Judgment A. K. Ganguly, J. 1. The petitioner has challenged in this writ petition the principle behind the reservation in the post of University Professor of every subject other than english, Sanskrit, Economics, Political science, Zoology and Commerce as it appears from the advertisement published by the Bihar State University (Constituent Colleges) Service commission. The said advertisement is disclosed at annexure-3 to the writ petition. 2. From a perusal of the said advertisement it appears that sixteen parmanent posts of University Professors for l. N. Mithila University (hereinafter referred to as the said University) was/were published. Out of those sixteen permanent posts of university Professor ten posts of different disciplines were kept reserved for scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes,-Extremely Backward castes and Backward class category candidates. 3. The petitioner is a Reader of Botany in the said University and is an aspirant for appointment to the post of University professor but his grievances are that he cannot even apply for the said post in view of the conditions laid down in the said advertisement. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the said reservation by contending that the reservation of one post of professor in the discipline of Botany is ultra vires Article 16 (4) of the Constitution of india in as much as if one post is reserved, it amounts to hundred per cent reservation. In support of this contention learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision in the case of Dr. Chakradhar paswan Vs. State of Bihar and Others, reported in A. I. R.1988 Supreme Court 959. In the case of Dr. Chakradhar Paswan (Supra) learned judges of the Supreme court were pleased to observe that if there is only one post in a cadre, there can be no reservation with reference to that post either for recruitment at initial stage or for filling up future vacancy in respect of that post. As, according to the learned judges, such reservation will create a monopoly and would render negatory the guarantee of equal opportunity contained in Articles 16 (1) and 16 (2) of the Constitution of India. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents has also fairly submitted that in matters of university Professor reservation policy which has been followed in the impugned advertisement has also not been approved by the Supreme Court in its constitution bench judgment in the case of Indra sawhney etc. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents has also fairly submitted that in matters of university Professor reservation policy which has been followed in the impugned advertisement has also not been approved by the Supreme Court in its constitution bench judgment in the case of Indra sawhney etc. vs. Union of India and others, reported in A. I. R.1993 Supreme court 477. This Court on considering the said submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents persued para 112 of the said judgment, which is quoted hereinbelow : "while on Art.335, we are of the opinion that there are certain services and positions where either on account of the nature of duties attached to them or the level (in the hierarchy) at which they obtain, merit as explained hereinabove, alone counts. In such situations, it may not be advisable to provide for reservations. For example, technical posts in research and development organisations/ departments/institutions, in specialities and super specialities in medicine engineering and other such courses in physical sciences and mathematics, in defence services and in the establishments connected therewith. Similarly, in the case of posts at the higher echelon e. g. Professors (in Education), pilots in Indian Airlines and Air India, scientists and Technicians in nuclear and space applications, provision for reservation would not be advisable. " Again in paragraph 442 in the case of indira Sawhney (supra) it has been observed that "there should be no exclusive quota kept in the teaching occupation for any education at all". While making the said observations, learned Judges of the supreme Court after considering the importance of the teaching profession in the life of nation building activities by the teachers, observed that if the candidates belonging to both Backward and Forward classes are equal in merit, preference should be given to those belonging to the Backward classes. While making the said observations, learned Judges of the supreme Court after considering the importance of the teaching profession in the life of nation building activities by the teachers, observed that if the candidates belonging to both Backward and Forward classes are equal in merit, preference should be given to those belonging to the Backward classes. The learned Judges of the Supreme court have further observed in paragraph 442 of the said judgment that "hence in the teaching profession it is preference rather than reservations, which should be resorted to under Article 16 (4) of the Constitution" (underlines for emphasis) 6 In view of the authoritative pronouncement by the Supreme court this Court has no hesitation in setting aside the impugned advertisement being numbered as 6/usc/94 which is disclosed at annexure-3 to the writ petition in so far as it relates to the subjects of Urdu, History, Physics, maithili, Psychology, Philosphy, Geography, sociology and Hindi. 7. The authority concerned is directed to issue a fresh advertisement within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this judgment in accordance with the policy of the preference as indicated above in terms of the judgment of the apex Court in the case of Indira Sawhney (supra ). 8. This writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs.