JUDGMENT - S. H. KAPADIA, J. :---By this petition, Smt. Johny- Supervisor employed in Versova Welfare Association High School and Junior College seeks to challenge judgment and order passed by the School Tribunal in Appeal 44 of 1989 2.The facts giving rise to the present dispute, briefly, are as follows : 3.Versova Welfare Education Trust runs the above School. It is a Secondary School and it also runs a Junior College. The name of the institution is Versova Welfare Association High School and Junior College (hereinafter referred to, for the sake of brevity, as "the said Junior College"). In March 1988, Smt. Hakim, was the Headmistress of the said Junior College. She was due for retirement on 31st March 1988. Smt. Geeta Mahajan was, at that time, the Assistant Headmistress. Her name was at Serial No. 1 in Category 8' in the Seniority List as on 1st October 1988 as maintained and published under Rule 12 of the Maharashtra Employees' of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules 1981. In the said Seniority List, the name of the petitioner and the name of Mrs. Dhaktode-respondent No. 2 herein was shown at Sr. Nos. 1 and 10 in Category 'C' respectively. However, the petitioner belongs to open category whereas respondent No. 2 belonged to 'Mahar' community and she is a member of the Scheduled Caste. Petitioner is B.Sc/B.Ed. She was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the said Junior College for the first time on 8th June 1970 and from 11th June 1984, she is holding the post of a Supervisor. On the other hand, respondent No. 2 herein is M.A./B.Ed. On 11th June 1979, she was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the said Junior College. On 28th March 1988, the petitioner herein applied to the Management, making a claim over the post of Assistant Headmistress in case Smt. Mahajan is made the acting Headmistress. There was no reply from the Management. In February 1988, Smt. Hakim had taken leave prior to retirement. Her retirement took place in March 1988 and during her absence, Smt. Mahajan officiated as the Headmistress. On 7th May 1988, the petitioner applied to the Deputy Director of Education, seeking his intervention in the matter of her promotion to the post of Assistant Headmistress, but no steps were taken by the Department. Her retirement took place in March 1988 and during her absence, Smt. Mahajan officiated as the Headmistress. On 7th May 1988, the petitioner applied to the Deputy Director of Education, seeking his intervention in the matter of her promotion to the post of Assistant Headmistress, but no steps were taken by the Department. On 21st April 1989, Smt. Mahajan, the Headmistress requested the petitioner and respondent No. 2 herein to appear for interview for the post of Assistant Headmistress. The interview was taken by the Trustees. The Junior College reopened after summer vacation on 12th June 1989. However, according to the petitioner, she was surprised to find respondent No. 2, working as Assistant Headmistress and she was surprised to find the name of respondent No. 2 at Sr. No. 2 next below the name of Smt. Mahajan, Headmistress. In the above circumstances, the petitioner moved the School Tribunal. According to the Management, respondent No. 2 was appointed in the post of Assistant Headmistress in accordance with the Rules. According to the Management, Smt. Hakim belonged to open categories and on her superannuation on 31st March 1988, the post was filled in by the Management by appointing Smt. Mahajan who was also an open category candidate. As stated above, Smt. Mahajan was promoted as a Headmistress on 1st April 1988. However, thereafter the Management was faced with the question of filing in the vacancy of Smt. Mahajan in the post of Assistant Headmistress. According to the Management, in view of the Government Resolution dated 17th September 1980 since in 1983 the claim of respondent No. 2 herein was not considered on 11th April 1988, respondent No. 2 was considered for appointment to the post of Assistant Headmistress. According to the Management, in view of the backlog in the category on Scheduled Caste, the Management had no option, but to appoint respondent No. 2 as the Assistant Headmistress of the said Junior College. Under the above facts and circumstances of the case, the School Tribunal was required to consider whether the order of the Management dated 18th May 1989 appointing respondent No. 2 to the promotional post of Assistant Headmistress of the said Junior College overruling the claim of the petitioner, was otherwise legal and proper. According to the Tribunal, the post of the Headmistress in the said Junior College was all along held by open category candidate. According to the Tribunal, the post of the Headmistress in the said Junior College was all along held by open category candidate. The last appointment in the said post took place when Smt. Hakim was appointed. She retired on 31st March 1988 and her immediate junior in the Seniority List was Smt. Mahajan, who was then holding the post of Assistant Headmistress. The Management promoted Smt. Mahajan to the post of Headmistress on 1st April 1988. However, Smt. Mahajan also belonged to open category. On promotion of Smt. Mahajan to the post of Headmistress, a vacancy arose in the post of Assistant Headmistress. At this stage, the Management was required to apply the Government Resolutions and in view of Rule 5 and Rule 9 of the said Rules, 1981 and in view of the Government Resolution dated 1st March 1989 and in view of the Department's letter dated 2nd August 1989, the Management had no option, but to appoint respondent No. 2 as an Assistant Headmistress with effect from 12th June 1989. In the above circumstances, the School Tribunal dismissed the Appeal. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition has been filed. 4.The short point which requires consideration in the present writ petition is: whether the post of Assistant Headmistress which became vacant was an isolated post and if so, whether the Management was right in applying the policy of Reservation and the Roster. According to the petitioner, the Government Resolutions and particularly Resolution dated 17th September 1980, could not be applied to the facts of the present case because the post was an isolated post whereas according to the Management, even if the said post is treated as an isolated post, the Management was required to fill in that post by appointing respondent No. 2 because the post was earlier occupied by a candidate belonging to open general category and although on the Roster point, the post was reserved for Scheduled Caste, the said post was occupied by a candidate belonging to the open general category and, therefore, when the vacancy arose, on Smt. Mahajan being promoted to the post of Headmistress, the Management was required to fill in that post by applying the rule of Reservation by Rotation. In the present matter, it is not in dispute that the Roster is made applicable from 1981. In the present matter, it is not in dispute that the Roster is made applicable from 1981. It is not in dispute that the vacancy which arose earlier was to be filled in by appointment of candidate's belonging to Scheduled Caste (reserved category). 5.Shri Masand, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that in the present case, the Management erred in applying the Circular issued by the Government dated 17th September 1980. According to Shri Masand in the present case, the Management was not entitled to apply the Model Roster in view of the fact that the said Junior College was the only College run by the Management and the post of Assistant Headmistress was an isolated post. Shri Masand, therefore, contended that the said Government Circular dated 17th September 1980 and even the Circular dated 1st March 1989 are not applicable inasmuch as the vacancies arose in an isolated post. Shri Masand relied on various judgments of this Court and the Supreme Court and he contended on that basis that when the vacancy accrues in an isolated post, then the Reservation/Roster points are not attracted. Being an isolated post, the Reservation Policy will not apply. In this connection, Shri Masand has relied upon Clause (xii) of the said Circular which reads as follows: "(xii). In the case of small cadres and isolated posts, if only one vacancy occurs, in the initial recruitment year and the corresponding roster point happens to be 'reserved' and filled in accordingly and the reservation carried forward to subsequent recruitment year (s), but in the subsequent recruitment year (s) even if there be one vacancy, it should be reserved against the carried forward reservation from the initial recruitment year and should be filled in by the candidate belonging to backward class for whom the carried forward vacancy was reserved. Similar procedure should be followed in respect of subsequent vacancy and reservation for various sections for backward classes should be made strictly in accordance with roster point by rotation It is only when two or more vacancies occur at a time and if there are any carried forward vacancies, the principle of not more than 50% reservation shall apply and the balance of the carried forward and or current reservation will be further carried forward to subsequent 3 years." Shri Masand contends that even the said Circular dated 17th September 1980 has been superceded by the Government after the judgment of the Supreme Court in Paswan's case and in the circumstances, the said Circular dated 17th September 1980 is no more in force. Shri Masand contended that the Reservation Policy of the Government, as applicable to Educational Institutions and particularly Junior Colleges in Bombay was governed by the said Circular dated 17th September 1980. However, in view of the subsequent judgments of the Supreme Court and in view of the subsequent judgment of this Court, the Government has superceded the said Circular dated 17th September 1980, particularly with regard to isolated posts because the Reservation/ Roster cannot be made applicable to isolated posts. He further contends that in the present matter, if the Management has more than one Junior College, then possibly the Management was entitled to apply the Reservation/ Roster, but in cases of this type where the Management has only one School or Junior College and where the post which becomes vacant is an isolated post, in such cases, the Roster points do not apply. Shri Masand, therefore, submits that even if this Court holds that the Circular dated 17th September 1980 has not been superceded, even than Clause (xii) reproduced hereinabove, clearly indicates that in the case of School cadres and isolated posts, if only one vacancy occurs in the initial recruitment where the corresponding Roster points happened to be reserved for any backward class, it should be treated as unreserved and filled in accordingly and the No. 2 and in view of the vacancy being filled in earlier by a candidate belonging to open general category, the Management decided to apply the Rule of Reservation by Rotation and accordingly, the vacancy came to be filled in by appointment of respondent No. 2. The above judgments, on which reliance is placed by Shri Masand, clearly indicate that in cases where the vacancy arises in isolated posts, Reservation will not apply. There is no dispute on that position in law. However, the question which is required to be decided in the present case is whether the Management was required to fill in the vacancy which arose in 1988, by appointing a Scheduled Caste candidate, particularly when originally the claim of the Scheduled Caste candidate was not accepted by the Management, although earlier the vacancy had arisen in the reserved category. If one looks at the chart at Page 25 of the writ petition, it is clear that when the vacancy arose on 1st August 1983 in the post of Assistant Headmistress, the vacancy was required to be filled in by appointment of a Scheduled Caste candidate, but at that time, the Management did not find a suitable Scheduled Caste candidate and, therefore, it was filled in by Smt. Mahajan, who belonged to open general category. The vacancy was required to be carried forward by rotation and, therefore, when in 1989 Smt. Mahajan was required to be promoted to the post of Headmistress and the vacancy arose in the post of Assistant Headmistress, by Rotation, the Management decided to appoint respondent No. 2 as the Assistant Headmistress. As stated hereinabove, the various judgments of the Supreme Court which are referred to by Shri Masand clearly indicate that with regard to isolated post, the Model Roster cannot be applied. However, under Clause (xii) of the Government Resolution dated 17th September 1980, the Government has clearly laid down the Rule of Reservation by Rotation. It provides that in case of small cadres and isolated posts, if only one vacancy occurs in the initial recruitment year and the corresponding Roster point happens to be reserved for any of the backward classes, then in that event, it should be treated as unreserved and it shall be filled in accordingly and the reservation carried forward to subsequent recruitment years. However, in the subsequent recruitment year (s), even if there is one vacancy, the same should be reserved against carried forward reservation from the initial recruitment year and shall be filled in by a candidate belonging to backward class for whom the carried forward vacancy was reserved. However, in the subsequent recruitment year (s), even if there is one vacancy, the same should be reserved against carried forward reservation from the initial recruitment year and shall be filled in by a candidate belonging to backward class for whom the carried forward vacancy was reserved. According to Clause (xii), similar procedure should also be followed in respect of subsequent vacancy and reservations for various sections of the backward class. It is further clarified that in cases when two or more vacancies occur at a time and if there any carried forward vacancies, only then the principle of more than 50% reservation shall apply. Therefore, reading Clause (xii) as a whole, it is very clear that in the present case when the vacancy arose on 1st August 1983, it was required to be filled in by a candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste, but the Management found that the person was not suitable and in any event, because that vacancy went to Smt. Mahajan, who belonged to open general category, the Management was required to carry forward that vacancy and when that vacancy arose in 1988 when Smt. Mahajan came to be promoted to the post of Headmistress, that vacancy came to be filled in by respondent No. 2 who was appointed in place of the petitioner. It is true that in the Seniority List the petitioner stands above respondent No. 2, but by applying the Rule of Reservation by Rotation, the Management was right in filling in that vacancy under the above Circular. It is one thing to say that the Roster point or the Reservation Policy will not apply to an isolated post as laid down by the above judgments cited by Shri Masand. It is quite different to say that even in cases of isolated posts, the Rule of Reservation by Rotation will not apply. My reasoning is supported by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of (Union of India v. Madhav Chaubal)1 reported in judgment Today, 1996(9), S. C., Pg. 320. The Supreme Court, in the above judgment, has considered the various judgments of the Apex Court and the Supreme Court has laid down that even if there is a single post, the Rule of Reservation by Rotation can be applied. In that case, the Government applied the Rule of Rotation to a single post. 320. The Supreme Court, in the above judgment, has considered the various judgments of the Apex Court and the Supreme Court has laid down that even if there is a single post, the Rule of Reservation by Rotation can be applied. In that case, the Government applied the Rule of Rotation to a single post. The post, which was required to be filled in was that of a Secretary. In the post of Secretary, Point No. 4, vacancy was reserved for Scheduled Tribe. When that vacancy was sought to be filled up by promotion from the feeder post of Superintendents in Group A category, respondent candidate filed O. A. in Central Administrative Tribunal at Bombay. The Tribunal, following the decision of the Supreme Court in Paswan's case (supra) came to the conclusion that the Model Roster cannot be applied to an isolated post and since the post of the Secretary was a single point post, no reservation could be granted to the reserved candidate as it would amount to 100% reservation which would also be unconstitutional. The matter was carried to the Apex Court and the question which was required to be decided by the Supreme Court in that matter was whether the application of 40. Roster to the successive posts of Secretary violates Article 16(1) of the Constitution. Considering the various judgments earlier delivered by the Supreme Court in the case of Paswan, in the case of Southern Railways v. Ranga Chary, in the case of Aarti Ray Chaudhari v.Union of India and others, the Supreme Court laid down vide Para 7 that it has accepted that in appropriate cases of single point posts, Reservation by Rotation could be granted and such a Reservation would apply to the carried forward post and if the vacancy earlier was on the reserved point meant to be filled in by Scheduled Caste candidate, but for reasons best known to the Management, if a suitable candidate was not available at that time, that vacancy could be treated subsequently as a carried forward vacancy and even if that vacancy arose in an isolated post it could be filled in by a candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste because earlier in point of time, the post was not filled in by Scheduled Caste candidate when the first vacancy arose. In view of the latest judgment of the Supreme Court, therefore, I do not find merit in the above contentions advanced by Shri Masand. Further, as stated hereinabove, under Clause (xii) of the Government Resolution dated 17th September 1980 which applies squarely to the facts of our case, it is very clear that the said G. R. lays down the Reservation Policy and it further clarifies vide Clause (xii) that if vacancies arise in an isolated post by Rotation, the carried forward vacancy can be filled in by a candidate beloning to backward class. In the present matter, therefore, Clause (xii) of the said Resolution would squarely apply and the Management was entitled to appoint respondent No. 2 to the post of Assistant Headmistress and I do not find any infirmity in the said appointment. Further, as stated above, the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Chaubal (supra) would also apply because the facts of the present case are identical to the facts of the said case. In the above circumstances, for the reasons hereinabove, the judgment of the Tribunal is correct and no interference is called for under Article 226 of the Constitution. I do not find any merit in the contention of Shri Masand that in the present case merely because the Government has used the words "cadres" or "isolated posts" of the said Circular dated 17th September 1980 is also not attracted and the Rule of Reservation by Rotation cannot be applied. Clause (xii) is required to be read as a whole and if one reads Clause (xii) as a whole, it is clear that if a vacancy arises on a Roster point reserved for backward class candidate and if that vacancy is not filled in by a candidate belonging to the backward class, then the said vacancy can be carried forward and it can be subsequently filled in when a suitable Scheduled Caste candidate is available to the Management. If the interpretation of Shri Masand is accepted, then notwithstanding the fact that in 1983 the vacancy which was meant to be filled in by a candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste went to an open category, then and when subsequent vacancy arose, it was also required to be filled in by a general category candidate, then in such a case, the very purpose of Article 16(1) of the Constitution would stand defeated and in no case, the vacancy could be filled in by a candidate who is otherwise found to be suitable and who belongs to the Scheduled Caste category and whose claim earlier came to be rejected although she was entitled to be appointed on the basis of the Roster point 1 in the Model Roster. 6.In the present case, Shri Masand has contended that in any event, the subsequent Government Resolutions issued by the Government have superceded the Circular dated 17th September 1980 and 1st March 1989. I have gone through the subsequent Circular issued by the Government from time to time as applicable to the post an Assistant Headmistress in the Junior Colleges and Secondary Schools and I do not find any subsequent Circular overruling or superceding the Circular dated 17th September 1980 and particularly with regard to Clause (xii) reproduced hereinabovce. The Government has also filed a detailed Affidavit in reply and the Government has stated affirmatively that during the relevant period with which we are concerned, the Resolution dated 17th September 1980 was very much in force and what the Affidavit has further clarified is that notwithstanding the fact that the Reservation Policy will not apply to an isolated post, Clause (xii) which deals with Reservation by Rotation even in cases of isolated posts is not superceded. Taking into account all the above facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any merit in the contentions advanced by Shri Masand. In the circumstances, the writ petition fails. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.