ORDER : Petitioner in this writ petition calls in question the Notification dated 22nd September, 2019 issued by the 4th respondent/P.E.S. P.U.College (hereinafter referred to as ‘the College’ for short), an aided Educational Institution calling for applications from candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes (Women) in the subject Mathematics. 2. Sans unnecessary details, facts in brief for consideration of the issue in the lis are as follows:- The petitioner who was appointed by the College on 05.09.2007 as a Lecturer in Mathematics continued to work as such. When the College made an effort to issue a notification calling for applications from eligible candidates in all the subjects including Mathematics, the petitioner and others approached this Court in Writ Petition No.21418-21422/2013 seeking to stall the notification and consequently, mandamus to consider their cases for regularization. This Court by an order dated 11.06.2013 granted an interim order of stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the notification dated 8-02-2013 by its order dated 11-06-2013. 3. When the selection process was over, in terms of the notification issued, the College and others had approached this Court in Writ Petition No.22273/2016 and connected cases seeking a direction at the hands of this Court to the Government to pass appropriate orders on the list of selected candidates communicated to the Government. This writ petition came to be disposed of as having become infructuous on a memo filed by the College after receipt of a notice on 27-08-2018 by the Government directing filling up of vacancies in a particular manner of all the subjects in the College. This Court placing the memo on record disposed of the writ petition filed by the College and others by its order dated 11-09-2018. All this happened during the pendency of the writ petition filed by the petitioner along with four others stated supra. 4. After the disposal of the writ petition filed by the College and others as having become infructuous, the impugned notification is issued by the College seeking to appoint a Lecturer in the subject of Mathematics and reserving the post for a candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste. This is the post in which the petitioner has been functioning right from 2007. After the disposal of the writ petition filed by the College and others as having become infructuous, the impugned notification is issued by the College seeking to appoint a Lecturer in the subject of Mathematics and reserving the post for a candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste. This is the post in which the petitioner has been functioning right from 2007. This Court again by an interim order dated 4-12-2019 directing that no precipitate action be taken in the case of the petitioner, by a detailed order allowed an application seeking to bring the selected candidate on record in terms of the notification. It is this notification and the consequent action that are called in question by the petitioner in this writ petition. 5. Heard Sri V.Lakshminarayana, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner; Smt. M.C. Nagashree, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2; Sri H.B.Chandrashekar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 and Sri.L.Chandrashekar, learned counsel for respondent No.5. 6. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that the action of the 4th respondent/College in notifying one post in the subject of Mathematics and reserving the same for candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and selecting the 5th respondent to the said post are all contrary to law, as it is a settled principle of law that a single post cannot be reserved in favour of candidates belonging to either Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes as it would amount to 100% reservation. 7. On other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate Smt. M.C.Nagashree and Sri H.B.Chandrashekar, learned counsel representing the College in unison would contend that it is permissible to club all the vacancies together, notify a particular post and reserve the same in favour of candidates belonging to either Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, which would not amount to 100% reservation as there are candidates in other subjects. 8. Both the learned counsels would place reliance upon a three Judge Bench decision of the Apex Court in the case of POST GRADUATE INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION & RESEARCH, CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS v. K.L. NARASIMHAN AND OTHERS – (1997) 6 SCC283 which is followed by this Court in DR. 8. Both the learned counsels would place reliance upon a three Judge Bench decision of the Apex Court in the case of POST GRADUATE INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION & RESEARCH, CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS v. K.L. NARASIMHAN AND OTHERS – (1997) 6 SCC283 which is followed by this Court in DR. CHARANGOWDA B.K. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS – (W.P.NO.41440 OF 2017 DECIDED ON 25TH OCTOBER 2018) and would submit that the issue is covered by the judgment of the Apex Court and the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench that clubbing of vacancies of different subjects is a permissible method of selection and reserving even a single post in favour of candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes is accepted by the Apex Court and this Court. 9. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions made by the respective learned counsel and in furtherance whereof the issue that calls for my consideration is, whether the notification issued by the 4th respondent reserving a solitary post of Lecturer in Mathematics in favour of a candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste would stand the scrutiny of law? 10. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. Mathematics subject is a single cadre post in the 4th respondent-College is also not in dispute. Questioning an earlier notification the petitioner along with others had approached this Court and continued in the post on the strength of the interim order. The said writ petition in W.P.Nos.21418-21422/2013 is pending consideration at the hands of this Court and during the pendency of the said writ petitions wherein protection was granted to the petitioner against her termination, a subsequent act of issuance of notification calling for applications in the subject to Mathematics impugned herein was notified by the College, however reserving the said post in favour of a candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste. 11. The issue with regard to a single post available and notified which is to be filled up by way of direct recruitment could be reserved or not in favour of candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste which would amount to 100% reservation is dealt with by the Apex Court and this Court in plethora of cases. I find it germane to notice those judgments in the light of the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the State and the College. 12. I find it germane to notice those judgments in the light of the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the State and the College. 12. This Court as early as in the year 1991 in the case of DALVOY ANGLO SANSKRIT SCHOOL COLLETTEE v. K.S. NARASAPPAIAH – (I.L.R. 1991 KAR 1880) has held as follows:- “The Roster annexed to the Government order No.DPAR 22 SBC 79 dated 30-08-1979 found at page Nos. 157, 168 and 159 of the “Brochure on Reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and other categories of Backward Classes in Services and Posts” cannot apply because such a roster can be operated in respect of a cadre which consists of at least six posts so that one cycle can be completed. Therefore, in the case of a cadre consisting of one post, the question of application of 33 Point Roster formulated as Annexures to the Government Order No.DPAR 22 SBC 79 dated 30-08-1979 does not arise at all. The Educational Appellate Tribunal has applied a very curious reasoning in para-15 of its order. The relevant portions in para-15 of the order of the Educational Appellate Tribunal are as follows: “The Government has taken care to see that proper representation is given to the members of those communities by specifying the vacancies which are to be filled only for such candidates. In the Roster System, it has been made very clear as to which vacancies belong to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tries and which are unreserved vacancies. According to the vacancies listed therein, vacancy Nos. 1, 2, 7, 14, 21 and 27 are vacancies reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The remaining vacancies are unreserved vacancies. The fourth vacancy is an unreserved vacancy. The directions of the Government in the Government Order dated 27-04-1978 in pursuance of which Government Order dated 30-08-1979 has been issued and the Roster System has been introduced may be perused. It is obvious therefore that the Government Orders are intended to be complied with strictly and there is no discretion left with the promoting authorities to fill up a vacancy specified for one category with the candidates belonging to the other categories. Therefore, the 1st respondent was bound under the law to fill up the fourth vacancy which is an unreserved vacancy from the general merit pool. Therefore, the 1st respondent was bound under the law to fill up the fourth vacancy which is an unreserved vacancy from the general merit pool. Since it is not disputed that as on the date when the vacancy arose, the appellant was the senior most Assistant Master and was qualified for the promotional post, his case ought to have been considered. As already pointed out above, from Ex.P3(c) and the stand taken by the 1st respondent in the objection statement, it is clear that the only ground on which the 2nd respondent has been promoted as the Head Master is that he is a candidate belonging to the Scheduled Caste. That cannot be done in view of the specific directions in the two Government Orders referred to above and the Roster System introduced which very clearly and unambiguously show that the fourth vacancy as per the Roster System is an unreserved vacancy and therefore must be filled up from the merit pool. It cannot be filled up by promoting a candidate belonging to the Scheduled Castes, because it is not a vacancy reserved for the Scheduled Castes.” According to the reasoning of the Educational Appellate Tribunal as and when the post of a Head Master becomes vacant it should be counted or treated as one vacancy. Therefore, as the present vacancy occurs for the fourth time it should go to unreserved class as per the Roster annexed to the Government Order No.DPAR 22 SBC 79 dated 30.09.1979. The reasoning is highly unnatural and does not stand to scrutiny. When the cadre consists of only one post, merely because the incumbent of that post retires or resigns or for whatever reason the post falls vacant it does not become a new vacancy as long as the post remains one and the same. Therefore, it is not possible to accept the reasoning of the learned Educational Appellate Tribunal. 9. Whether it is a vacancy in the Government Department or a vacancy in a private institution aided by the Government to which also the principles of reservation are made applicable, does not make any difference as long as the concerned cadre consists of only one post. 9. Whether it is a vacancy in the Government Department or a vacancy in a private institution aided by the Government to which also the principles of reservation are made applicable, does not make any difference as long as the concerned cadre consists of only one post. Hence, it is not open to the State Government to insist upon the private educational institutions receiving grant that in the case of a cadre consisting of only one post, that post should be filled up by applying reservation quota. The point raised for determination is answered accordingly.” The learned single Judge has held that whether it is a Government Department or a private aided Educational Institution, when principle of reservation is made applicable, there cannot be a reservation if the cadre consists of only one post. The Apex Court in the case of STATE OF KARNATAKA v. K.GOVINDAPPA – (2009) 1 SCC 1 has held as follows:- “20. We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and the decisions cited by learned counsel in support thereof. In dealing with the issue raised in this appeal, it has to be kept in mind that some of the earlier decisions in Madhav case [ (1997) 2 SCC 332 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 503], in Suresh Chandra v. J.B. Agarwal [ (1997) 5 SCC 363 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1146] and Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research v. K.L. Narasimhan [ (1997) 6 SCC 283 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1449], in which reservation by rotation even in respect of a single post had been approved, was subsequently overruled in the Constitution Bench decision in Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research v. Faculty Assn. [ (1998) 4 SCC 1 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 961] and it was held that in no case could reservation be made applicable in respect of a single post. The Constitution Bench approved the views expressed in Chakradhar Paswan (Dr.) case [ (1988) 2 SCC 214 : 1988 SCC (L&S) 516: (1988) 7 ATC 104] following those expressed by the earlier Constitution Bench in Arati Ray Choudhury case [ (1974) 1 SCC 87 : 1974 SCC (L&S) 73]. The Constitution Bench approved the views expressed in Chakradhar Paswan (Dr.) case [ (1988) 2 SCC 214 : 1988 SCC (L&S) 516: (1988) 7 ATC 104] following those expressed by the earlier Constitution Bench in Arati Ray Choudhury case [ (1974) 1 SCC 87 : 1974 SCC (L&S) 73]. In view of the above, the only question which we are called upon to consider is whether the High Court was right in treating the post of Lecturer in History in Respondent 2 college as a single isolated post forming a separate cadre in itself and not part of the cadre of Lecturers comprising all the different disciplines taught in the college. 21. In this regard, Mr Hegde has explained the difference between “post” and “cadre” and that the two expressions could not be equated with each other. He has also explained that the expression “cadre” was not synonymous with “service” and that merely because there were single posts in the different disciplines taught in the college, it did not mean that each post constituted a separate cadre within the cadre of Lecturers. 22. While there can be no difference of opinion that the expressions “cadre”, “post” and “service” cannot be equated with each other, 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. 23. 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. 23. The decision in Chakradhar Paswan (Dr.) case [ (1988) 2 SCC 214 : 1988 SCC (L&S) 516 : (1988) 7 ATC 104], which has been subsequently approved by the Constitution Bench in Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research case [ (1998) 4 SCC 1 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 961] makes it clear that isolated and separate posts can exist within a cadre and in case of such posts, if there was only one post, the same could not be set apart for a reserved candidate. 24. In our view, the present case falls within the category of single isolated posts within a cadre in respect whereof the rule of reservation is inapplicable and the said principle has been correctly applied by the High Court in the facts of this case. As indicated by the High Court, 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 1 cannot be faulted. This is particularly so having regard to the fact that the several disciplines are confined to one college alone. That is what distinguishes the facts of this case from those of Arati Ray Choudhury case [ (1974) 1 SCC 87 : 1974 SCC (L&S) 73] in which the rule of rotation could be applied on account of the fact that two posts of headmistress were available in two colleges run by the same management. Moreover, in Chakradhar Paswan (Dr.) case [ (1988) 2 SCC 214 : 1988 SCC (L&S) 516 : (1988) 7 ATC 104] on which reliance was placed by the High Court it was noticed that while upholding the rule of rotation the Constitution Bench in Arati Ray Choudhury case [ (1974) 1 SCC 87 : 1974 SCC (L&S) 73] did not support reservation in a single cadre post.” The afore-extracted judgment of the Apex Court is after taking into consideration the Constitution Bench judgment on the issue. In the latest judgment in the case of R.R.INAMDAR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA – 2019 SCC Online SC 1603, the Apex Court has held as follows: “2. The appeal relates to the services of the appellant and the fifth respondent in an institution known as Sri Jagadaguru Annadaneshwari High School at Mundaragi, Gadag District of the State of Karnataka. The fifth respondent was appointed as a teacher on 2 November 1988 and is senior to the appellant, who was appointed on 1 December 1990. The appellant belongs to a Scheduled Caste. On the retirement of the then incumbent Lecturer in English on 31 March 2002, the post fell vacant. The appellant was promoted to the post on 28 September 2002 on the basis of roster points. The appointment of the appellant was approved by the Director of Pre-University Education on 28 September 2002. The fifth respondent challenged the approval initially by filing a writ petition before the Karnataka High Court. By an order dated 2 March 2005, the fifth respondent was relegated to the remedy of a revision before the Director of Pre-University Education, Bangalore. The revision and a further review came to be dismissed by the Director of Pre-University Education on 3 May 2006 and by the Commissioner on 23 February 2007. The Government of Kerala dismissed the appeal filed by the fifth respondent on 12 November 2008. The fifth respondent then moved the High Court in a writ petition under Article 226 which was allowed by a judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 1 October 2015. The learned Single Judge held that the post of Lecturer in English was a solitary post and in view of the law laid down by this Court in State of Karnataka v. K Govindappa, the post could not have been reserved. This view of the learned Single Judge was approved in a writ appeal by the Division Bench on 17 November 2015 which gave rise to the proceedings before this Court. 3. This view of the learned Single Judge was approved in a writ appeal by the Division Bench on 17 November 2015 which gave rise to the proceedings before this Court. 3. At the outset, it would be necessary to note that the decision of the two-Judge Bench of this Court in K Govindappa (supra), which has been followed by the learned Single Judge as well as by the Division Bench in appeal, dealt with the issue as to whether all posts of Lecturers taken together constituted a cadre for the purpose of reservation or whether a solitary post of Lecturer in History which was not interchangeable with other posts constituted a separate cadre. The High Court held that the post of a Lecturer in History could not be construed to be a cadre together with all other posts of Lecturer. This Court noted that the Constitution Bench in Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research v. Faculty Association, had approved the view in Dr. Chakradhar Paswan v. State of Bihar, to the effect that there could be no reservation in respect of a single post. This was, however, sought to be distinguished by the State in K Govindappa (supra). This Court held: “While there can be no difference of opinion that the expressions “cadre”, “post” and “service” cannot be equated with each other, 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.” (emphasis supplied) 4. The Court held that the case fell within the category of a single or isolated post within a cadre in respect of which the rule of reservation was inapplicable. The Court held that the case fell within the category of a single or isolated post within a cadre in respect of which the rule of reservation was inapplicable. In other words, each discipline which consisted of a single post was required to be dealt with as a separate cadre for the said discipline, particularly, having regard to the fact that the several disciplines were confined only to one college. 5. A similar issue arose in a subsequent decision in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Bharat Singh, where this Court held that: “It is abundantly clear from the above that the attribute of interchangeability and transferability is missing in the case of Principals -in much the same measure as in the case of teachers, in the lower cadre. We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that there is no cadre of Principals serving in different aided and affiliated institutions and that the Principal's post is a solitary post in an institution. Reservation of such a post is clearly impermissible not only because the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994 provides for reservation based on the ‘cadre strength’ in aided institutions but also because such strength being limited to only one post in the cadre is legally not amenable to reservations in the light of the pronouncement of this Court to which we shall presently refer.” (emphasis supplied) 6. We may also note at this stage that on 19 January 2017, a two-Judge Bench of this Court in Sanjeev Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, affirmed a similar view of the Allahabad High Court, observing as follows: “We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. We are in agreement with the view taken in the impugned judgment. The judgment of the High Court is accordingly affirmed. The civil appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.” 7. These decisions were sought to be distinguished by Mr. S N Bhat, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, by relying on a circular of the State of Karnataka dated 31 May 1991. The following provisions of the circular were in particular sought to be emphasised: “The roster system be maintained unit-wise (i.e, one school or college is an unit even if the management is running more than one school or colleges). The following provisions of the circular were in particular sought to be emphasised: “The roster system be maintained unit-wise (i.e, one school or college is an unit even if the management is running more than one school or colleges). The roster should be maintained for the teaching and non teaching staff separately and not subject-wise as is being done now.” 8. Mr. Bhat urged that the above provisions would demonstrate that the roster has to be maintained unit-wise so that each school or college would be treated as a unit in a situation where a management is running more than one institution. Moreover, the roster is to be maintained for the teaching and non-teaching staff separately and not subject-wise. The submission was that the circular dated 31 May 1991 did not fall for consideration before the two-Judge Bench in K Govindappa (supra). 9. We are unable to accept the submission for more than one reason. The circular dated 31 May 1991 is prior to the decision of the Constitution Bench in Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (supra). As a matter of fact, the circular is prior to the decision in K Govindappa (supra) as well. The principle which has been enunciated by this Court is that there can be no reservation of a solitary post and that in order to apply the rule of reservation within a cadre, there must be a plurality of posts. Where there is no interchangeability of the posts in 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. If this principle were not to be followed, reservation would be in breach of the ceiling governed by the decisions of this Court. A circular, of the nature that has been issued by the State of Karnataka, cannot take away the binding effect of the decisions of this Court interpreting the policy of reservation in the context of Article 16(4). 10. For the above reasons, we are of the view that the judgment of the High Court cannot be faulted and is consistent with the law which has been laid down by this Court.” 13. 10. For the above reasons, we are of the view that the judgment of the High Court cannot be faulted and is consistent with the law which has been laid down by this Court.” 13. Insofar as the judgment relied on by the respondents in the case of K.L.Narasimhan (supra) and the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench following K.L.Narasimhan, the three Judge Bench of the Apex Court is concerned, in the case of Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh and Others v. K.L. Narasimhan and Another reported in (1997) 6 SCC 283 has held as follows: “13. In all these decisions, the ratio laid down by this Court in Arati Ray Choudhury Case was followed. Reservation to a single cadre post, applying the rule of rotation of 40 point roster was held valid and constitutional. Clubbing of the posts carrying the same scale of pay or grade is also constitutionally permissible and accordingly clubbing of the single point post of Assistant Professors in various disciplines of the appellant carrying the same scale of pay and grade has been held to be constitutionally permissible.” Following this judgment, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Charangowda (supra) has held as follows: “14. It is important to note that in order to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it does not prescribe any limitation. The aggrieved party who states that his statutory or constitutional rights has been deprived, he cannot file writ petition at his whims and fancies. In the instant case, the petitioner states that he was waiting for results of the writ petitions and when the said petitions were dismissed as withdrawn, he has approached this Court. When the notification was issued, interview was conducted and when the petitioner’s candidature was rejected, he has approached this Court. It is important to note here that when the post for Associate Professor was reserved for Scheduled Caste candidate, the petitioner belonging to general caste has applied to the said post, which is not permissible. The application of the petitioner was rejected on 01-08-2016 but the writ petition was filed on 06-09-2017. This is an inordinate delay in approaching this Court and seeking aforesaid reliefs is not permissible in law, having knocked doors of justice belatedly. 15. The application of the petitioner was rejected on 01-08-2016 but the writ petition was filed on 06-09-2017. This is an inordinate delay in approaching this Court and seeking aforesaid reliefs is not permissible in law, having knocked doors of justice belatedly. 15. Secondly, the petitioner claims that the reservation made amounts to 100% reservation since the only one post is reserved for Scheduled Caste candidate. He also relied on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Chakradhar Paswan v. State of Bihar & others reported in AIR 1988 SC 959 and in the case of Dr. Rajkumar and Others v. Gulbarga University reported in AIR 1990 K.L. 320 where it is held that 100% reservation would amount to violation of Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India. This aspect of the matter is clarified by the Government order dated 20.06.1995, followed by subsequent Government order dated 06-06-2005 wherein all the public sector undertakings/institutions/corporations etc. are directed to reserve the post or to combine the post for the purpose of extending reservations. One such order is the Government order No.DPAR 8 SHM 95 dated 20-06-1995, which is following by another Government order dated 06-06-2005, clarifies that the posts of Professor, Associate Profess and also in the case of Assistant Professor, posts in the Government Medical Colleges/Medical Colleges working under the institutions registered under Societies Registration Act, while filing the said posts through direct recruitment without carrying the subject-wise, group the respective cadre wise to be considered as Professor Cadre, Associate Professor and Assistant Professor Cadre by clubbing the posts the direct reservation roster as specified under the previous Government order also the prevailing horizontal reservation duly applying the same based on interse merit of the candidates it is directed to appoint the candidates through direct recruitment. This fact is dealt by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh and Others v. K.L. Narasimhan and Another reported in (1997) 6 SCC 283 , at para No.13 which reads thus: “13. In all these decisions, the ratio laid down by this Court in Arati Ray Choudhury Case was follows. Reservation to a single cadre post, applying the rule of rotation of 40-point roster was held valid and constitutional. In all these decisions, the ratio laid down by this Court in Arati Ray Choudhury Case was follows. Reservation to a single cadre post, applying the rule of rotation of 40-point roster was held valid and constitutional. Clubbing of the posts carrying the same scale of pay or grade is also constitutionally permissible and accordingly clubbing of the single point post of Assistant Professors in various disciplines of the appellant carrying the same scale of pay and grade has been held to be constitutionally permissible.” In view of the above said judgment, it is clear that it is permissible to club the posts for the purpose of providing reservation as along as these Government orders are in force.” 14. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the issue stands covered by the aforesaid judgment and that this Court will have to follow the same is unacceptable. The Three Judge Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of K.L.Narasimhan was reviewed and reconsidered by Five Judge Bench of the Apex Court in the case of POST GRADUATE INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION & RESEARCH v. FACULTY ASSOCIATION – (1998) 4 SCC 1 and the judgment in the Three Judge Bench of the Apex Court is specifically overruled and set aside. The question before the Five Judge bench of the Hon’ble Apex court was as follows : “In all these matters a common question arises for decision as to whether in a single cadre post reservation for the backward classes, namely, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes can be made either directly or by applying rotation of roster point. There are conflicting decisions of this Court on the question of such reservation in a single cadre post. 2. The learned counsel for the parties in all these matters have agreed that the question of law as to the constitutional validity of reservation in a single cadre post is to be decided by the Constitution Bench and thereafter the cases will be placed before the appropriate Bench for disposal on merits in accordance with the decision rendered by this Bench. Therefore, the question of constitutional validity of reservation in a single cadre post either directly or by rotation of roster point has been considered by us and we have not taken into consideration other contentions raised in these matters. Therefore, the question of constitutional validity of reservation in a single cadre post either directly or by rotation of roster point has been considered by us and we have not taken into consideration other contentions raised in these matters. The questions are answered by the Hon’ble Apex Court holding as follows : “34. 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 per cent reservation for the backward classes is not permissible within the constitutional framework. The decisions of this Court to this effect over the decades have been consistent. 35. Hence, until there is plurality of posts in a cadre, the 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. The device of rotation of roster in respect of single post cadre will only mean that on some occasions there will be complete reservation and the appointment to such post is kept out of bounds to the members of a large segment of the community who do not belong to any reserved class, but on some other occasions the post will be available for open competition when in fact on all such occasions, a single post cadre should have been filled only by open competition amongst all segments of the society. 37. 37. We, therefore, approve the view taken in Chakradhar case [ (1988) 2 SCC 214 : 1988 SCC (L&S) 516:(1988) 7 ATC 104] that there cannot be any reservation in a single post cadre and we do not approve the reasonings in Madhav case [ (1997) 2 SCC 332 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 503] , Brij Lal Thakur case [ (1997) 4 SCC 278 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 939 : JT (1997) 4 SC 195] and Bageshwari Prasad case [1995 Supp (1) SCC 432 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 506 : (1995) 29 ATC 349 ] upholding reservation in a single post cadre either directly or by device of rotation of roster point. Accordingly, the impugned decision in the case of Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research [Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research v. K.L. Narasimhan, (1997) 6 SCC 283 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1449] cannot also be sustained. The review petition made in Civil Appeal No. 3175 of 1997 in the case of Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh [Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research v. K.L. Narasimhan, (1997) 6 SCC 283 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1449] , is therefore allowed and the judgment dated 2-5-1997 [Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research v. K.L. Narasimhan, (1997) 6 SCC 283 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1449] passed in Civil Appeal No. 3175 of 1997 is set aside.” This judgment that had been overruled is followed by the learned Single Judge in Dr.Charangowda B.R.’s case which in my considered view is a judgment which is per incuriam, in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of GOVERNMENT OF A.P. v. B.SATYANARAYANA RAO – (2000) 4 SCC 262 wherein the Apex Court has held as follows:- “8. Learned counsel for the respondent attempted to convince us that the decision in the case of State of A.P. v. V. Sadanandam [1989 Supp (1) SCC 574:1989 SCC (L&S) 511:(1989) 11 ATC 391] has to be ignored on the principle of per incuriam as certain relevant provisions of the Rules were not considered in the said case, and in any case this case requires to be referred to a larger Bench of three Judges. The rule of per incuriam can be applied where a court omits to consider a binding precedent of the same court or the superior court rendered on the same issue or where a court omits to consider any statute while deciding that issue. This is not the case here. In State of A.P. v. V. Sadanandam [1989 Supp (1) SCC 574: 1989 SCC (L&S) 511: (1989) 11 ATC 391] the controversy was exactly the same as it is here and this Court after considering para 5 of the Presidential Order of 1975 held that the Government has power to fill a vacancy in a zone by transfer. We, therefore, find that the rule of per incuriam cannot be invoked in the present case. Moreover, a case cannot be referred to a larger Bench on mere asking of a party. A decision by two Judges has a binding effect on another coordinate Bench of two Judges, unless it is demonstrated that the said decision by any subsequent change in law or decision ceases to laying down a correct law. We, therefore, reject the arguments of learned counsel for the respondents.” The Apex Court in the afore-extracted judgment has clearly held that the rule of per incuriam can be applied where a Court omits to consider a binding precedent of the same Court or the superior Court rendered on the same issue. Therefore, the issue that fell for consideration before the Co-ordinate Bench was whether there could be reservation to a solitary post. The issue being answered by the Apex Court in plethora of judgments, the same having gone unnoticed in the judgment of the Coordinate Bench and the Co-ordinate Bench relying on a judgment of the Apex Court which stood overruled, cannot but be held to be per incuriam. Therefore, I am bound by the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court as followed by the smaller Benches of the Apex Court. Hence, I deem it appropriate to follow the judgment of the Apex Court which concerns the issue and not the judgment which ignores the binding precedent. 15. Therefore, I am bound by the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court as followed by the smaller Benches of the Apex Court. Hence, I deem it appropriate to follow the judgment of the Apex Court which concerns the issue and not the judgment which ignores the binding precedent. 15. Insofar as clubbing of the vacancies is concerned, for application of reservation i.e., clubbing of all the vacancies in all the subjects and then notifying the post and reserving the same in favour of candidates belonging to either Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes will also fall foul of the judgments rendered by the Apex Court. The Apex Court following the judgments rendered earlier had clearly held that reservation shall be subject/discipline-wise. Clubbing of vacancies and operating the roster is contrary to the judgments rendered earlier. The Apex Court in the case of VIJAY PRAKASH BHARATI v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS – (2019) 12 SCC 410 approved the view taken by the Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad in the case of VIVEKANAND TIWARI v. UNION OF INDIA – (2017) 6 All LJ 722 wherein the Division Bench after considering every judgment on the aspect has held that reservation has to be subject-wise. Therefore, the contention of the respondents that as long as Government orders are in force which direct clubbing of vacancies and notifying the posts even if it is a single post in favour of candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes are denuded of their value as they run counter to the settled principle of law enunciated by the Apex Court in the afore-extracted judgments. 16. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following order: ORDER (i) Writ Petition is allowed. (ii) Impugned notification dated 22.09.2019 (Annexure-C) stands quashed an d all further proceedings taken up by the 4th respondent/P.E.S. P.U. College in terms of the impugned notification also stand quashed. (iii) However, the College is at liberty to fill up the post by notifying the same in accordance with law and in the light of the observation made hereinabove. (iv) Till such exercise is undertaken, the services of the petitioner shall not be disturbed. (v) No costs.