Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a judgment of the Karnataka High Court which held that the appellant, a Scheduled Caste candidate, could not be appointed to a solitary post of Lecturer in English on the basis of reservation. The appellant was appointed on 28 September 2002 following the retirement of the incumbent, and her appointment was approved by the Director of Pre-University Education. The fifth respondent, who was senior to the appellant, challenged the approval through various remedies, ultimately succeeding before the High Court. The High Court, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in State of Karnataka v K Govindappa, held that a solitary post cannot be reserved. The Supreme Court affirmed this view, noting that the principle that reservation requires plurality of posts within a cadre is well-settled. The Court rejected the appellant's argument based on a State circular directing unit-wise roster, holding that such a circular cannot override constitutional interpretation by the Supreme Court. However, considering the appellant's long service since 2002, the Court directed that no recovery be made from her and requested the State to consider creating an additional or supernumerary post. The fifth respondent was granted notional fixation for salary and retiral benefits without arrears, and her promotion was to be considered expeditiously. The appeal was disposed of with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Reservation - Solitary Post - Article 16(4) of the Constitution - A solitary post of Lecturer in English cannot be reserved as it constitutes a separate cadre without interchangeability - The Supreme Court held that reservation requires plurality of posts within a cadre, and a single post in a discipline is not amenable to reservation, following the principle in K Govindappa and Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (Paras 2-5). B) Service Law - Cadre - Interchangeability - Article 16(4) of the Constitution - Each single post in a particular discipline must be treated as a single post for reservation purposes where interchangeability is absent - The Court held that the absence of interchangeability between posts in different disciplines prevents treating them as a single cadre, thus barring reservation (Paras 3-4). C) Service Law - State Circular - Binding Effect - Article 16(4) of the Constitution - A State circular directing unit-wise roster cannot override the binding decisions of the Supreme Court interpreting the constitutional policy of reservation - The Court held that such a circular cannot take away the effect of judicial pronouncements that prohibit reservation for solitary posts (Para 5). D) Service Law - Relief - Protection of Service - No Recovery - The Court directed no recovery from the appellant who worked as Lecturer since 2002, and directed the State to consider creation of an additional or supernumerary post, while granting notional fixation for the fifth respondent (Paras 6-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a solitary post of Lecturer in English can be reserved for Scheduled Castes under Article 16(4) of the Constitution, and whether the State circular directing unit-wise roster can override the constitutional bar on reservation for single posts.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's judgment that the solitary post of Lecturer in English cannot be reserved. However, the Court directed no recovery from the appellant for the period she worked, and requested the State to consider creating an additional or supernumerary post. The fifth respondent was granted notional fixation for salary and retiral benefits without arrears, and her promotion was to be considered within one month.
Law Points
- Reservation cannot apply to a solitary post
- Single post in a discipline constitutes a separate cadre
- Interchangeability of posts is essential for cadre formation
- Article 16(4) requires plurality of posts
- State circular cannot override Supreme Court interpretation of constitutional provisions
