SREENIVASA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner challenges the order dated 20. 9. 91 of the Educational Appellate Tribunal, bangalore City passed in M. A. (EAT) 32/88 vide Annexure 'g' to the Petition and has further prayed for quashing the order dated 30-9-91 passed by the second respondent herein reverting the petitioner, vide Annexure 'h' and to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to promote the petitioner retrospectively and continue him in service as Head Master of APS Rural High School, Somanahalli run by the second respondent herein. ( 2 ) THE petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Caste. In the year 1981 he was appointed as the assistant Master in the above High School run by the second respondent at Somanahall. As per annexure 'b' dated 23-3-88 he was promoted as officiating Head Master and posted to APS boys High School, Bangalore, with effect from 31 -3-88. The said promotion was made pursuant to the vacancy occurred on the superannuation of Sri S. Keshava Rao, who was the Head Master of APS Boys High School, Bangalore. Pursuant to Annexure 'b', the. petitioner took charge as head Master and thereafter he was transferred to APS Rural High School, Somanahalli, as Head master where he worked in that capacity till the date of the impugned order vide Annexure 'g'. ( 3 ) FEELING aggrieved by the order of promotion vide Annexure 'b', the first respondent herein filed M. A. (EAT) 32/88 before the Educational Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore. The said appeal was allowed on 23-6-90, whereby the promotion of the petitioner as officiating Head Master was set aside with a direction to consider the case of the appellant. e. , the first respondent herein in accordance with law and to give consequential relief/benefit available to him in accordance with law only and not otherwise. This order was challenged by the petitioner herein in C. R. P. No. 3583/90 before this Court. This Court by its Order dated 29-11-90 allowed the said C. R. P. setting aside the order dated 23-6-90 passed by the Educational Appellate Tribunal with a direction to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible. Thereafter, the Educational appellate Tribunal has passed the impugned order vide Annexure 'g' to the Petition. This Court by its Order dated 29-11-90 allowed the said C. R. P. setting aside the order dated 23-6-90 passed by the Educational Appellate Tribunal with a direction to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible. Thereafter, the Educational appellate Tribunal has passed the impugned order vide Annexure 'g' to the Petition. ( 4 ) SRI K. R. Srinivasan, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that the petitioner being a candidate belonging to S. C. was entitled for being promoted to the vacancy caused after the superannuation of Keshava Rao in view of Annexure 'a', the Roster dated 30-8-79 issued by the Government of Karnataka. He further submitted that since the first respondent has not challenged the aforesaid Roster, it is not open for him to contend that the Roster cannot be applied and that it is in excess of 15% reservation. He finally contended that the promotion of the petitioner as Head Master vide Annexure 'b' was in accordance with the Roster since there were three posts of Head Masters in the second respondent -Management. ( 5 ) IT is not in dispute that the second respondent has been running three High Schools viz. , APS boys High School, APS Girts High School and APS Rural High School at Somanahalli and each of these Schools has a Head Master/mistress and all the Schools come under a single management and the employees therein are treated as belonging to a single organisation or institution. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on a Decision rendered by this court in DALVOY ANGLO-SANSKRIT SCHOOL COMMITTEE vs. K. S. NARASAPPAIAH and ANOTHER, ILR1991 KAR 1880 , 1991 (2 )Karlj155 and the decision rendered by a Full Bench of this Court in DR. RAJKUMAR vs. GULBARGA university, AIR1990 Kant 320 , AIR1990 KAR 320 , ILR1990 kar 2125. He also placed reliance on a Decision of the Supreme Court in UNION OF INDIA vs. DEOKl NANDAN AGGARWAL, 1992 Supp 1 SCC 323 ( 6 ) PER contra, Sri Vasantha Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent contended that the reservation for candidates belonging to S. C. cannot exceed 15%; the Roster referred to supra dated 30-8-79 makes 30% reservation for the candidates belonging to S. C. and S. T. and the Decision rendered by this Court in Dalvoy School's case is not in the nature of obiter. He also placed reliance on a Decision rendered by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur in ASIT baran ROY vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS, 1994. 27 Adm. Tr. Cases 255 wherein it has been held that Roster does not apply where a cadre consists of only two posts, because reservation for S. C. candidates in Central Government is 15%. In view of these rival contentions, the following Points arise for Determination. (i) Whether the promotion of the petitioner as Officiating Head Master vide Annexure-B with effect from 31-3-88 was valid ? (ii) Whether the order passed by the Educational Appellate Tribunal vide Annexure 'g' is illegal and contrary to law? ( 7 ) AS already stated above, Annexure 'a' the Government Order dated 30-8-79 with the Roster, annexed came into effect on 30-8-79. The petitioner was promoted as Officiating Head Master with effect from 31-3-88. It is not in dispute that on the date of his promotion as Head Master there were three posts of Head Masters in the Schools run by the second respondent. It is clear from the Roster annexed to Annexure 'a' that after the Roster came into effect, the first promotion should go to a person belonging to Scheduled Caste and the second promotion to a candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribe and thereafter, the four promotions to the candidates belonging to the unreserved category on the basis of the seniority. No doubt the first respondent was senior to the petitioner in service, since he had entered service in the second respondent's management on 3-6-68. Since the Roster had come into effect on the date of the promotion of the petitioner, the second respondent Management applied the Roster system to the petitioner who belonged to Scheduled Caste and promoted him as Head Master. It is not known whether there was any candidate working in the Schools run by the second respondent Management belonging to Scheduled Tribe. In the absence of a candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste, the next promotion according to the Roster referred to supra should have gone to a candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribe. In the case of Dalvoy Anglo-Sanskrit School Committee v. K. S. Narasappaiah and Anr. , ILR1991 KAR 1880 , 1991 (2 )Karlj155 this court has clearly held that no reservation under Article 16 (4) of the Constitution of India is permissible if a cadre consist of only one post. In the case of Dalvoy Anglo-Sanskrit School Committee v. K. S. Narasappaiah and Anr. , ILR1991 KAR 1880 , 1991 (2 )Karlj155 this court has clearly held that no reservation under Article 16 (4) of the Constitution of India is permissible if a cadre consist of only one post. No doubt in the said Decision it has been observed at paragraph 8 that the Roster can be operated in respect of a cadre which consists of at least six posts so that one cycle can be completed. But in the same paragraph it has been stated that in case of a cadre consisting of one post, the question of application of 33 point Roster formulated as Annexure to the Government Order No. DPAR 22 SBC 79 dated 30-8-79 does not arise at all. It was further held that the said Decision with the Roster referred to supra applies to, vacancies in the Government Department as well as in private institutions aided by the government to which also the principles of reservation are made applicable. It is not in dispute that the second respondent is an aided private educational institution receiving grant from the government of Karnataka. The pith and substance of the aforesaid Decision is that, Roster annexed to the Government Order Annexure 'a' does not apply to a promotional vacancy to the cadre consisting of only one post. The observations made in paragraph 8 of the said Judgment in my view are in the nature of obiter dicta and not in the nature of a ratio as rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vasantha Kumar, learned Counsel for the first respondent submitted that the said observation is a ratio and not an obiter dicta. I am not prepared to accept this submission. ( 8 ) AS already stated above, there is no challenge to the Roster annexed to the Government Order annexure 'a'. In Dr. Rajkumar v. Gulbarga University, AIR1990 Kant 320 , AIR1990 KAR 320 , ILR1990 KAR 2125 Full Bench of this Court at paragraph 36 (4) has observed thus : " (4) In the case of Lecturers in Marathi, only two posts were available since 1981. They were filled up in June 1983 by selecting a candidate from Scheduled Caste and another from General merit. They have become vacant. They were filled up in June 1983 by selecting a candidate from Scheduled Caste and another from General merit. They have become vacant. Out of them one is reserved for Scheduled Caste and another for Scheduled Tribe. It is explained that in doing so the roster fixed in Government Order dated 28-1-87 has been followed. The validity of that order has not been challenged. Therefore, there is no ground to interfere. . " The first respondent has not challenged the Government Order dated 30-8-79 with the Roster annexed. Therefore, he cannot find fault with the Roster and contend that the roster cannot be operated. In this context, it is pertinent to refer to the Decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Union of india and Another v. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal,1992 Supp 1 SCC 323 wherein at paragraph 14 it has been stated thus : "14. We are at a loss to understand the reasoning of the learned Judges in reading down the provisions in paragraph 2 in force prior to Nov. 1, 1986 as "more than five years" and as "more than four years" in the same paragraph for the period subsequent to Nov. 1, 1986. It is not the duty of the court either to enlarge the scope of the legislation or the intention of the legislature when the language of the provision is plain and unambiguous. The court cannot rewrite, recast or reframe the legislation for the very good reason that it has no power to legislate. The power to legislate has not been conferred on the courts. The court cannot add words to a statute or read words into it which are not there. Assuming there is a defect or an omission in the words used by the legislature the court could not go to its aid to correct or make up the deficiency. Courts shall decide what the law is and not what it should be. The court of course adopts a construction which will carry out the obvious intention of the legislature' but could not legislate itself. But to invoke judicial activism to set at naught legislative judgment is subversive of the constitutional harmony and comity of instrumentalities. Courts shall decide what the law is and not what it should be. The court of course adopts a construction which will carry out the obvious intention of the legislature' but could not legislate itself. But to invoke judicial activism to set at naught legislative judgment is subversive of the constitutional harmony and comity of instrumentalities. " In view of these observations and in the absence of any challenge to the Roster referred to supra, it is not open for this Court to rewrite, re-constitute or reframe the Roster or modify and alter the scheme and apply it to others who are not otherwise entitled to under the Scheme. Therefore, in my view, the Educational Appellate Tribunal was not at all right in setting aside the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Head Master. ( 9 ) SRI Vasantha Kumar, learned Counsel for the first respondent submitted that the first respondent though retired from service with effect from 30-6-95, had worked as Officiating head Master for nearly a period of two years and if the order of the Educational Appellate tribunal is set aside, he would not be entitled to any monetary and pensionary benefits as Head master. It is relevant to notice that the first respondent was promoted as Head Master on 1-6-93 in the vacancy caused on the retirement of Sri K. R. Narasimha Shastry, the Head Master of AP. S. Rural High School, Somanahall. This promotion was on basis of seniority and was in accordance with the Roster dated 30-8-79. The order dated 8-12-93 passed by the second respondent - Management is produced by Sri Vasantha Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner with a Memo and the same is taken on record. This is not objected to by the learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent - Management. Since the promotion of the first respondent as Head Master on the basis of seniority and in the un-reserved category entities him for all the pensionary benefits of a Head Master, he will be entitled to work out his remedies separately. ( 10 ) IN the result, for the foregoing reasons, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order dated 20-9-91 passed by the Educational Appellate Tribunal in M. A. (EAT) 32/88 vide Annexure 'g' is set aside. ( 10 ) IN the result, for the foregoing reasons, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order dated 20-9-91 passed by the Educational Appellate Tribunal in M. A. (EAT) 32/88 vide Annexure 'g' is set aside. So also, the order dated 30-9-91 vide Annexure 'h' passed by the second respondent reverting the petitioner is also set aside. The second respondent is hereby directed to promote the petitioner as Head Master retrospectively and to continue him in service with ail consequential benefits. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I make no order as to costs.