- (1.) SANJAY Misra, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Affidavits have been exchanged and with the consent of learned Counsel this writ petition is being decided finally at this stage itself.
(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner there are two sanctioned posts of Reader in the Education Department of Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut. One post had fallen vacant in 1994 and after advertisement (in the year 2000) in the OBC category it was filled by an OBC candidate namely Sri Indrajit Singh Sindu. The other post also fell vacant in the year 2003. It has been advertised for being filled up by a scheduled caste candidate. The petitioner contends that in case the second post of Reader in the education department is filled by a scheduled caste candidate then it would amount to a 100% reservation of the posts of Reader in the department. This according to him is not permissible in law. The State respondents contend that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U. P. v. M. C. Chattopadhyaya, (2004) 12 SCC 333, they have issued the Government order dated 1-8-2003 providing therein that reservation will be applied for the posts of Readers and Lecturers by taking the University as one unit. It provides that all the posts of Readers in the University will be clubbed together and the reservation will be done as per the roaster prepared under the U. P. Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes) Act, 1994. The same procedure has been provided for in the case of lecturers of the University. It is, therefore, contended that the advertisement issued by the University for filling up the second post of Reader of the Education Department is in accordance with the Government Order and the University has been taken as a unit for the purpose of selection on the post of Readers. Consequently they state that reservation on the post of Readers in the University has not exceeded 50%. The University has adopted the reasoning of the Stale respondents. The post in question was earlier advertised twice in the general category and the petitioner claiming himself to be duly qualified had applied for being selected. However, on both the occasions no selection was held. He has, therefore, filed the present writ petition seeking quashing of the advertisement No. 1/2 K. 4 in so far as it reserves the post in question for the scheduled caste candidate and also to quash the Government order dated 1-8-2003 where it applies reservation for the post of Reader treating the University as a unit. Admittedly no selection has taken place till date in pursuance of the impugned advertisement.
(3.) IN the case of State of U. P. v. Dina Nath Shukla and Anr. , 1997 SCC (Lands) 1231, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if there is any single post of Professor, Reader or Lecturer in each faculty etc. which cannot be reserved, it should be clubbed, roster should be applied and be made available for the reserved candidates in terms of Section 3 (5) of the Reservation Act of 1994. It was also held that if there exists any isolated post, rule of rotation by application of roster should be adopted for appointment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had relied upon an earlier decision in the case of Union of INdia v. Madhav, 1997 (1) LBESR 17 (SC) : (1997) 2 SCC 332 and held that the said ratio was consistent with the law laid down therein. A constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Post Graduate INstitute of Medical Education and Research v. Faculty Association, 2000 (3) LBESR 572 (SC) : (1998) 4 SCC 1, held that there cannot be any reservation in respect of an isolated post and the judgment in the case of Union of INdia v. Madhav (supra) was overruled. Since the judgment of Madhav's case was relied upon in Dina Nath Shukla's case the Hon'ble Supreme Court held the conclusion in the case of Dina Nath Shukla as no longer good law in the case of State of U. P. v. M. C. Chattopadhyaya (supra ). In Dina Nath Shukla's case the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as quoted hereunder: "13. Thus it could be seen that if the subject-wise recruitment is adopted in each service or post in each cadre in each faculty, discipline, speciality or super speciality, it would not only be clear to the candidates who seek recruitment but also there would not be an overlapping in application of the rule of reservation to the service or posts as specified and made applicable by Section 3 of the Act. . . . . . . ";