ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
The Writ Petition is filed by the applicant in O.A.No.619 of 2006 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench which was dismissed by the Tribunal by Ext.P8 order.
2. The controversy in the Original Application related to promotion to the post of Assistant Operator under the 2nd respondent. The petitioner, a Mechanic, states that the post of Assistant Operator is to be filled up by promotion and direct recruitment in the ratio of 75%:25% and that Mechanic with 5 years experience is eligible to be considered for promotion.
3. His case is that a vacancy in the promotion quota arose in March, 2005 at a point reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidate and that in violation of the orders of reservation the 3rd respondent, a general candidate was promoted to that post with effect from 14/3/2005. He being a ST candidate, represented against the promotion of the 3rd respondent which was rejected and it was in those circumstances the Original Application was filed on 08/6/2006. The Tribunal held that the appointment of the 3rd respondent was to an un-reserved post in the roster for reservation and that there was no substance in the claim made by the petitioner.
4. Before us the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, in a 14 point roster, appointments were already made till 11 points and that, though one Sri.Ayyappan and Sri.T.R.Babu were promoted to the post, their names were not included in the roster. Counsel contended that, if their names were also included, the vacancy to which the 3rd respondent was promoted, would have occurred at the 14th point in the roster, which is a post reserved for Scheduled Tribe. Therefore, according to him, if the roster was properly maintained, the post in question would have been one reserved for Scheduled Tribe and he being the eligible candidate, should have been promoted to that post.
5. However, the respondent states that rules of reservation was implemented in the 2nd respondent with effect from 27/11/1972 and that, since Sri.Ayyappan’s promotion was prior to that date, he was not included in the roster. Insofar as T.R.Babu is concerned, it is contended that his promotion was by order dated 6/4/1998 and that the same was made only on an ad hoc basis and it was therefore that his name was not included in the roster. We are also informed that Sri.T.R.Babu continued in the post on an ad hoc basis till he retired from service on 31/8/1998.
6. Even it is assumed that Sri.Ayyappan’s name was omitted from the roster, since the promotion of Sri.Babu was only on an ad hoc basis and as he was not regularized in the promoted post, his name could not have been included in the roster. If that be so, even going by the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the vacancy which arose in March, 2005, against which the 3rd respondent was appointed, could at best have occurred at point No.13 which also is an un-reserved point. Therefore, the petitioner could not have aspired for promotion against point No.13.
7. We also find substance in the objection raised by the counsel for the respondents that, when on 08/06/2006 the Original Application was filed, the challenge raised by the petitioner against the promotion of the 3rd respondent effected on 14/3/2005 had become time barred in view of the provisions contained in Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunal’s Act.
8. That apart, insofar as the challenge raised by the petitioner against the appointment of the 5th respondent is concerned, he proceeds on the basis that the cadre strength is 4 and therefore if 25% direct recruitment quota is applied, only one person can be directly recruited. According to him if reservation is applied to that one post, it amounts to 100% reservation which is impermissible. We are unable to agree. The question of 100% reservation, arises only in the case of single isolated post. To ascertain whether a post is a single isolated post or not, one has to look at the cadre strength. Insofar as this case is concerned, if the cadre strength is examined, it can be seen that it is 4. Therefore, even if one post is earmarked for direct recruitment and the rules of reservation are applied to that single post, it cannot be said that the post is a single isolated post and that, therefore the rules of reservation are inapplicable.
9. For all these reasons we are not satisfied that the case of the petitioner merits interference with the view taken by the Tribunal in dismissing the Original Application. The Writ Petition will stand dismissed.
It is also clarified that the interim orders passed in the Writ Petition are all vacated and any order that was during the pendency of the Writ Petition, which was prejudicial to the 5th respondent, shall be re-called by the concerned authorities.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE skj