JUDGMENT Heard Mr. Sandeep Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. S.P. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Savitra Verdhan Singh, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 4. 2. The petitioner has assailed the Advertisement no.R-85/2015 (Annexure No.1 of the writ petition), whereby two posts of Assistant Professor in the Department of Botany has been advertised for Scheduled Caste category candidates. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994 (in short 'the Reservation Act, 1994'), there would not be more than fifty percent reservation of the posts to be filled in. He has further submitted that as per roster system also, out of two posts, one post has to go to unreserved category's candidate. 4. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 to 4, whereby a chart of the working Assistant Professors in the Department of Botany as well as vacant post as per roster has been prepared. The aforesaid chart reveals that as per roster, two posts belonging to Scheduled Caste are vacant, therefore, the University has intended to full up those posts by way of impugned notification. The University has applied the provisions of reservation on the basis of whole cadre of the Associate Professors in the department of Botany and accordingly it has assessed the vacancies category-wise. 5. Mr. S.P. Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the University has vehemently contended that the reservation rule has to be applied to maintain balance between the reserved as well unreserved category candidate and if out of two posts, one post is allotted to the unreserved category, the number of Assistant Professors of unreserved category shall rise from nine to ten, which will again imbalance the application of reservation rule against the strength of Assistant Professors in Botany Department. It has been submitted that as per roster the next vacancy would fall on 08.03.2016, which has to go to the unreserved category. Accordingly, no disadvantage would cause to the unreserved category candidates. At the same time, he has further submitted that in the year 2017 and 2018 again one vacancy of unreserved category and one of Other Backward Class shall occur in which the unreserved category candidate shall get the chance for selection. 6. Whereas Mr. Accordingly, no disadvantage would cause to the unreserved category candidates. At the same time, he has further submitted that in the year 2017 and 2018 again one vacancy of unreserved category and one of Other Backward Class shall occur in which the unreserved category candidate shall get the chance for selection. 6. Whereas Mr. Sandeep Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Indra Sawhney & others vs. Union of India & others; 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 for application of rule of reservation, the determinative factor would not be a cadre or unit for assessment of vacancy of the respective category rather a year of vacancy shall be taken as a unit for assessment of Rule. 7. In view of the aforesaid principles as laid down by the Supreme Court, he has contended that after enforcement of the Reservation Act, 1994, these two posts have been advertised, therefore, as per selection year, one post out of two posts has to be filled in by unreserved category candidate and another by reserved category candidate. The position has further been clarified by the Supreme Court in its subsequent judgment rendered in R.K. Sabharwal & others vs. State of Punjab and others; (1995) 2 SCC 745 . In the said case, the Supreme Court held that "the quoted observations clearly illustrate that the rule of 50% a year as unit and not entire strength of the cadre has been adopted to protect the rights of the general category under clause (1) of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. These observations in Indra Sawhney's case, are only in relation to posts which are filled initially in a cadre. 'The operation of a roster, for filling the cadre strength, by itself ensures that the- reservation remains within the 50% limit. Indra Sawhney's case is not the authority for the point that the roster survives after the cadre-strength is full and the percentage of reservation is achieved." 8. 'The operation of a roster, for filling the cadre strength, by itself ensures that the- reservation remains within the 50% limit. Indra Sawhney's case is not the authority for the point that the roster survives after the cadre-strength is full and the percentage of reservation is achieved." 8. As per roster all the posts of the department concerned, the first and fifth posts, which belong to Scheduled Caste category candidate are vacant, therefore, the University has notified to fill up these two posts under the Scheduled Caste category, however, if we permit the University to fill up the posts so, definitely, that shall exceed fifty percent reservation in a selection year, therefore, at this juncture, we are of the view that out of two posts, one post has to be fulfilled, definitely, under the reserved category quota which shall go to the Scheduled Caste category candidate and another has to be fulfilled by the General category candidate as per roster rule. 9. In view of the aforesaid factual background, we hereby permit the respondents to proceed to fill up only one post out of two posts from amongst the reserved category candidate and another post shall be advertised afresh for the unreserved category candidate. In view of the above observations, the Advertisement No.R-85/2015 (Annexure No.1 of the writ petition) is partly quashed. The writ petition is accordingly, partly, allowed.