implemented the decision of the Apex Court. The promotions were subsequently given in terms of the guidelines framed on July 2, 1997 appearing at pages 210-219 thereof. Hence, the appellant did not commit any illegality. Learned Single judge, however, erred in misconstruing the said circular and allowed the writ petition. (7.) MR. Saptangsu Basu, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant in f. M. A. No. 1538 of 2003 adopted the submissions made by Mr. Bose. In addition he contended that in case the respondent No. 1 is placed appropriately in the seniority list without disturbing the private respondents he would have no grievance in the matter and this Court to do complete justice to all should adopt such procedure. (8.) MR. R. K. Jaiswal, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 while opposing the appeals contended that the learned Single Judge rightly applied the ratio in the case of R. K. Sabarwal (supra) while allowing the writ petition. (8.) MR. R. K. Jaiswal, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 while opposing the appeals contended that the learned Single Judge rightly applied the ratio in the case of R. K. Sabarwal (supra) while allowing the writ petition. He referred to paragraphs 4 and 5 of the said decision and contended that post based roster was directed to be followed after the prescribed percentage of post was filled up. He further contended that the said decision should be construed for the benefit of the backward classes. In this regard he also relied on the Apex Court decision in the case of State of punjab and Ors. vs. M. S. Gill and Ors. , reported in 1997 Volume-VI, Supreme court Cases, Page 129. In paragraph 7 of the said decision the Apex Court observed that carry forward rule was constitutionally permissible. It was an extension of the principle of providing facility and opportunity to secure adequacy of representation of the Backward Classes so guaranteed by Article 335 of the Constitution. (9.) THE parties also cited the Apex Court decisions in the case of Major general IPS Dewan vs. Union of India and Ors. , reported in 1995, Volume-Ill, supreme Court Cases, Page 383 and Ajit Sing Januja and Ors. vs. State of punjab and Ors. , reported in 1996, Volume-II, Supreme Court Cases Page 715. (10) ARTICLE 335 of the Constitution provides special treatment to the backward Classes. The decisions of the Apex Court are thus to be read in consonance with the mandate of the Constitution. Fact remains, since 1986 when the authority was established no schedule caste officer was promoted to the post of Assistant Director prior to the respondent No. 1 who got promotion in 2004. If the vacancy based roster was followed he could have been given promotion in 2001. The appellant contended that in 1997 they started implementing the Apex Court decision in the case of Sabarwal (supra)by introducing post based roster. It was not the intention of the Apex Court either in the case of Sabarwal (supra) or in the other cases referred to above that such introduction would be to the detriment of the backward classes. In the writ petition the respondent No. 1 categorically contended that he was not considered in 2001-2002 properly. It was not the intention of the Apex Court either in the case of Sabarwal (supra) or in the other cases referred to above that such introduction would be to the detriment of the backward classes. In the writ petition the respondent No. 1 categorically contended that he was not considered in 2001-2002 properly. While dealing with such allegation the appellant in their affidavit-in-opposition almost admitted such allegation as would appear from paragraphs 5, 6, 9 and 13 thereof. In paragraph 6 in the affidavit-in-opposition the appellant admitted that four Technical Assistants were promoted in the post of Assistant Director since no scheduled caste or scheduled tribe candidate was available in the feeder post. In paragraph 9 thereof they contended that the post of direct recruits were filled up in 2001-2002 by following the carry forward rules. If carry forward rule could be adopted in case of direct recruitment why the same principle was not followed in case of promotion was not explained by the appellant. In paragraph 13 the appellant admitted that case of the respondent No. 1 was considered on merit in 2001. However, since only three posts were available senior most persons were given promotion. On a close reading of the said paragraph it would appear that the respondent No. 1 was also successful in 2001 promotional process, however, the authority gave promotion maintaining the seniority by treating him along with general candidates. On a composite reading of the said affidavit we are of the view that once at the initial promotional process they promoted general candidates in absence of scheduled caste or scheduled tribe candidates following carry forward rules they should have considered the respondent no. 1 as a scheduled caste candidate in 2001. If the vacancy based roster was followed the respondent No. 1 could be given promotion in 2001 as he succeeded in the promotional process as appears on a plain reading of paragraph 13 of the affidavit-in-opposition. Hence, on both counts we find that he was entitled to be promoted in 2001. He was denied promotion on a rigid construction of the Apex Court decision in the case of R. K. Sabarwal (supra) that since 1997 only post based roster was to be followed. If such interpretation could only deny the benefit to the backward classes and such non-beneficial interpretation could not be allowed to be sustained. He was denied promotion on a rigid construction of the Apex Court decision in the case of R. K. Sabarwal (supra) that since 1997 only post based roster was to be followed. If such interpretation could only deny the benefit to the backward classes and such non-beneficial interpretation could not be allowed to be sustained. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and we do not find any scope of interference on that score. (11.) LET us now consider as to what relief would be appropriate as of date considering the subsequent events. The learned Single Judge quashed the promotional process of 2001-2001. Hence, the promotees became effected by the said order. They were also entitled to have promotion in general category. In such view of the matter we do not find any reason why the others should be deprived of promotion without having any fault of them. (12.) THE appeal succeeds in part. The entitlement of the respondent No. 1 for his promotion in 2001 as held by the learned Single Judge is not interfered with. Other part of the decision of His Lordship wherein two promotional orders were quashed, is set aside. The promotion given to the respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 by the promotional order dated April 26, 2002, february 18, 2002 and April 12, 2001 are restored. The appellant is, however, directed to place the respondent No. 1 appropriately in seniority list of assistant Directors retrospectively from April 12, 2001 giving him notional benefit of the promotional post for the period April 12, 2001 to June 23, 2004 when he was actually given promotion. (13.) ON perusal of the promotional order dated June 22/23, 2004 appearing in affidavit affirmed on July 21, 2008 we find that the respondent No. 1 was promoted on officiating basis. Mr. Bose appearing for the appellant on instruction categorically contended that such promotion was made permanent subsequently. Once such promotion was made permanent the respondent no. 1 was entitled to the benefit that would relate back to the original date of promotion. Hence, he would be entitled to all pecuniary benefit in the promotional post on and from June 22/23, 2004, if not given earlier. (14.) APPEALS are disposed of accordingly without any order as to costs. Appeal allowed in part.