Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1249 (KAR)

R. R. Inamdar v. State of Karnataka

2015-11-17

P.S.DINESH KUMAR, S.ABDUL NAZEER

body2015
JUDGMENT : S. Abdul Nazeer, J. 1. This writ appeal is directed against the order in W.P. No. 63315/2009 dated 1.10.2015 whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and directed respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to consider the case of respondent No. 5 for promotion to the post of English Lecturer in Sri Jagadguru Annadaneshwari College with all consequential benefits attached to the said post. Respondent No. 5 was appointed as a teacher in English in Sri Jagadguru Annadaneshwari High School on 2.11.1988. The appellant was appointed as a teacher in English on 1.12.1990. It is obvious that the appellant was junior to respondent No. 5. One Sri C.C. Prabhugoudar was holding the only post of English Lecturer in the college in question. He retired on 31.3.2002 on attaining the age of superannuation. The appellant was promoted to the said post. The grievance of respondent No. 5 was that the appellant had been promoted to the said post overlooking his seniority and that the post in question being a single post, there could be no reservation in respect of the same. He was unsuccessful in seeking redressal before the authorities concerned. Therefore, he filed the aforesaid writ petition challenging the promotion of the appellant herein. 2. As noticed above, the learned Single Judge has quashed the orders passed by the authorities concerned and directed respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to consider the case of the 5th respondent for promotion to the post in question. 3. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the appellant was promoted to the post of English Lecturer under the backlog vacancies. As per the roster, the post of Lecturer has to be filled up by a Scheduled Caste candidate by virtue of 81st amendment to Article 16(4-A) of the Constitution of India. That is how the appellant has been appointed to the post in question. The appellant has been discharging the duties since 28.9.2002. In the circumstances, the learned Single Judge is not justified in quashing her appointment and directing the authorities to consider the case of the 5th respondent for promotion to the post in question. 4. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 5 has sought to justify the impugned order. 5. In the circumstances, the learned Single Judge is not justified in quashing her appointment and directing the authorities to consider the case of the 5th respondent for promotion to the post in question. 4. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 5 has sought to justify the impugned order. 5. It is clear that respondent No. 5 was appointed on 2.11.1988 and his appointment was approved by order dated 19.11.1988 with retrospective effect from 2.11.1988. The appellant was junior to respondent No. 5. She was appointed as High School Teacher on 1.12.1990. It is not in dispute that the post of English Lecturer is a single post. It is well settled that each discipline which consisted of a single post will have to be dealt with as a separate cadre for the said discipline and there can be no reservation in respect of a single post. Until there is plurality of posts in a cadre, question of reservation will not arise because any attempt of reservation by whatever means and even with the device of rotation of roster in a single post cadre is bound to create 100% reservation of such post whenever such reservation is to be implemented. 6. In State of Karnataka and Others v. K. Govindappa and Another, (2009) 1 SCC 1 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering an identical question relating to reservation of single post. It has been held thus: "The expressions "cadre", "post" and "service" cannot be equated with each other, but at the same time the submission that single and isolated posts in respect of different disciplines cannot exist as a separate cadre cannot be accepted. In order to apply the rule of reservation within a cadre, there has to be plurality of posts. Since there is no scope of interchangeability of posts in the different disciplines, each single post in a particular discipline has to be treated as a single post for the purpose of reservation within the meaning of Article 16(4) of the Constitution. In the absence of duality of posts, if the rule of reservation is to be applied, it will offend the constitutional bar against 100% reservation as envisaged in Article 16(1) of the Constitution." 7. In the absence of duality of posts, if the rule of reservation is to be applied, it will offend the constitutional bar against 100% reservation as envisaged in Article 16(1) of the Constitution." 7. In State of Uttar Pradesh and Others v. Bharat Singh and Others, (2011) 4 SCC 120 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in a single post cadre, reservation at any point of time on account of rotation of roster is bound to bring about a situation where such a single post in the cadre will be kept reserved exclusively for the members of the backward classes and in total exclusion of the general members of the public. Such total exclusion of general members of the public and cent percent reservation for the backward classes is not permissible within the constitutional framework. The post of Principals in each one of the aided/affiliated institution being a single post in the cadre is not amenable to any reservation. 8. The present case falls within the category of single isolated post within a cadre in respect whereof the rule of reservation is inapplicable and the said principle has been correctly applied by the learned Single Judge in the facts of this case. Each discipline which consisted of a single post will have to be dealt with as a separate cadre for the said discipline and in view of the settled law that there can be no reservation in respect of a single post, the appointment of respondent No. 5 cannot be faulted. We do not find any error in the order of the learned Single Judge. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the appeal as above, I.A. Nos. 1/2015 and 2/2015 do not survive for consideration. They are accordingly dismissed. No costs.