JUDGMENT : Debangsu Basak, J. The petitioner has sought cancellation of the employment notification dated June 3, 2015 issued by the West Bengal University of Technology at least to the extent of the post of associate professor in Bio-informatics. 2. According to the petitioner such post has been reserved for other Backward Class (O.B.C.) category candidate. A single cadre post cannot be reserved. In support of such contention reliance has been placed on 1998 (4) SCC 1 (Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh v. Faculty Association & Ors.). Reservation cannot be applied to a single isolated post as it would amount to 100% reservation and in support of such contention reliance has been placed on 2009 (1) SCC 1 (State of Karnataka & Ors. v. K. Govindappa & Anr.). 3. Relying upon 2004 (3) Calcutta High Court Notes 31 (Biplab Kumar Sinha v. State of West Bengal & Ors.) it has been submitted that, applying the test laid down therein the irresistible conclusion would be that the post concerned is a single cadre. 4. On behalf of the University authorities it has been contented that, the petitioner does not have the requisite qualification to be given an appointment to the post of associate professor. It is next contended on behalf of the respondents that, a cadre has to be prepared department wise. Referring to the letter dated November 11, 2014 and the University Grants Commission (U.G.C.) guidelines it has been submitted that, the reservation had been done in accordance the U.G.C. guidelines following the 100 point roster. The roster prepared was submitted by the University with the Backward Classes Commission in terms of the provisions of the West Bengal Backward Classes (Other than Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) (Reservation of Vacancies in Service and Posts) Act, 2012. Such Commission did not object reservation done by the University. 5. Relying upon 1997 (9) SCC 662 (State of U.P. v. DR Dina Nath Shukla & Anr.) it has been submitted that, the single post of professor, reader or lecturer in each faculty should be clubbed together category wise. Reliance has been also placed on 1997 (2) SCC 332 (Union of India & Anr. v. Madhav S/O Gajanan Chaubal & Anr.). 6. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and the materials made available on record. Reliance has been also placed on 1997 (2) SCC 332 (Union of India & Anr. v. Madhav S/O Gajanan Chaubal & Anr.). 6. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and the materials made available on record. West Bengal University of Technology by the impugned notification dated March 3, 2013 has invited applications for preparing panels for appointment to the post mentioned therein. One of such posts is the associate professor in Bio-informatics. By the impugned memo such post has been reserved for O.B.C candidate. 7. In 2006 U.G.C. had formulated guidelines for implementation of the reservation policy of the Government of Universities, deemed Universities, Colleges and other grant-in-aid institutions and Canters. The U.G.C. guidelines, 2006 were framed in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in All India Reporter 1993 SC 477 (Indra Sawhney v. Union of India & Ors.). Clause 6(c) of the U.G.C. guidelines, 2006 is relevant. It notices the practise of creating department wise cadre which tends to create single post or cadre which artificially reduced the number of posts in order to avoid reservation. It prohibits such practise. By a writing dated December 23, 2014 the Joint Secretary of the Government forwarded a copy of the U.G.C. guidelines for strict implementation. 8. In Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh (supra) the question decided was whether in a single cadre post reservation for the backward classes can be made either directly or by applying the roster point. The need for reservation for members of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes has been noted. At the same time a note of caution has been expressed. It has been held that, there cannot be any reservation in a single post cadre. 9. In the present case the university authorities have not considered the post concerned to be a single post cadre. It has taken into consideration the post available in the entire University and has applied the reservation formula in accordance with law. By applying the same the post has come about to be reserved for O.B.C. category. 10. In K. Govindappa & Anr. (supra) it has been held that, the post of a history lecturer was a separate cadre. It was so held in view of an aided private college praying before the Court. 11. In Madhav S/O Gajanan Chaubal & Anr. By applying the same the post has come about to be reserved for O.B.C. category. 10. In K. Govindappa & Anr. (supra) it has been held that, the post of a history lecturer was a separate cadre. It was so held in view of an aided private college praying before the Court. 11. In Madhav S/O Gajanan Chaubal & Anr. (supra) a provision for reservation in promotion to a single post in a cadre by rotating the vacancies as per the roster point was held not to be violative of Article 16 of the Constitution. 12. In Dr. Dina Nath Shukla & Anr. (supra) the Court has recognised the power of the State to make positive discrimination in favour of the disadvantaged particularly the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. 13. It appears that, the University is maintaining a 100 point roster. It is following the U.G.C. guidelines. It is also informing the Backward Class Commissioner as to the reservation in terms of the provisions of the Act of 2012. The Backward Class Commission had passed orders directing a certain manner of reservation which the University has complied with. 14. Essentially what the petitioner has sought in this petition is contrary to the 2006 guidelines of U.G.C. The impugned order is in consonance of the U.G.C. guidelines of 2006. In such circumstances, I find no merit in W.P. No. 27273 (W) of 2015. The same is dismissed, however, without any order as to costs. 15. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.