JUDGMENT B.K. Sharma, J. 1. By means of this writ petition, the Petitioner, who is working as Assistant Director in the Inland Waterways Authority of India, has put to challenge the Annexure -15 Office Order dated 21.05.2009, so far as the same places him at Sl. No. 5, below the private Respondents. According to the Petitioner, he is entitled to get seniority over the three private Respondents. 2. The Petitioner belongs to Schedule Caste community and thus entitled to benefits of reservation in the matter of promotion and consequential seniority etc. He was initially appointed to the Group-C post of supervisor on 29.4.1991. Be it stated here that the Petitioner is a diploma holder Mechanical Engineer. 3. In due course and to be precise on 19.01.1995, the Petitioner was appointed to the Group-B post of Technical Assistant, from which post he was subsequently promoted to the present post of Assistant Director. According to the Petitioner, he became eligible to get the said promotion as a reserved category candidate on 18.01.2000. 4. It has been stated in the writ petition that after receiving the sanction from the Central Government, 7 (seven) sanctioned posts of Assistant Director were available in 1989. In the year 1992 (26.10.1992),the Respondent Authority framed Seniority-Cum-Promotion/Recruitment Regulation namely Inland Waterways Authority of India Recruitment, Seniority and Promotion Regulation, 1992 (herein after referred to as the regulation). Under the said regulation, the post of Assistant Director is to be filled up 50% by way of promotion and 50% by way of transfer, failing which by way of direct recruitment. The requisite qualification for promotion to the post of Assistant Director from the post of Technical Assistant is Diploma in Engineering with five years experience as Technical Assistant. 5. According to the Petitioner, as per the vacancy based roster, the first post of Assistant Director is to be filled up through a Schedule Caste candidate and thereafter the 7th post which is also reserved for SC candidate. 6. In the year 1994, the Staff Inspection Unit(herein after referred to as Unit) of the Ministry of Finance, assessed the staff strength of the authority and recommended certain posts for abolition and also recommended creation of some new posts. The report of the Unit was made available to the Respondent authority in the year 1997. 6. In the year 1994, the Staff Inspection Unit(herein after referred to as Unit) of the Ministry of Finance, assessed the staff strength of the authority and recommended certain posts for abolition and also recommended creation of some new posts. The report of the Unit was made available to the Respondent authority in the year 1997. Based on the recommendations contained in the report, the Central Government sanctioned four posts of Assistant Director in addition to the aforementioned seven posts of Assistant Director, which had already been sanctioned by the Central Government. 7. In paragraph 12 of the writ petition, it has been stated that the 3 (three) Assistant Directors, namely, Shri M. Ganapati, Shri Shaji Joseph and Shri M. Shivaji, who were promoted against three vacant posts out of the seven posts of Assistant Director, resigned from service before 1997. The Petitioner has projected the position as regards the post of Assistant Director on the roster as of 1st July, 1997 as follows: Posts of three direct recruits. Posts of two promotees. Two vacant posts. 8. It will be pertinent to mention at this stage that the Petitioner had earlier approached the Calcutta High Court by way of a writ petition being WP No. 13056(W) of 2002, claiming promotion to the post of Assistant Director. Prayer was also made to set aside and quash the orders of promotion promoting others to the said posts. The writ petition was allowed vide judgment and order dated 23.05.2003 by setting aside and quashing the impugned orders of promotion and the Respondents were directed to consider the case of the Petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Director with all consequential benefits. Direction was also issued to take into account the fact that the Petitioner is a Scheduled Caste candidate and not a single SC candidate has been granted promotions since 1986. A reasoned order was directed to be passed considering the case of the Petitioner in the light of the observations made in the judgment. 9. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, an appeal being FMA No. 1539/2003 was filed by the official Respondents. In the said appeal, a stay petition was also filed and the Petitioner claims that the aforementioned facts have been admitted by the Respondents in their stay petition filed in connection with the appeal. 9. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, an appeal being FMA No. 1539/2003 was filed by the official Respondents. In the said appeal, a stay petition was also filed and the Petitioner claims that the aforementioned facts have been admitted by the Respondents in their stay petition filed in connection with the appeal. The Petitioner has referred to the Annexure-3 Office Memorandum dated 02.09.1997, which was issued by the Government of India, in the Department of Personnel and Training on the subject of "Reservation roster - post based -implementation of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab". Be it stated here that the said judgment is reported in (1995) 2 SCC 745 . 10. Upon a reference to the said OM, it has been contended that the vacancy based roster can operate till such time as the representation of persons belonging to the reserved category in a cadre reaches the prescribed percentage of reservation. In the Office Memorandum, it has also been stated that at the stage of initial operation of a roster, it would be necessary to adjust the exciting appointments to the roster. 11. As noticed above, the Petitioner became eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Director on 18.01.2000. However, no post of Assistant Director was available against which general category candidates, namely, Respondents No. 6 to 8 could be promoted. It was only on 12.11.2000, the Central Government sanctioned four additional post of Assistant Director, a fact which was projected by the Respondents themselves in their aforementioned stay petition, filed in the appeal. 12. According to the Petitioner, as the posts of Assistant Director for general category candidates were not available prior to 12.11.2000 and the sanctioned post of Assistant Director reserved for SC candidates was readily available and as the Petitioner was the sole eligible SC candidate, on or after 18.01.2000, the Respondents No. 6 to 8 could not have been promoted to the post of Assistant Director prior to the Petitioner. However, despite being eligible for promotion against the sanctioned and vacant post of Assistant Director, reserved for SC category candidate on 18.01.2000, the Petitioner was deprived of such promotion, making a grievance against which the Petitioner made several representations urging for his promotion w.e.f. 18.01.2000. 13. However, despite being eligible for promotion against the sanctioned and vacant post of Assistant Director, reserved for SC category candidate on 18.01.2000, the Petitioner was deprived of such promotion, making a grievance against which the Petitioner made several representations urging for his promotion w.e.f. 18.01.2000. 13. In the mean time, the Respondents No. 6,7&8 were promoted to the post of Assistant Director by Annexure-4 Office Order dated 12.04.2001, against which also the Petitioner made grievance by filling representation. By Annexure-5 communication dated 16.01.2001, the Petitioner was intimated that post based reservation roster was being maintained since July, 1997 as per Government instructions which was prior to the Petitioner's coming into the zone of consideration and thus the case of the Petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Director could not be considered. According to this stand of the Respondents, the Petitioner was to be considered only against the 7th post. 14. By Annexure-6 communication, it was conveyed that the Petitioner does not come within the zone of consideration and that his case would be considered depending upon the vacancy position. In the mean time, by another order dated 26.04.2002, another general category candidate was promoted. 15. With the aforesaid facts in the background, the Petitioner moved the Calcutta High Court by filling the aforementioned writ petition being WP No. 13056(W) of 2002. In the counter affidavit filed by the Respondents, it was inter alia contended that the case of the Petitioner was considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Director alongwith other eligible candidates in the DPC meeting held on 27.03.2001 but since only 3(three) posts were available, the seniormost Technical Assistants were promoting keeping in mind the post based roster, which was made available in 1997. 16. The writ petition was allowed by Annexure-9 judgment and order dated 23.05.2003 by setting aside and quashing the order of promotion, by which the general category candidates were promoted to the post of Assistant Director. Direction was issued to consider the case of the Petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Director with all consequential benefits. For a ready reference, the operative part of the judgment is quoted below: I, thus, find substance in the contention of the Petitioner that the case of the Petitioner was wrongly ignored by the Respondent authority. Direction was issued to consider the case of the Petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Director with all consequential benefits. For a ready reference, the operative part of the judgment is quoted below: I, thus, find substance in the contention of the Petitioner that the case of the Petitioner was wrongly ignored by the Respondent authority. Therefore, the order dated 18th February, 2002 by which the Petitioner had been intimated that he was not eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Director should be quashed. Similarly, orders dated 26th Apri1, 2002 and 12th April, 2001, by which four persons of general category had been promoted to the post of Assistant Director without considering the case of the Petitioner are also liable to be quashed. I, thus, quash those orders dated 26th April, 2002,18th February, 2002 and 12th April, 2001 and direct the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to consider the case of the Petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Director with all consequential benefits as per law. After taking into consideration the fact that the Petitioner is a scheduled caste candidate and that not a single scheduled caste candidate has been granted promotion since 1986, the Respondent No. 1 is directed to pass a reasoned order after considering the case of the Petitioner in the light of observation made in the body of this order within a period of one month from the date of communication of this order. The writ application thus succeeds. 17. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, the Respondent authority preferred an appeal being FMA 1539/2003. During the pendency of the appeal, the Petitioner was granted promotion to the post of Assistant Director vide Annexure -11 Office Order dated 22/23.06.2004. In the mean time, the Respondents No. 6 & 7 also filed an appeal against the said judgment and order, which was registered and numbered as FMA No. 1538/2003. At one point of time, both the appeals were dismissed for default by order dated 24.08.2007. Subsequently, on the basis of the application filed by the Respondents, registered and numbered as CAN No. 1395/2008 and CAN No. 3704/2008, the appeals were restored to file. 18. Both the appeals were heard together by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court and were disposed of by judgment and order dated 31.07.2008, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure -12. 18. Both the appeals were heard together by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court and were disposed of by judgment and order dated 31.07.2008, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure -12. The Division Bench by its judgment and order, while allowing the appeals in part did not interfere with the entitlement of the Petitioner for promotion in 2001. However, the interference with the impugned order of promotion in respect of the general category candidates was interfered with and thereby restored the promotion of the general category candidates to the post of Assistant Director. Direction was issued to place the Petitioner appropriately in the seniority list of Assistant Directors retrospectively from 12.04.2001, giving the Petitioner notional benefit of the promotional post for the period from 12.04.2001 to 23.06.2004, on which date the Petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Director. For a ready reference, the relevant portion of the judgment is quoted below: 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 Sabharwal (supra) by introducing post based roster. It was not the intention of the Apex Court either in the case of Sabharwal (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 schedule caste or schedule tribe candidate was available in the feeder post. In paragraph 9 thereof they contended that the post of direct recruits were filled up in 2001-2004 by following the carry forward rules. 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 schedule caste or schedule tribe candidate was available in the feeder post. In paragraph 9 thereof they contended that the post of direct recruits were filled up in 2001-2004 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 seniormost 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 schedule caste or schedule tribe candidates following carry forward rules they should have considered the Respondent No. 1 as a schedule 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. Sabharwal (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. Let us 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 -2004. Hence, the promotees became effected by the said order. They were also entitled to have promotion in general category. Let us 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 -2004. 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. 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 26.04.2002, 18.02.2002 and 12.04.2001 are restored. The Appellant is, however, directed to place the Respondent No. 1 appropriately in seniority list of Assistant Directors retrospectively from 12.04.2001 giving him notional benefit of the promotional post for the period 12.04.2001 to June 23, 2004 when he was actually given promotion. 19. After the aforesaid judgment and order, the Petitioner was shown promoted to the post of Assistant Director w.e.f. 12.4.2001 with notional benefits covering the period from 12.04.2001 to 23.06.2004. Thereafter the impugned Annexure-15 order dated 21.05.2009 was issued assigning the seniority positions to the incumbents in the post of Assistant Director, in which the Petitioner was placed at Sl. No. 5 as against his claim for placement above the private Respondents. Be it stated here that the Petitioner and the private Respondents have all been shown promoted w.e.f. 12.04.2001 but so far as seniority position is concerned, the Petitioner has been placed below the 3(three) private Respondents. It is the case of the Petitioner that he should have been placed above the said 3(three) private Respondents. 20. The official Respondents as well as the Respondent No. 6 have filed their individual affidavits denying the contentions raised in the writ petition to which the Petitioner has also filed the affidavit in reply. The official Respondents have also filed an additional affidavit 21. In the counter affidavit filed by the official Respondents, the aforesaid facts have been admitted. 20. The official Respondents as well as the Respondent No. 6 have filed their individual affidavits denying the contentions raised in the writ petition to which the Petitioner has also filed the affidavit in reply. The official Respondents have also filed an additional affidavit 21. In the counter affidavit filed by the official Respondents, the aforesaid facts have been admitted. A preliminary objection has been raised regarding maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that in view of the earlier rounds of litigations, the present writ petition is not maintainable. According to the Respondents, the issue relating to the promotion to the post of Assistant Director having already been decided and having attained finality, same cannot be reopened in the guise of a fresh writ petition. On merit, the stand of the official Respondents is that the Petitioner became eligible for consideration only on 18.01.2000, by which time the Government has replaced the vacancy based roster with the post based roster on 02.07.1997, which is three years before the Petitioner became eligible for promotion. As there was no vacant post of Assistant Director available as all the 7(seven) posts, as sanctioned then, had been filled up by that time. The post based roster had also come into existence and only the 7th position became reserved for SC category candidate. It has further been contended that the seniority of the Petitioner has been correctly assigned on the basis of the judgment of the Calcutta High Court. 22. In the additional affidavit filed by the official Respondents, it has been contended that since the Respondents No. 6, 7 & 8 were senior to the Petitioner in the feeder cadre, there was nothing wrong in assigning higher seniority to the said Respondents above the Petitioner. In the reply affidavits filed by the Petitioner, the stand in the writ petition has been reiterated. 23.1 have heard Mr. G. Saha, learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as Mr. N. Choudhury, learned Counsel representing the Respondent authority. I have also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Counsel representing the Respondent No. 6.1 have also considered the entire materials available on record. 24. Learned Counsel for the parties argued on the basis of the aforementioned stand in the pleadings. While Mr. N. Choudhury, learned Counsel representing the Respondent authority. I have also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Counsel representing the Respondent No. 6.1 have also considered the entire materials available on record. 24. Learned Counsel for the parties argued on the basis of the aforementioned stand in the pleadings. While Mr. Saha, learned Counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court reported in (1995)2 SCC 745 , R. K. Sabharwal and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors. (1997) 6 SCC 283 , Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research etc. v. K. L. Narasimban and Anr. etc.; (1986) 4 SCC 268 , Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana and Ors. and (1996) 10 SCC 104 , Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. Mr. Choudhury, learned Counsel representing the Respondent authority placed reliance on the decision reported in (1999) 7 SCC 209 , Ajit Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors. On the other hand, learned Counsel representing the Respondent No. 6 placed reliance on (1996) 2 SCC 715 , Ajit Singh Januja and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors. and (1999) 7 SCC 209 , Ajit Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors. 25. The moot question is as to whether the Petitioner being a reserved category was entitled to get promotion w.e.f. 12.04.2001 with consequential seniority over the private Respondents. So far as the preliminary objection raised by the Respondents on maintainability of the writ petition in view of the earlier decisions of the Calcutta High Court, the same is not at all tenable. In the Division Bench judgment, the direction issued was to grant appropriate seniority to the Petitioner retrospectively from 12.04.2001 with notional benefit of the promotional post. While granting the same, the official Respondents were to consider as to the place which the Petitioner would occupy, namely, whether above the private Respondents or below them. By the impugned order dated 21.05.2009, he has been placed below the private Respondents which according to the Petitioner is erroneous. The said fixation of seniority gave rise to a fresh cause of action to the Petitioner and thus it cannot be said that the issue has already been decided by the Calcutta High Court. In that view of the matter, the preliminary objection raised by the Respondents is overruled. 26. The said fixation of seniority gave rise to a fresh cause of action to the Petitioner and thus it cannot be said that the issue has already been decided by the Calcutta High Court. In that view of the matter, the preliminary objection raised by the Respondents is overruled. 26. Coming to the merit of the case of the Petitioner, naturally we will have to fall back on the judgments already delivered by the Calcutta High Court. The plea of the Petitioner that he was eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Director w.e.f. 18.01.2000 is not denied by the Respondents. In the counter affidavit filed by the Respondents in the writ proceeding before the Calcutta High Court, it was admitted that not a single Scheduled Caste category candidate has been promoted to the post of Assistant Director before 1993 and that there was no vacancy available till 2001. Further stand in the affidavit was that though the case of the Petitioner was considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Director along with other eligible candidates in the DPC meeting held on 27.03.2001, but as only three posts were available to be filled up through promotion, the seniormost Technical Assistants were promoted keeping in view the post based roster which was made applicable in 1997. It was admitted that as per the roster, point Nos. 2,3 and 4 were considered for filling up the posts and those three posts of Assistant Directors were filled up by general category candidates. According to the stand in the affidavit, the Petitioner was entitled to get consideration only against the 7 point. 27. The learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court by his judgment and order dated 23.05.2003 while allowing the writ petition with the above quoted order, reached the conclusions quoted in para 29 below. 28. According to the recruitment regulation, the Petitioner became eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Director in the month of January, 2000. As per the regulation, in the event of non-availability of eligible candidate of SC/ST category, the point has to be carried forward for the next three recruitment years in chronological order. The categorical finding of the learned Single Judge is that if the carry forward rule is followed and the vacancy position of SC/ST is taken into consideration, the Petitioner was legally entitled to be considered for promotion. The categorical finding of the learned Single Judge is that if the carry forward rule is followed and the vacancy position of SC/ST is taken into consideration, the Petitioner was legally entitled to be considered for promotion. The learned Single Judge also found that during 1992-93, four candidates were granted promotion and all of them belong to general category and thus keeping in view the carry forward rule, the Petitioner was eligible and entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Director, but it was one Shri V.C. Dalani i.e. the Respondent No. 6 who was promoted by order dated 12.04.2001. The learned Single Judge has also held that the rejection of the case of the Petitioner on the sole ground that post based reservation roster was being following since July, 1997, was totally wrong as not a single Scheduled Caste candidate had been given promotion since inception of the cadre in the year 1986. 29. Referring to the OM dated 2.7.97 referred to above which was issued by the Government of India, pursuant to the decision of the Apex Court in R.K. Sabharwal (supra), the learned Single Judge rightly observed that the vacancy based roster could operate only till such time as the representation of persons belonging to reserved categories in a cadre reaches the prescribed percentage of reservation. In the OM, it has been specifically stated that at the stage of initial operation of a roster, it would be necessary to adjust the existing appointments to the roster. As regards the roster point No. 1, the categorical finding of the learned Single Judge is as follows: Thus, if the earlier appointee in the cadre happens to be a candidate belonging to scheduled caste against point No. 1 of the roster, the remark "utilized by SC" should be entered against point No. 2 and so on and so forth, till all appointments are adjusted in the respective roster. In making such adjustments, SC, ST or OBC candidates selected on merit in direct recruitment should be treated as General Category candidates. After completing the adjustment as indicated above, if there is an excess representation of any of the reserved categories or if the total representation of the reserved categories exceeds 50%, it should be adjusted in future recruitment. In making such adjustments, SC, ST or OBC candidates selected on merit in direct recruitment should be treated as General Category candidates. After completing the adjustment as indicated above, if there is an excess representation of any of the reserved categories or if the total representation of the reserved categories exceeds 50%, it should be adjusted in future recruitment. For the post based roster, it has been specifically held by Supreme Court that vacancy based roster can operate till such time as the representation of the person belonging to reserved category in a cadre reaches the prescribed percentage of reservation and as till 2nd June, 1997 not a single candidate of scheduled caste category had been given the benefit of reservation, the Petitioner was thus legally entitled to be considered for promotion for the post after January 18, 2000. 30. The aforesaid finding arrived at by the learned Single Judge has not been interfered with by the Division Bench. While partly allowing the appeals and interfering with the interference of the learned Single Judge with the orders of promotion of the general category candidates, the Division Bench issued categorical direction for placing the Petitioner appropriately in the seniority list of Assistant Directors retrospectively from April 12,2001, giving him notional benefit of the promotional post. The categorical finding of the Division Bench is that the Petitioner was entitled to be considered for promotion on or after January 19, 2000 and that the Petitioner being a scheduled caste candidate was entitled to have special benefit as per the reservation policy of the Government. The most important finding of the Division Bench is that as per the roster, the first post of Assistant Director was to be filled up by taking a scheduled caste candidate and thereafter the 7(seven) posts again would go to scheduled caste candidate. 31. In the judgment of the Division Bench, relevant portion of which has been quoted above, it has been observed that if carry forward rule could be adopted in case of direct recruitment, there was no reason not to follow the said principle in case of promotion. The categorical findings of the Division Bench is that the Petitioner was successful in 2001 promotional process but the authority granted promotions maintaining seniority, treating the Petitioner at par with the general candidates. The categorical findings of the Division Bench is that the Petitioner was successful in 2001 promotional process but the authority granted promotions maintaining seniority, treating the Petitioner at par with the general candidates. Upon a reference to the affidavits filed by the official Respondents, the Division Bench has categorically recorded its finding that once at the initial promotional process the authority promoted general category candidate in absence of SC/ST candidates following the carry forward rules, they should have considered the Petitioner as a SC candidate in 2001 and that if the vacancy based roster had been followed, the Petitioner could be given promotion in 2001 as he succeeded in the promotional process. The observations of the Division Bench is that the Petitioner was denied promotion on the basis of wrong interpretation of ratio laid down in R.K. Sabharwal (supra) that since 1997, only post based roster was to be followed. 32. In R.K. Sabharwal (supra), it has been held that the roster indicating reserved points required by Government instructions to be implemented in the form of running account from year to year and such roster will remain operative till all the roster points in the cadre are filled up and the quota prescribed by the instructions is achieved. In the instant case, as per the findings recorded by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, the Petitioner was successful in the selection process of 2001 and thus he was entitled to get promotion against the first roster point which is meant for scheduled caste category candidate. However, he was not granted the said promotion on the ground of nonavailability of roster point and he being junior to the other general category candidates. 33. In K.L. Narasimban (supra), the Apex Court while emphasising the obligation of the administrative authorities to scrupulously give effect to the reservation policy, observed that the reservation has to be applied according to the roster and application of roster is a continuous process. 34. In Neelima Shangla (supra), the Apex Court emphasising the need for a PSC to prepare complete list of all successful candidates and communicating the same to the Government held that PSC erred in withholding the names of several successful candidates including the Petitioner in that case on the ground of limited number of vacancies. 34. In Neelima Shangla (supra), the Apex Court emphasising the need for a PSC to prepare complete list of all successful candidates and communicating the same to the Government held that PSC erred in withholding the names of several successful candidates including the Petitioner in that case on the ground of limited number of vacancies. This judgment has been pressed into service so as to contend that it was incumbent on the part of the authority/DPC to forward the name of the Petitioner to appropriate authority on being found suitable for promotion to the post of Assistant Director. This aspect of the matter need not detain us in view of the categorical finding of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court that the Petitioner was successful in the selection process. 35. The decision in Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. (supra) has been pressed into service to emphasis on justice oriented approach while dealing with a case of reserved category candidate. 36. Controverting with the principle of accelerated promotion with consequential seniority in respect of reserved category candidate, Mr. N. Choudhury, learned Counsel representing the Respondent authority, placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Ajit Singh -II (supra) made an effort to uphold the plea of the official Respondents that even if the Petitioner is granted promotion being a reserved category candidate, he cannot get consequential seniority as the catch-up formula under which a general category candidate on reaching the promotional post, though subsequently, than a reserved category candidate, would get back his seniority at par with the feeder post has not been done away with by amending the recruitment rule. Such a plea advanced by the learned Counsel has been countered by Mr. Saha, learned Counsel for the Petitioner by placing reliance on the OM dated 21.01.2002 issued by the Government of India in the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension, Department of Personnel and Training, by which it has been provided that the reserved category candidates will carry consequential seniority on their accelerated promotion. 37. The aforesaid Office Memorandum has been issued in reference to amendment to Article 16(4)(A) of the Constitution. Although, Mr. 37. The aforesaid Office Memorandum has been issued in reference to amendment to Article 16(4)(A) of the Constitution. Although, Mr. Choudhury, learned Counsel representing the Authority submitted that the said OM cannot take place of Recruitment Rules but when it is the own stand of the official Respondents in their counter affidavit that they are following the OM dated 02.07.97 issued by the same Ministry pursuant to the decision in R.K. Sabharwal (supra), it does not lie on their mouth to say that the said OM dated 21.01.2002 issued by the same Ministry is not applicable to them. In this connection, Mr. Saha, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has also referred to the Annexure- A advertisement/employment notice dated 4/10.06.1994 annexed to the additional affidavit-in-reply, in which it was categorically mentioned that the Respondent authority is following the Government of India rules and orders on service matters. 38. Mr. N. Choudhury, learned Counsel representing the Respondent authority fairly conceded that if the Petitioner is to get consequential seniority on his accelerated promotion to the post of Assistant Director as a reserved category candidate, then he would be entitled to get seniority over the private Respondents. However, as indicated above, his argument was that in absence of any amendment to the Recruitment Rules in terms of the Constitutional provisions for granting consequential seniority, the Petitioner is not entitled to get seniority over the private Respondents. The position having been made clear by the aforesaid OM dated 21.01.2002, by which the reserved category candidates have been granted consequential seniority on accelerated promotion, there can be no manner of doubt that the Petitioner upon his accelerated promotion as a scheduled caste category candidate will also get consequential seniority above the private Respondents. 39. The decision on which the learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 6 has placed reliance i.e. Ajit Singh-II, has already been dealt with. The said judgment laying down the catch-up formula has been down away with by the aforesaid OM dated 21.01.2002 following the 85th amendment of the Constitution w.e.f. 17.06.95, in terms of which aforesaid OM dated 21.01.2002 has been issued. The said judgment laying down the catch-up formula has been down away with by the aforesaid OM dated 21.01.2002 following the 85th amendment of the Constitution w.e.f. 17.06.95, in terms of which aforesaid OM dated 21.01.2002 has been issued. If the official Respondents could follow the earlier OM dated 02.07.97 (Annexure-3) issued by the same Ministry pursuant to the decision in R.K. Sabharwal (supra), there cannot be any reason as to why they cannot follow the OM dated 21.1.2002 unless such a plea is advanced only to frustrate the case of the Petitioner. 40. The decision in Ajit Singh Januja (supra) was pressed into service to advance the same very contention that accelerated promotion may not follow consequential seniority. 41. Once it is held that the Petitioner on his accelerated promotion to the post of Assistant Director will also be entitled to consequential seniority and that his case was required to be considered against the first roster point, there cannot be any other opinion than the one that the Petitioner would be entitled to get seniority over the private Respondents and that his position should be above the Respondents No. 6 V.C. Dialani and below Shri V.V.P. Singh, Sl. No. 1 in the impugned Office Order dated 21.05.2009. To that extent, the impugned Office Order is interfered with. Direction is issued to assign higher seniority to the Petitioner above the private Respondents and below said Shri V.V.P. Singh, who was promoted way back in 1993. 42. Writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.