JUDGMENT Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. This special appeal has been preferred challenging the impugned order dated 16.07.2008 passed by learned Single Judge, whereby while allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent/writ petitioner, the present appellants were directed to appoint the respondent/writ petitioner by way of promotion as Telecom Technical Assistant in Small Switching Area, Jaisalmer as a consequence of his qualifying the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination for Telecom Technical Assistants. 2. Brief facts necessary for the present adjudication are that after formation of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited in October, 2000, Recruitment Rules of Telecom Technical Assistants were framed by the concerned Board and the said Rules are called as Telecom Technical Assistants (TTAs) Recruitment Rules, 2001. In accordance with the said Rules, the post of Telecom Technical Assistant was to be filled to the extent of 50% by direct recruitment, 40% by promotion through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination and 10% by promotion from amongst the departmental employees. 3. The post of Telecom Technical Assistant is a Small Switching Area cadre post, and the applications were invited vide circular dated 27.05.2005 for promotion to the said post through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination, which was under 40% quota in different Small Switching Areas, including the Small Switching Area, Jaisalmer in question. 4. Five posts of Telecom Technical Assistant in General Category were advertised for Small Switching Area, Jaisalmer to be filled through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination. In pursuance of the aforesaid circular, the respondent/writ petitioner applied for the said post and appeared in the examination. 5. As per the aforementioned circular dated 27.05.2005, the minimum qualifying marks were prescribed for the candidates belonging to General Category as also for SC/ST Category candidates. The minimum qualifying marks were 40% for the General Category candidates and 33% for the SC/ST Category candidates. 6. It is an admitted position that the respondent/writ petitioner, an SC Category candidate, could not obtain the minimum qualifying marks as prescribed for the General Category candidates. However, the respondent/writ petitioner has obtained more than minimum qualifying marks as prescribed for SC/ST Category candidates. 7. The bone of contention in the present case is that the respondent/writ petitioner was not given appointment on the post of Telecom Technical Assistant. 8. As per the roster system, 40% quota i.e. five posts of Telecom Technical Assistant were required to be filled through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination. 7. The bone of contention in the present case is that the respondent/writ petitioner was not given appointment on the post of Telecom Technical Assistant. 8. As per the roster system, 40% quota i.e. five posts of Telecom Technical Assistant were required to be filled through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination. It was also claimed by respondent that looking to availability of the vacancies for promotion through absorption and Limited Departmental Competitive Examination, minimum seven posts have to be filled through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination, and if it was so done, the respondent/writ petitioner was entitled to get promotion as Telecom Technical Assistant, as per roster system. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants has shown the circular dated 27.05.2005, whereby the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination for Telecom Technical Assistant (under 40% quota) in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited was to be held on 28.08.2005. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the aforesaid circular dated 27.05.2005 clarified that for Jaisalmer, there were five posts of Telecom Technical Assistant to be filled from General Category candidates. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants has also drawn our attention towards the Office Memorandum dated 02.07.1997 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel & Training), New Delhi. The said office memorandum in clause-4 thereof prescribed the principles for preparing the rosters elaborated upon in certain explanatory notes. Note (c) of the said clause-4 of the office memorandum is reproduced hereunder, for ready reference:- "(c) Cadre, for the purpose of a roster, shall mean a particular grade and shall comprise the number of posts to be filled by a particular mode of recruitment in terms of the applicable recruitment rules. Thus, in a cadre of, say, 200 posts, where the recruitment rules prescribe a ratio of 50:50 for direct recruitment and promotion, two rosters one for direct recruitment and one for promotion (when reservation in promotion applies) each comprising 100 points shall be drawn up on lines of the respective model rosters;" 12. Learned counsel for the appellants has also shown the Model Roster for Promotion for cadre strength upto thirteen posts, which is also reproduced as hereunder:- "Model Roster for Promotion for cadre strength upto 13 posts. Learned counsel for the appellants has also shown the Model Roster for Promotion for cadre strength upto thirteen posts, which is also reproduced as hereunder:- "Model Roster for Promotion for cadre strength upto 13 posts. Cadre strength Initial recruitment Replacement No. 1 st 2 nd 3 rd 4 th 5 th 6 th 7 th 8 th 9 th 10 th 11 th 12 th 13 th 1 UR UR UR UR UR UR SC UR UR UR UR UR UR ST 2 UR UR UR UR UR SC UR UR UR UR UR UR ST 3 UR UR UR UR SC UR UR UR UR UR UR ST 4 UR UR UR SC UR UR UR UR UR UR ST 5 UR UR SC UR UR UR UR UR UR ST 6 UR SC UR UR UR UR UR UR ST 7 SC UR UR UR UR UR UR ST 8 UR UR UR UR UR UR ST 9 UR UR UR UR UR ST 10 UR UR UR UR ST 11 UR UR UR ST 12 UR UR ST 13 UR ST Note: 1. For cadres of 2 to 13 posts the roster is to be read from entry 1 under column cadre strength till the last post and then horizontally till the last entry in the horizontal row i.e. like "L". 2. All the posts of a cadre are to be earmarked for the categories shown under column initial Appointment. While initial filling up will be by the earmarked category, the replacement against any of the post in the cadre shall be by rotation as shown horizontally against the last post of the cadre. 3. The relevant rotation by the indicated reserved category could be skipped over if it leads to more than 50% representation of reserved category." 13. Learned counsel for the appellants further states that fifteen posts of Telecom Technical Assistant, on rounding off the 40% of promotion quota through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination, the said quota would have only five posts, and even if it is conceded that there are six posts, then also as per the Rules read with roster system and the office memorandum as well as the model roster for promotion for cadre strength upto thirteen posts, as aforementioned, first six posts shall go to the unreserved category candidates. 14. 14. Learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner however made a limited submission that if the bifurcation of 50% of total strength is made, then 7 posts should be filled by way of promotion, and as per the roster system, the seventh post comes for SC Category candidate, which is evident from the roster point. 15. Learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner further states that in the present case, 10% posts have to be filled by way of absorption, and since, the same could not be filled, therefore, these 10% were required to be included in 40% quota of promotees for the post of Telecom Technical Assistant through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination, thus making the seats to be seven and a half. 16. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, along with the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge, this Court finds that the conclusion arrived at by learned Single Judge that the roster is made for effecting implementation of reservation and not to make the reservation policy unworkable, is not the right analogy, as the roster point and the reservation policy have to work in tandem with each other. Once the respondent/writ petitioner was qualified in the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination for the post of Telecom Technical Assistant on qualifying merit of SC Category, then he could not have been held to be entitled for promotion on the said post in the unreserved category. 17. We further hold that fifteen posts of Telecom Technical Assistant, which were available for being filled, required 40% of the posts to be filled by the promotion quota to which the respondent/writ petitioner belongs, and by all means, 40% of fifteen posts at best comes to six posts. 18. The model roster for promotion for cadre strength, as reproduced hereinabove, clearly reflects that since the recruitment in question was initial recruitment, therefore, first six posts were meant for unreserved category candidates, and only if the seventh post was to be taken, then the same would have come to SC Category candidate. 19. The replacement, as shown in the aforesaid model roster, also could not be made applicable on the respondent/writ petitioner for promotion, as the present recruitment was initial recruitment. 19. The replacement, as shown in the aforesaid model roster, also could not be made applicable on the respondent/writ petitioner for promotion, as the present recruitment was initial recruitment. As stated by learned counsel for the appellants, 40% of the total 15 posts of Telecom Technical Assistant at best could be six posts, and therefore, the application of reservation would entitle the respondent/writ petitioner for promotion on the post in question only against the unreserved category, which was not possible as the respondent/writ petitioner could not obtain the minimum qualifying marks as prescribed for the unreserved category candidates, and only obtained minimum qualifying marks as prescribed for the SC Category candidates. 20. In light of the aforesaid observations, the present special appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 16.07.2008 passed by learned Single Judge is quashed and set aside. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the respondent/writ petitioner is dismissed.