ORDER In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 6.7.1990 (Annexure 2) passed by respondent no. 2, whereby respondent no. 9 has been promoted to the post of Office Superintendent. 2. A counter affidavit has already been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 2 to 8 and respondent no. 9. Therefore, with the consent of the parties, this application is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself. 3.. The main grievance of the petitioner is that he being a senior most assistant in the super-selection grade in the office of the Collectorate, Gopalganj, should have been promoted to the post of Office Superintendent. It is stated that respondent no. 9 was much junior to the petitioner. He was not even granted supertime scale. 4. The claim of the petitioner that he is senior to respondent no. 9 has not been denied. It has been stated that respondent no. 9 belongs to a Harizan community. According to the roster system, issued by the Government of Bihar, vide letter dated 8th November, 1985, the post of the Office Superintendent was to be filled up by a candidate belonging to the Scheduled Caste. Therefore, on the basis of the aforementioned provision, respondent no. 9 was promoted. It is further stated that the petitioner has now been superannuated. Therefore, no useful purpose will be served in considering his claim for promotion. Apart from the aforesaid, it has also been stated that on account of certain charges, for some time the petitioner was proceeded with a departmental proceeding. Therefore, it is urged that while giving promotion all these aspects are also taken into consideration. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is only one post of Office Superintendent in the Collectorate of Gopalganj. It is well settled that when there is a solitary post, the same cannot be filled up on the basis of reservation. It is also asserted that as per the recommendation of the 5th Pay Revision Committee, two grades have been created, one in the supertime scale and the other in the senior selection grade scale with effect from 1.1.1989. Therefore, in this situation the post of Office Superintendent can only be filled up by the persons who are getting supertime scale. It is submitted that since respondent no. Therefore, in this situation the post of Office Superintendent can only be filled up by the persons who are getting supertime scale. It is submitted that since respondent no. 9 was not placed in the super selection grade, he was not competent for promotion to the post of Office Superintendent. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance over a decision of the Full Bench in the case of Dr. Raj Kumar end others v. Gulbarga University and others (AIR 1990 Karnataka 320). In the said case, one of the questions raised for consideration was whether in respect of the categories of Professor, Lecturer or Reader as the case may be, if there was only one post, can such post be filed up on the basis of the reservation. While answering the aforesaid, proposition, their Lordships have also placed reliance over, a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Chakradhar Paswan v. State of Bihar and others ( AIR 1988 SC 959 ) and held that the matter is no longer res-integra. The question stands concluded by the aforesaid decision - According]y their Lordships held that in view of the aforesaid decision, if there is only one post in the cadre of Professor, Lecturer, or Reader, in any case, there can be no reservation at all. 6. Mr. Jha, learned counsel for the respondent no. 9 stated that the aforesaid finding of the Karnataka High Court in AIR 1990 Karnataka 320 (supra) is based on the decision reported in AIR 1988 SC 959 (supra.). According to him, this question has not been considered whether in a case there is only one post, it is possible to fix a roster for filling up of such post on the basis of reservation. In my view, there is no substance in the aforesaid submission. 7. In support of his contention learned counsel has also referred to a instruction of the State Government dated 8.11.1975, wherein it has been laid down that in any grade, if there is only one vacancy for the first time it would be deemed to be unreserved and for the second time, it would be deemed to be reserved. According to him, on basis of the aforesaid instruction the District Magistrate has rightly promoted respondent no.9. According to him, on basis of the aforesaid instruction the District Magistrate has rightly promoted respondent no.9. It is stated that though the aforesaid instruction has been taken into consideration by the Supreme Court in the case reported in AIR 1988 SC 959 (Supra) but no finding has been recorded whether one post can be filled up on the basis of reservation by way of roster. In my view, the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel also has no substance. 8. In the aforesaid case also a question arose for consideration whether on the basis of the criteria laid down by the Joint Secretary to the Government if there is only one post the same can be filled on the basis of reservation their Lordships after considering the various aspects and different cases of the Supreme Court held as follows:- "16. It is quite clear after the decision in Devadasan's case that no reservation could be made under Art. 16(4) so as to create a monopoly, otherwise, it would render the guarantee of equal opportunity contained in Arts. 16(1) and 16 (2) wholly meaningless and illusory. These principles unmistakably lead us to the conclusion that if there is only one post in the cadre, there can be no reservation with reference to that post either for recruitment at the initial stage or for fillingup a future vacancy in respect of that post. A reservation which would come under Art. 16(4). presupposes the availability of at least more than one post in that cadre." From bare reference to the aforesaid finding there can be no difficulty in holding that the solitary post of office Superintendent can not be filled up on the basis of reservation. Therefore, the Impugned order cannot Sustain. 9. We have noticed that the petitioner has already been superannuated, Therefore, at the best he can claim for a notional promotion, if at all he is found suitable for promotion. However, with respect to the said claim also there are other materials including service record character roll and other relevant materials which have to be taken into consideration. 10. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we quash the impugned order dated 6.7.1990 (Annexure 2.). The District Magistrate is directed to take a fresh decision for promotion to the post of office superintendent, in accordance with law. 11. 10. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we quash the impugned order dated 6.7.1990 (Annexure 2.). The District Magistrate is directed to take a fresh decision for promotion to the post of office superintendent, in accordance with law. 11. In the result, this application is allowed to the extent as indicated above. Application allowed.