ORDER This Review Petition has been filed against our judgment dated November 27, 1992 passed in Civil Appeal No. 2193 of 1989 entitled Bhide Girls Education Society v. Education Officer, Zila Parishad, Nagpur. 2. In the above decision we had held that in the case of Dr. Chakradhar Paswan v. State of Bihar, (1988) 2 SCC 214 , the decision in Arti Roy Choudhary v. Union of India ( AIR 1974 SC 532 ) had been distinguished and it has been squarely laid down that if there was only one post in the cadre, there could be no reservation under Article 16(4) of the Constitution. We had noted that after the aforesaid decision in Dr. Chakradhars case, the Government of Maharashtra had also issued a Circular letter dated 1st March, 1989 in which it was laid down that in view of the law laid down in Dr. Chakradhar Paswans case ( AIR 1988 SC 959 ) if a reservation is made for a single post in the beginning of the year for the purpose of filling up the same in future, by way of promotion, that will be unconstitutional. It was also laid down in the Circular that the principle of reservation would not apply in the case of an isolated post. 3. The petitioner in the review petition has contended that there is a judgment of three-Judge Bench in C.A. No. 242 of 1992, Sow, Vidyulata Arvind Kakade v. Digambar Gyanba Surwase, dated January 17, 1992 in which a view has been taken that the reservation applies in case of an isolated post also. It has further been pointed out in the Review Petition that in the aforesaid decision of three Judges, the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Arti Roy Choudhary v. Union of India ( AIR 1974 SC 532 ) (supra) has been maintained. 4. We find no force in the above contentions raised in the review petition. A perusal of the order of three-Judge Bench in Sow. Vidyulatas case (supra) shows that there is only a mention that both the cases, Arti Roy Choudhary v. Union of India ( AIR 1974 SC 532 ) as well as Dr. Chakradhar Paswan v. State of Bihar ( AIR 1988 SC 959 ) had been perused but no opinion was expressed that Dr. Chakradhar Paswans case was not correctly decided. Vidyulatas case (supra) shows that there is only a mention that both the cases, Arti Roy Choudhary v. Union of India ( AIR 1974 SC 532 ) as well as Dr. Chakradhar Paswan v. State of Bihar ( AIR 1988 SC 959 ) had been perused but no opinion was expressed that Dr. Chakradhar Paswans case was not correctly decided. It was also mentioned in the above case decided by the three-Judge Bench that no copy of the writ petition had been filed and thus in the facts and circumstances of the case they declined to interfere with the decision of the High Court. 5. Thus; we are clearly of the view that Dr. Chakradhar Paswans case ( AIR 1988 SC 959 ) holds the field and the decision by the three-Judge Bench dated January 17, 1992 does not lay down any law and is not an authority for holding that the principle of reservation has to be applied in case of even one isolated post also. Apart from the above circumstances in the case before us, the Government of Maharashtra had also issued a Circular dated 1st March, 1989 after the decision in Dr. Chakradhar Paswans case to the effect that the principle of reservation would not apply in the case of an isolated post. In these circumstances, we find no force in this review petition and it is accordingly dismissed. Review petition dismissed. For Citation : AIR 1994 SC 1917 = 1994 AIR SCW 1865 = 1995 Supp. (1) SCC 157 = 1994 LIC 1608 = 1995(29) ATC 107.