Judgment N. Pandey, J. 1. In all the three writ applications, the petitioners have sought for a Direction to the respondent authorities to appoint them against the post of Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Bihar, Patna. In C. W. J. C. No.403 of 1995, a prayes has also been made for quashing Notification No.427 (8) dated 12-12-1994 contained in Annexure 8 whereby Dr. S K. Mehta (respondent No.7) was appointed as Officiating Director-in-chief, Health services as also the other notification No.425 (1) H dated 18-6-1994 contained in Annexure 11 whereby R. K. Sharma, respondent No.8 has been appointed as Director (Medical Education) in the department of Health, Medical education and Famliy Welfare, Government or Bihar. 2. In C. W. J. C. No.10519 of 1993. besides the general prayer, as indicated above, there was a further prayer to quash the notification dated 26-9-1993, contained in Annexure 12 whereby respondent No.4 Ileen Thakur was promoted to the post of Director-in-chief Health Services. Since during pandency of this application. Dr. Thakur has retired and at the same time the the petitioner was appointed as Vice Chancellor, Patna University, for all practical purposes, this writ application has become infructous, 3. An indicated above, the main prayer of the petitioners is for appointment to the post of Director-in-Chief. Therefore, with the consent of the parties, for sake of convenience, these writ applications are being disposed of by this common order. 4. From the pleadings of the parties, it appears the post of Director-in-chief under ther Department of Health. Medical Education a Family Welfare, government of Bihar, was granted more time in the year1976. This is admitted stand of the parties that the solitary post of Director-in-chief is an ex cadre post and no rule has been framed by the State Government laying down any criteria for appointment. It has been stated that as per the eligibility criteria or convention those who are in supertime scale or holding equivalent posts were considemed for appointment. 5. After retirement of Dr Ileen Thakur, the Department Promotion committee considering that the vacancy had fallen on roster point, meant for scheduled castes and tribe candidates, through a letter dated 12-4-1994 (Annexurt 15) submitted six names before the Bihar Public Service Commission (for short commission) for cansideration. Our of six condidates, 1 to 5 belonged to reserve category, whereas the rest one Dr Sheo Nandan Prasad sinha is from general category. Our of six condidates, 1 to 5 belonged to reserve category, whereas the rest one Dr Sheo Nandan Prasad sinha is from general category. In the letter, it was Indicated that as per roster point, the post was required to be filled by a candidate belonging to the reserve category. 6. The Commission having considered the request of the State government by its letter dated 17-6-1994, contained in Annexure 7 recommended the name of Dr Prabhash Chandra (petitioner of C. W. J. C. No.403 of 1995 ). From a bare reference to the aforementioned recommendation, it would appear that the post was treated as reserved for scheduled caste candidate. 7. The grievance of the petitioner is that ignoring the recommendation of the Commission, the respondents authorities by a notification No.427 (4)dated 12-12-1994. contained in Annexure 8, made respondent No.7 as officiating Director-in-chief, although his name was not recommended by the commission. It is contended that previously on there occasions the name of respondent No.7 was considered and not found fit for the post by the commission. 8. Besides the aforesaid, there were certain allegations against him which would be apparent from the statement in paragraph 16 and 17 of the writ petition. Therefore, it was highly unjust on the part of the respondent authorities to give him charge of officiating Director-in-chief ignoring the recommendation of the Commission. 9. In view of the facts stated above, admittedly, no regular appointment to the post of Director-in-chief has yet been made. This is also i admitted that the post in question is a solitary, as also an ex cadre post. From the letter of the State Government contained in Annexure 15, as also the recommendation of the Commission contained in Annexure 7 there is no dispute that the decision was taken to fill up the post on the basis of roster point of reservation. 10. A question has been raised whether the post of Director-in-chief being solitary one, can be kept reserved for the scheduled caste/tribe candidates. It has been urged that such reservation amounts to 100% reservation and, therefore, is impermissible under Article 16 (4) of the Constitution. 11. On behalf of the State, it was urged that principle of reservation can be applied even to an ex cadre post. It has been urged that such reservation amounts to 100% reservation and, therefore, is impermissible under Article 16 (4) of the Constitution. 11. On behalf of the State, it was urged that principle of reservation can be applied even to an ex cadre post. In support of such contention, reference was made to certain letters, issued by the Personnel Department of the State Government to suggest that even a single post can alternatively be filled up applying the principle of reservation. 12. There is no dispute that at the stage of initial appointment or even in same at the stage of promotion preferential treatment is being given to the members of the scheduled castes and tribes. This has also to be remembered that such preferential treatment is not a concession or privilege. Rather it is in recognition of their undisputed fundamental right of equality and opportunity to secure equal status. As per Article 16 (4) of the Constitution every lawful method is permissible to secure due representation of scheduled castes/tribes in the public service. 13. But as noticed above, a question has been raised for consideration whether with respect to a solitary post, the Government can adopt a policy to fill up on the basis of reservation. In the case of Dr. Chakradhar Paswan v. State of Bihar and others ( AIR 1988 SC 959 ) the Supreme Court while examining similar issue has already held that if the State Government is allowed to apply the principle of reservation to a solitary post, it would tantamount to 100% reservation. Such reservation would not be in conformity with the principles laid down in the 50% roster and, therefore impermissible under Art.16 (4) of the Constitution. It would be appropriate to notice a relevant passage from the aforesaid report hereunder : the conclusion is irresistible that the posts of the Director and those of the Deputy Directors constitute different cadres of the Service. It is manifest that the post of the Director of Indigenous Medicines, which is the highest post in the Directorate carried on a higher grade or scale, could not possibly be equated with those of the Deputy Directors on a lower grade or scale. In view of this according to the 50 point roster, if in a particular cadre a single post falls vacant, it should, in the case of first vacancy, be considered as general. In view of this according to the 50 point roster, if in a particular cadre a single post falls vacant, it should, in the case of first vacancy, be considered as general. That being so, the State Government could not have, directed reservation of the post of Deputy director (Homeopathic) which was the first vacancy in a particular cadre i. e. that of the Deputy Directors, for candidates belonging to the scheduled castes. Such reservation was not in conformity with the principles laid down in the so point roster and was impersissible under Article 10 (4) of the Constitution and clearly violative of the guarantee enshrined in Article 16 (1)of equal opportunity to all citizens relating to public employment clause (4) of Article 16 is by way of an exception to the proviso to Article 16 (1 ). The High Court rightly held that the reservation of the post of Deputy Director (Homeopathic) amounted to 100% reservation which was impermissible under Article 16 (4) as otherwise it would render the guarantee of equal opportunity in the matter of public employment under Article 16 (1)wholly elusive and meaningless. " 14. While holding that such reservation is impermissible under Article 16 (4), the Supreme Court further ruled that in no case there can be reservation with reference to a solitary post, either for recruitment at the initial stage or for filling up future vacancy in respect of that post on selection or promotion. It would be appropriate to quote paragraph 10 of that report hereunders :- "16. It is quite clear after the decision in Devadasans case that no reservation could be made under Article 16 (4) so as to create a monopoly. Otherwise, it would render the guarantee of equal opportunity contained in Article 16 (1) and 16 (2) wholly meaningless and illusory. These principles unmistakably lead as 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 filling up a future vacancy in respect of that post. A reservation which would come under article 16 (4) pre-supposes the availability of at least more than one post in that cadre. " 15. In the case of Smt. Chetana Dilip Motghare V/s. Bhide Girls Education society Nagpur and others 1995 (1) PJLJR 62 (SC ). A reservation which would come under article 16 (4) pre-supposes the availability of at least more than one post in that cadre. " 15. In the case of Smt. Chetana Dilip Motghare V/s. Bhide Girls Education society Nagpur and others 1995 (1) PJLJR 62 (SC ). the Supreme Court while hearing a review petition had occasion to examine whether in "view of the judgment in the case of Sow Vidyulata Arvind Kakada V/s. Digambor Gyanba surwase the law laid down in the case of Dr. Chakradhar Paswan V/s. State of bihar and others (supra) that a solitary post cannot be filled up on the basis of reservation was still a correct law Their Lordships after considering all the judgments available on the question, held that the law laid down in the case of Dr Chakradhar Paswan (supra) still holds the field. Therefore, there cannot be reservation against a solitary post. It would be appropriate to notice paragraph 5 of the aforesaid judgment hereunder ; - "5. Thus we are clearly of the view that Dr. Chakradhar Paswans case holds the filed and the decision by the Three Judge Bench dated January, 17, 1992 does not lay down any law and is not an autrority for holding that the principle of reservation has to be applied in the case of even one isolated post also. Apart from the above circumstances in the case before us, the Government of Maharasthra had also issued a Circular dated 1st March, 1999 after the decision in Dr. Chakradhar Paswans case to the effect that principle of reservation would not apply in the case of an isolated post. In these circumstances we find no force in the review petition and it is accordingly dismissed. " 16. This court has also examined a case for appointment to the post of Engineer-in-Chief in the Public Works Dapartment in the case of N. Aman-ullah V/s. State of Bihar and others, 1984 PLJR 863 : 1985 Lab I. C.707. It is to be remembered that the post of Enginear-in chief, at the relevent time was also treated a post of ex cadre, like the post of Director-in-chief. In that case also a question arose whether against a solitary post, the principle a of reservation could apply. It is to be remembered that the post of Enginear-in chief, at the relevent time was also treated a post of ex cadre, like the post of Director-in-chief. In that case also a question arose whether against a solitary post, the principle a of reservation could apply. It would be appropriate to notice a relevant passage from the report hereunder :- In view of the materials on record, there is no escape from the conclusion that respondent No.5 has been appointed to the post of engineer-in-chief by promotion treating the post as reserved post for Engineer-in-chief by promotion treating the post as a scheduled Castes. Act I have already pointed out above that the post of Engineer-in-cbief being an ex cadre post cannot be filled up on basis of reservation, I am left with no option but to hold that the appointment of respondent 5 to the post of Engineer-in chief (Building) by the impugned notification is illegal, unconstitutional hit by Articles 14 pnd 16 of the Constitution. " 17 While examining the scope of Article 16 (4) and the power of the government to extend the benefits therein to the candidate belonging to scheduled caste tribe and backward classes, the Supreme Court in the case of general Manager, Southern Railway and another v, Rangachari, AIR 1962 SC 36, had pointed out as follows :- "24. xx xx x article 16 (4) clearly shows that the power conferred by it can be exercised in cases when the State is of opinion that any backward class of citizens is not adequately represented in the services under it. In other words, the opinion formed by the State that the representation available to the backward class of citizens in any of the services is inadequate is a condition precedent for the exercise of the power conferred by Article 16 (4), and so the power to make reservation as contemplated by Article 16 (4) can be exercised only to make the inadequate representation in the services adequate. If that be so, both "appointments" and "posts" to which the operative part of Article 16 (4) refers and in respect of which the power to make reservation has been deferred on the State must necessarily be appointments and post in the service. If that be so, both "appointments" and "posts" to which the operative part of Article 16 (4) refers and in respect of which the power to make reservation has been deferred on the State must necessarily be appointments and post in the service. It would be illogical and unreasonable to assume that the making the representation adequate in the services under the State a power should be given in the State to reserve posts outside the cadre of services. If the word "posts" means ex-cadre posts reservation of such posts cannot possibly cure the imbalance which according to the State is disclosed in the representative in services under it. Therefore, in our opinion, the key clause of Article 16 (4) which prescribes a condition precedent for invoking the power conferred by it itse if unambigiously indicates that the word "post" cannot mean ex-cadre posts in the context.-" 18. But unfortunately, the point of reservation is not the only problem before me. There is a serious dispute amongst Dr. Prabhash Chandra (petitioner), Dr. S. K. Mehta, Dr. R. K. Sharma (petitioner) and Dr. S. N. Upadhaya (intervenor respondent) with regard to their claim for the post in question. Each of them have tried to dislodge the claim of others, either on the ground of seniority or suitability. But admittedly, all such grievances are based on disputed facts. Therefore, while exercising a writ jurisdiction, it is not possible for me to adjudicate such disputed facts 19. In the aforesaid premises, the petitioner has also prayed for quashing the appointment of respondent Dr. R. K. Sharma on the post of director, Medical Education. I have already indicated that these questions depend verification of several disputed facts, as also this may not have any concern with the proposed appointment of Director-in-chief Health Services. Therefore, the parties shall be at liberty to get such dispute adjudicated by the appropriate authority of the department itself. 20. As I have already held that the post in question shall now be filled up treating as unreserved therefore, the respondent authorities are bound to submit a list of all the eligible candidates before the respondent Commission as per the prescribed norms and procedure for consideration and necessary recommendation. Therefore, for this reason also it is not necessary for me to go into all these disputed facts. 21. Therefore, for this reason also it is not necessary for me to go into all these disputed facts. 21. It has been noticed that although the name of respondent No.7 was considered by the Commission but not recommended. Therefore, it was not proper for the State Government to allow him to function as Director-in-Chief, ignoring all the norms. This type of back door or ad hoc appointments at behest of power reflects arbitrariness. In the case of J. and K. Public Service Commission and others V/s. Dr. Nartnder Mohan and others, (1994)2 SCC 530, the Supreme Court while examining such question held thus : "7. x x x xx the Rules prescribe direct recruitment/promotion by selection as the mode of recruitment which would be done only by PSC or promotion committee duly constituted and by no other body. Therefore, ad hoc employee should be replaced as expeditiously as possible by direct recruits. A little leeway to make ad hoc appoitnment due to emergent exigencies does not clothe the executive Government with power to relax the recruitment or to regularise such appointment nor to claim such appointments to be regular or in accordance with rules. Back door ad hoc appointments at the behest of power source or otherwise and recruitment according to rules are mutually antagonistic and strange bed partners. They cannot co-exist in the same sheath. The former is in negation of fair play. The later are the product of order and regularity. " 22. In these backgrounds, the impugned decision of the authority to allow respondent No.7 to function as Director-in-Chief cannot sustain.34. For the reasons stated above and as also taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, the proposal of the Departmental promotion Committee dated 18-4-1994 contained in Annexure 15 the recommendarion of the respondent Commission dated 17-6-1994 contained in annexure 4 and the impugned notification dated 12-12-1994 contained in annexure 8 are hereby quashed. 23. Since the post in question is the highest post of Health Directorate it would not be proper to keep it vacant for a long period Accordingly, respondent Nos.2 and 4 are directed to submit the list of eligible candidates before the Commission, within three weeks from today. At the same time, the Commission shall also make a recommendation within two weeks before the Government from the date of receipt of such list of candidates. At the same time, the Commission shall also make a recommendation within two weeks before the Government from the date of receipt of such list of candidates. Thereafter, the final notification of appointment is to be made within three weeks from the date of receipt of the recommendation. 24. It is further directed untill final appointment against the post, the commissioner-cum Secretary, Department of Health Medical Education and family Welfare. Government of Bihar (respondent No.3) who is the highest authority of Health Department, shall either personally took after the function of the Director-in-chief or authorise the Additional Commission-or-cum-Secretary (respondent No.4) for luch duties. With the aforesaid directions and observations, all the three applications are disposed of.