ORDER : ASHOK S.KINAGI, J. The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking for the following reliefs: (i) To call for records relating to issue of the impugned order bearing No. REGR/ CM/ RECR (Faculty/16.10/2022-23/292 dated 13.07.2022 issued by the 1st respondent vide ANNEXURE-G and after perusal set aside the same. (ii)To direct the 1st respondent to consider the claim of the Petitioner for selection and appointment to the post of Assistant Professor (Agricultural Economics) & An nomere. C as notified by the advertisement dated 29.10.2021 and consider his claim if he is otherwise qualified and eligible to be appointed to the said post. (iii) To pass such other order as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this petition are as follows: 2.1. The petitioner belongs to OBC category and is qualified and eligible to be appointed to the post of Assistant Professor in Agricultural Economics in respondent No.1-Institute. Pursuant to the notification dated 29.10.2021, he submitted his application seeking appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in Agricultural Economics reserved for backlog OBC. He was called for an interview on 01.07.2022. However, appointment order dated 13.07.2022 is issued to respondent No.2 who belongs to the State of Tamil Nadu. Being aggrieved, he submitted a representation stating that, the appointment of respondent No.2 against the backlog OBC to be filled up from the State of Karnataka in terms of the Karnataka State Reservation Policy. Therefore, the selection and appointment of respondent No.2 is bad in law and contrary to the reservation policy of the State. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Respondent No.1 filed a statement of objections contending that, the Institute for Social and Economics Change (‘ISEC’ for short) is a Social Science Research Institute in Bengaluru. It is an All India Institute for Interdisciplinary Research and Training in social sciences established in 1972. It is contented that, respondent No.1 receives the annual grant-in-aid from the Ministry of Human Resources Department, Government of India, through ICSSR and the Ministries of Agriculture, Health and Family Welfare, Government of Karnataka (Department of Education and Finance) and Reserve Bank of India and respondent No.1 also receives the grants for specific assignments from India, international and bilateral agencies. It is contented that, respondent No.1 receives the annual grant-in-aid from the Ministry of Human Resources Department, Government of India, through ICSSR and the Ministries of Agriculture, Health and Family Welfare, Government of Karnataka (Department of Education and Finance) and Reserve Bank of India and respondent No.1 also receives the grants for specific assignments from India, international and bilateral agencies. Respondent No.1 had issued a recruitment notification vide advertisement dated 29.10.2021 inviting applications from the eligible candidates to fill up backlog Faculty posts in the Institute, and 6 posts were notified for the post of Assistant Professor, out of which, 2 posts were notified for the post of Assistant Professor (Agricultural Economics) and reserved for scheduled caste and OBC. Respondent No.1 received 17 applications for the post of Assistant Professor (Agricultural Economics) in OBC category. The recruitment rules and the evaluation procedure (academic post) were approved in 187 BOG meeting held on 17.11.2017. It is contented that, the Screening Committee shortlisted seven candidates to be called for the interview based on the eligibility criteria. The interview was held on 01.07.2022 and all seven candidates had appeared for the interview. In the said interview, respondent No.2 has scored 93.63%, wherein the petitioner has scored 81.75%. It is contented that, the respondent followed the reservation policy as per the Central Reservation Policy for the appointments of faculty and reservation policy of the State Government for non- academic staff appointments. The action of respondent No.1 in selecting and appointing respondent No.2 is according to the Central Reservation Policy. Hence, prays to dismiss the writ petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 and learned AGA for State. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, a writ petition in WP No.6737/2001 was filed against respondent No.1 before this Court and this Court, vide order dated 19.12.2001, disposed of the writ petition on the submission made by the learned counsel for respondent No.1 that they will follow the reservation policy of the State, but respondent No.1 did not follow the State reservation policy; respondent No.1 has followed the Central reservation policy, which is contrary to the order passed by this Court in WP No.6737/2001. Hence, respondent No.1 committed an error in applying the Central reservation policy for appointing respondent No.2. Hence, on this ground, he prays to allow the writ petition. 6. Hence, respondent No.1 committed an error in applying the Central reservation policy for appointing respondent No.2. Hence, on this ground, he prays to allow the writ petition. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that, the order was passed by this court as in the year 2001 and subsequently, respondent No.1 has followed the reservation policy as per the Institute for Social and Economic Change, wherein he submits that, the guidelines were issued by the Central Government/UGC in 2019 in the background of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court regarding the recruitment of faculty in research/educational institutions are being followed in ISEC. The reservation for the recruitment of non-academic staff will continue as per the policy of the State Government. He submits that, respondent No.1 has admittedly issued a notification inviting the recruitment of faculty and respondent No.1 has followed the Central reservation policy, to maintain the national character of the Institute. Respondent No.2 has scored 93.63%, whereas the petitioner has scored 81.75%. Respondent No.2 was more meritorious than the petitioner and respondent No.1 has rightly selected respondent No.2. Hence, on this ground, he prays to dismiss the writ petition. 7. Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that, respondent No.1 has followed the reservation policy as per the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Hence, she prays to dismiss the writ petition. 8. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 9. It is an undisputed fact that, the petitioner is working as a Research Associate in respondent No.1- Institute. The petitioner belongs to OBC category and he is qualified to be appointed to the post of Assistant Professor in Agricultural Economics. Respondent No.1 issued a notification inviting applications from the eligible candidates on 29.10.2021 for the post of the Assistant Professor (Agricultural Economics). Respondent No.1 received a total of 17 applications from the applicants. Respondent No.1 short-listed seven candidates for the interview based on the eligibility criteria. Out of seven, the petitioner was one among them and he attended the interview on 01.07.2022. The petitioner scored 81.75%. However, respondent No.2 scored 93.63%. The Selection Committee recommended the appointment of respondent No.2 as the Assistant Professor. Respondent No.1 appointed respondent No.2 as the Assistant Professor in Agricultural Economics and he was put on probation for a period of 2 years from the date of reporting the duty. 10. The petitioner scored 81.75%. However, respondent No.2 scored 93.63%. The Selection Committee recommended the appointment of respondent No.2 as the Assistant Professor. Respondent No.1 appointed respondent No.2 as the Assistant Professor in Agricultural Economics and he was put on probation for a period of 2 years from the date of reporting the duty. 10. Though some of the Lecturers who were working in respondent No.1 approached this Court in 2001 in WP No.6737/2001 seeking for a mandamus directing the respondent to reserve posts in all cadres, both faculty and non-faculty, both permanent and temporary to an extent of 50% in favour of scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and backward classes in all future recruitments. The said petition came to be disposed of on the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 that they will not implement the notification (Annexure-A therein) and however, after considering the short-comings and following the norms of the policy, they will issue a fresh notification. 11. Respondent No.1 framed the reservation policy for SC/ST/OBC/BC for academic and non-academic posts. As per the reservation policy, the committee took up the reservation policy for faculty (teaching staff) and held the discussions on 31.05.2019, 20.06.2019, 17.07.2019, 21.08.2019 and 04/05.03.2020 and after deliberation Now from And decided to implement the reservation policy by the Central Government, State Governments and other government-aided institutions. It was brought to the notice of the committee by the Director about the decision of the BOG in the 190 th meeting of the Board of Governors held on 24.09.2018 and the instructions of ICSSR regarding reservation policy. Accordingly, ISEC is following the Central Reservation Policy for faculty in order to maintain the national character of the Institute and the reservation policy of the Government of Karnataka for non-academic staff to protect the interests of local people Further, the guidelines issued by the Central Government/UGC in 2019 in the background of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court regarding the recruitment of faculty in research/educational institutions are being followed in ISEC. The reservation for recruitment of non-academic posts will continue as per the policy of the State Government of Karnataka and respondent No.1 is getting grant-in-aid from the Central Government. 12. Admittedly, respondent No.1 invited applications for the post of faculty. While considering the reservation for the post of faculty, respondent No.1 has to follow the Central Reservation Policy and not the State Reservation Policy. 12. Admittedly, respondent No.1 invited applications for the post of faculty. While considering the reservation for the post of faculty, respondent No.1 has to follow the Central Reservation Policy and not the State Reservation Policy. The State Reservation Policy applies for non-academic posts and not to the faculty. Respondent No.2 has scored higher marks than the petitioner and the Selection Committee has rightly selected respondent No.2 and respondent No.1 has rightly appointed respondent No.2 as the Assistant Professor of Agriculture Economics. The action of respondent No.1 in selecting respondent No.2 is according to the Central reservation policy and on merits. Hence, I do not find any error in the impugned selection/appointment of respondent No.2. 13. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is dismissed. ii. Pending IAs, if any, are disposed of accordingly.