Judgment V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J. 1. The petitioner, who is the Secretary of the SC/ST Employees Association of the Madurai Kamaraj University, has come-up with the above public interest litigation, seeking to quash the advertisements published in the website of the University, inviting applications for appointment to the posts of Associate Professors and Assistant Professors. 2. We have heard Mr. G. Thalaimutharasu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. R. Karthikeyan, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. Isaac Mohanlal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 and 4. 3. Fortuantely, the entire grievance of the petitioner, with regard to the impugned notifications for recruitment to the posts of Associate Professors and Assistant Professors in the Madurai Kamarajar University has been crystallised in the form of two tabular statements by the petitioner himself and hence it could be easy to deal with all factual disputes, with reference to the very same tabular statements. Therefore, we present below, in a tabular statement, the objections of the petitioner with regard to the direct recruitment sought to be made to the posts of Associate Professors and the response given by the University to those objections. Objections and Explanation with regard to the post of Associate Professor: Department No. of posts advertised Category Objection Explanation English Language Studies 1 G.T. There is already one incumbent by name Dr. G. Jeyalakshmi. Therefore, there is no vacancy. The incumbent is not holding the substantive post but, only the post under the Career Advancement Scheme Entrepreneurship Studies 1 GT There is no sanctioned post Syndicate has already granted sanction Journalism and Science Communication 1 GT No sanctioned strength Syndicate has already granted sanction Modern Literature (Tamil) 1 GT No sanctioned post. Syndicate has already granted sanction Political Science 1 SC – Arunthathiyar on preferential basis The only existing post has occupied by one Dr. M. Nallakamu. Therefore, there is no vacancy. There are actually two posts. The first post is held by one Dr. Nallakamu. The second post should go to SC, as per the 200 point roaster, which is why the advertisement is issued inviting applications from scheduled castes. Sociology 1 GT It is already occupied by one Dr. Karuppiah . Therefore, there is no vacancy. Dr. Karuppiah is not holding the substantive post of Professor. He is only a Career Advancement Scheme Professor. The second post should go to SC, as per the 200 point roaster, which is why the advertisement is issued inviting applications from scheduled castes. Sociology 1 GT It is already occupied by one Dr. Karuppiah . Therefore, there is no vacancy. Dr. Karuppiah is not holding the substantive post of Professor. He is only a Career Advancement Scheme Professor. Youth Welfare Studies 1 GT It is already occupied by one Dr. P.P. Chelladurai and hence there is no vacancy. Dr. P.P. Chelladurai is actually a Professor and not an Associate Professor. Therefore, there is a vacancy. 4. Insofar as the post of Assistant Professors is concerned, the petitioner has given a similar tabular statement in paragraph 8 of his affidavit. Therefore, it is equally easy to deal with the same in an identical manner, as we have dealt with the post of Associate Professor. Objections and Explanation with regard to the post of Associate Professor: Department No. of posts advertised Category Objection Explanation Agricultural Economics 1 G.T. No sanctioned Strength. Syndicate has already granted sanction. English Language Studies 3 GT/SC/MBC There is no sanctioned Strength. Syndicate has already granted sanction Entrepreneurship Studies 1 GT No sanctioned strength Syndicate has already granted sanction. ERAC 2 SC/MBC There is no vacancy. There are two vacancies available. Folklore and Culture Studies 2 GT/SC No sanctioned strength. The Department has been sanctioned with two posts Youth Welfare Studies 2 GT/ST There is no vacancy. Two vacancies are available. This is the first recruitment. Centre for Film and Electronic Media Studies 1 ST No sanctioned strength. Sanction was accorded. Centre for Tourism and Hotel Management 1 GT No sanctioned strength. Syndicate has already granted sanction. 5. Another contention raised by the petitioner is that the Constitutional mandate under Article 16 (4-A) of the Constitution has not been followed and that an One Man Commission has already been constituted with a retired Judge and Justice A. Raman is going into the question of vacancies and how they have been filled-up in the past. The report is awaited and hence it is contended that the respondents cannot proceed with recruitment, without awaiting the report of the Commission. 6. We do not agree. The main grievance of the writ petitioner is that backlog vacancies for reserved categories have not been filled-up. But, the respondents have given statistics as to how they have been filled-up. The report is awaited and hence it is contended that the respondents cannot proceed with recruitment, without awaiting the report of the Commission. 6. We do not agree. The main grievance of the writ petitioner is that backlog vacancies for reserved categories have not been filled-up. But, the respondents have given statistics as to how they have been filled-up. Therefore, we do not think that the petitioner can really have any grievance. 7. We should remember that this is a public interest litigation in a service matter. Though we could have dismissed the writ petition on that simple ground, we have examined the grievance of the petitioner only in view of the fact that the Constitutional mandate was allegedly violated. But, we find, on facts, that there has been no violation. 8. As rightly pointed by Mr. Isaac Mohanlal, learned counsel appearing for the University, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has already settled in Post-Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research vs. Faculty Association – (1998) 4 SCC 1 that there can be no reservation in respect of a single post. This decision over-ruled the earlier decisions in Union of India vs. Madhav – (1997) 2 SCC 332 and Suresh Chandra v. J.B. Agarwal – (1997) 5 SCC 363 . Hence, wherever the post is a single cadre post, there is no scope for going it by rotation. 9. In view of the above, we find no justification to entertain the writ petition. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed.