ORDER : (Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.) 1. The petitioner herein calls in question the validity of the advertisement dated 30-7-2014 issued by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission – respondent No.1 herein seeking the same to be declared as void inoperative in respect of the post of Assistant Professor (Cardiology) on the ground that single post of Assistant Professor (Cardiology) has been reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidate that amounts to 100% reservation and contrary to the well settled law. 2. The aforesaid challenge has been made on the following factual backdrop: - 3. The petitioner is Doctor of Medicine (DM) in Cardiology and working as Assistant Professor in the Department of Cardiology in the Government Medical College. The subject advertisement has been issued in accordance with the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Medical Education (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 2013 for recruitment from amongst other posts on one post of Assistant Professor (Cardiology) in the Government Medical College. Case of the petitioner is that since single post has been advertised for appointment of Assistant Professor (Cardiology), reservation roster would be inapplicable, otherwise, if the advertisement is allowed to stand, it would amount to 100% reservation which is per se illegal and bad in law when there is settled law in this behalf as laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in umpteen number of cases. 4. Return has been filed by the Chhattisgarh PSC and from amongst other grounds it has also been pleaded that in the cadre of Assistant Professor (Cardiology), there were two posts available / vacant, one post has been reserved for unreserved category and according to roster, one post would fall for Scheduled Tribe category. Since one unreserved post has already been filled by appointment of Dr. Smit Shrivastava by way of absorption by the order of the Government, therefore, one post for reservation would fall in favour of Scheduled Tribe category and as such, it has been advertised and thus, it would not amount to 100% reservation, accordingly, reservation would be applicable. 5. The State / respondents No.2 to 4 have also filed return in the same line holding that two vacant posts are available in the Department of Cardiology at Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Medical College, Raipur, one post of general category has been filed by way of absorption of Dr. 5. The State / respondents No.2 to 4 have also filed return in the same line holding that two vacant posts are available in the Department of Cardiology at Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Medical College, Raipur, one post of general category has been filed by way of absorption of Dr. Smit Shrivastava by order dated 28-6-2014 and as per the model roster (Annexure R-4), when two vacant posts are available, one post should be reserved for unreserved category and another should be reserved for Scheduled Tribe category. In that view of the matter, the State/ respondents No.2 to 4 prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Mr. J.N. Nande, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that since one post has been advertised for Assistant Professor (Cardiology) and that has been reserved for ST category, therefore, it amounts to 100% reservation and reservation would not apply as laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of R.R. Inamdar v. State of Karnataka and others, (2020) 19 SCC 543 . 7. Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the Chhattisgarh PSC/respondent No.1 and Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondents No.2 to 4, would support the impugned advertisement and submit that two vacant posts are available in the Department of Cardiology, whereas one post of unreserved category has been filled by absorption of Dr. Smit Shrivastava and one post has been advertised as per Annexure P-4, as such, it is not the case where single post has been reserved for ST category and, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the record carefully and thoroughly as well. 9. Admittedly, as per return filed by the State/respondents No.2 to 4, two posts of Assistant Professor (Cardiology) were available / vacant in the Department of Cardiology, one post has been filled by appointment on absorption of Dr. Smit Shrivastava by order of the Government dated 14/20-6-2014, as such, the reserved post stands filled on account of appointment of Dr. Smit Shrivastava and another post, which as per roster falls in favour of Scheduled Tribe category, has been got advertised for recruitment. 10. Smit Shrivastava by order of the Government dated 14/20-6-2014, as such, the reserved post stands filled on account of appointment of Dr. Smit Shrivastava and another post, which as per roster falls in favour of Scheduled Tribe category, has been got advertised for recruitment. 10. The question would be, whether reservation roster would not apply for single / isolated post within a cadre in respect of which the rule of reservation would be inapplicable? 11. In this regard, their Lordships of the Supreme Court in R.R. Inamdar (supra), considering the earlier decisions in the matters of State of Karnataka v. K. Govindappa, (2009) 1 SCC 1 and Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research v. Faculty Assn., (1998) 4 SCC 1 , have held in paragraphs 3, 4 & 8 as under: - “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 & Research v. Faculty Assn.(supra) had approved the view in Chakradhar Paswan v. State of Bihar, (1988) 2 SCC 214 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: (K. Govindappa case (supra), SCC p. 7, para 22) “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. 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) 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. 4. A similar issue arose in a subsequent decision in State of U.P. v. Bharat Singh, (2011) 4 SCC 120 , where this Court held that: (SCC p. 136, para 61) “61. It is abundantly clear from the above that the attribute of interchange-ability 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) 8. We are unable to accept the submission for more than one reason. The Circular dated 31-5-1991 is prior to the decision of the Constitution Bench in PGIMER, (supra). As a matter of fact, the circular is prior to the decision in K. Govindappa2 as well. We are unable to accept the submission for more than one reason. The Circular dated 31-5-1991 is prior to the decision of the Constitution Bench in PGIMER, (supra). As a matter of fact, the circular is prior to the decision in K. Govindappa2 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).” 12. As such, from the aforesaid principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in R.R. Inamdar (supra), it is quite vivid that there can be no reservation of a solitary post and in order to apply the rule of reservation within a cadre, there must be a plurality of posts, otherwise, it would be violation of Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India and it will offend the constitutional bar against 100% reservation as envisaged in Article 16(1) of the Constitution. 13. Reverting to the facts of the case, it is quite vivid that present is not the case where there is only one post of Assistant Professor (Cardiology) in the Government Medical College and from return filed by the State/ respondents No.2 to 4, it is quite vivid that there were two posts of Assistant Professor (Cardiology) vacant as on date, one post has been filled by appointment of Dr. Smit Shrivastava by way of absorption and, therefore, one left out post has been got advertised by the subject advertisement by applying the rule of reservation. Smit Shrivastava by way of absorption and, therefore, one left out post has been got advertised by the subject advertisement by applying the rule of reservation. As such, it is not the case where the single isolated post of Assistant Professor (Cardiology) has been advertised by applying the reservation roster which will offend the constitutional bar against 100% reservation as envisaged in Article 16(1) of the Constitution. Therefore, the single post of Assistant Professor (Cardiology) advertised by the subject advertisement as per the reservation roster, is in accordance with law and no relief can be granted to the petitioner on that count, as the petitioner has demonstrably failed to establish the plea raised in the writ petition. 14. Another relief sought by the petitioner is, the respondents be directed to grant regularisation to the petitioner on the post of Assistant Professor (Cardiology). It has already been held herein-above that only one left out post has been reserved for ST candidate. In that view of the matter, no mandamus can be issued for acting contrary to law, as the post is reserved for ST candidate. As such, I do not find any merit in the writ petition, it deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost(s). 15. It is stated at the Bar that still the post is lying vacant and on account of pendency of this writ petition, the post could not be filled up. The State will take appropriate steps to ensure that the post of Assistant Professor (Cardiology) is filled up in accordance with law.