JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr. H Das, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. B Ahmed, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Also heard Mr. R Borpujari, the learned counsel appears for the respondent No.5. None appears for the respondent No.6. 2. The controversy involved in the present writ petition is that the petitioner being the senior most Junior Assistant working under the establishment of respondent No.4 was not promoted to the post of Senior Assistant under the said establishment admittedly on the ground that a promotional post which was considered by the Selection Committee in the year 2015 has been found earmarked for ST(P) candidate as per 100 point roster. Respondent No.5 being an ST(P) candidate was thus promoted to the post. 3. Mr. H Das, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.5 in fact although appointed as Khalasi initially was promoted to the post of Junior Assistant on 28.1.2009 after being given a preference as an ST(P) candidate in terms of the roster maintained by the respondent authorities. He submits that since preference was already given to the respondent No.5, she could not have been conferred similar benefit for the second time when consideration was made in the year 2015 for promotion from the post of Junior Assistant to Senior Assistant. He further submits that the petitioner would attain the age of superannuation in the year 2020 whereas the respondent No.5 is due to superannuate only in the year 2032. Therefore, even on this count, the petitioner ought to have been given the preference of promotion. 4. Dr. B Ahmed, the learned Standing Counsel, Irrigation Department on the other hand submits that the respondent authorities have only gone by the 100 point roster reservation. Since, the slot in the roster point register was meant for ST(P) candidate, respondent No.5 being an ST(P) was therefore given the promotion. He further submits that there is no bar in giving promotion to respondent No.5 for the second time since the post incidentally happened to be reserved for ST(P) candidate. 5. Mr. Since, the slot in the roster point register was meant for ST(P) candidate, respondent No.5 being an ST(P) was therefore given the promotion. He further submits that there is no bar in giving promotion to respondent No.5 for the second time since the post incidentally happened to be reserved for ST(P) candidate. 5. Mr. H Das, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as can be seen from the communication dated 2.5.2015 (Annexure-VI) made by the respondent No.3 to the respondent No.2, one post of Senior Assistant was lying vacant since 1.5.2015 due to the promotion of one Sri Jagadish Roy to the post of Head Assistant. Accordingly, the respondent No.3 submitted a proposal for filling up the post by enclosing the gradation list of Junior Assistants with names including the petitioner and the respondent No.6. As per the gradation list, petitioner was shown to be senior most and he and the respondent No.6 were the only applicants for the promotional post of Senior Assistants under establishment. Mr. H Das submits that the petitioner joined the post of Junior Assistant on 1.3.2006 wherein the respondent No.6 joined her post of Junior Assistant on 13.2.2009 and therefore the petitioner ought to have been promoted to the post of Senior Assistant. He further submits that when there is only one post available for being filled up by way of promotion, no reservation can be made. 6. In support of his submission, he places his reliance upon the decision of this Court in the case of Jaya Jaswal Singh –vs- State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. reported in (2012) 3 GLT 31. 7. In the said decision, a further reliance has been made to the Apex Court rendered in Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh –vs- Faculty Association & Ors. reported in (1998) 4 SCC 1 amongst others wherein it has been held that in a single cadre post, reservation at any point of time on account of rotation of roster is bound to bring about a situation where such a single post in the cadre will be kept reserved exclusively for the members of backward class and in total exclusion of the general members of the public. Such total exclusion of general members of the public and cent percent reservation for the backward class is not permissible within the constitutional frame work. Such total exclusion of general members of the public and cent percent reservation for the backward class is not permissible within the constitutional frame work. He therefore submits that since there was only one vacant post to be filled up since 1.5.2015, the same could not have been reserved and filled up by promoting the respondent No.6 who belongs to the ST (P) category. Therefore, under the circumstances, he submits that the promotion of the respondent No.6 should be set aside and in her place, the petitioner should be promoted. 8. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and I have perused the materials available on record. 9. In order to provide reservation to the reserved category of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe in the State, the State Government framed the Assam Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of Vacancies in Services and Posts) Act, 1978 which was further amended by the Amendment Act of 2012. As per the said provision for reservation and its amendment, 20/100 point roster has been provided and according to the roster register maintained by the Department, roster point No.5 is meant for ST(P) and therefore respondent No.6 being an ST(P) was recommended for the post. It may be noticed that as regard the seniority position, there is no doubt the petitioner is senior to the respondent No.6. With regard to the decision relied upon by the Mr. H Das i.e. the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh (supra), the same was in relation to a single post cadre, reservation of which could result in a situation where such single post in the cadre will remain reserved exclusively for the members of the backward class and to the exclusion of the member of the general category. However, in the instant case, the case is not that of there being only a single post in the cadre and the reservation thereof would exclude the general category candidates from being promoted to the post. From what can be noticed is that the 100 point roster provides for filling up of the post from various categories against their prescribed slots and therefore, the authority relied upon by Mr. H Das cannot be applied to the instant case. The respondent No.6 may have earned her promotion in the post of Junior Assistant earlier by virtue of being an ST(P). H Das cannot be applied to the instant case. The respondent No.6 may have earned her promotion in the post of Junior Assistant earlier by virtue of being an ST(P). However, that by itself cannot be a ground for not extending her the benefit of reservation since the roster point No.5 has been reserved for ST (P) candidate. It can only be seen that such promotion in service by availing the reservation is only incidental. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the promotion given to the respondent No.6 as per the reservation in the 100 point roster in the absence of any material to the contrary do not call for the interference of this Court. 10. In the result, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.