Judgment:
Cyriac Joseph, C.J.
1. This Writ Appeal is filed against the judgment dated 11.2.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petitions Nos. 13627/2003 and 45321/2003. The appellants are the respondents in the Writ Petitions.
2. The second respondent Smt. Puttathyamma was appointed as Lecturer in Kannada in Sri Bidarambika PUC College, Honnavalli, on 14.11.1992. At the time of her appointment, the College was not an aided Institution. The appointment of the second respondent was approved by the Director of Pre-University Education on 15.1.1993, on permanently unaided basis. As per order dated 26.9.1993, the Government of Karnataka accorded permission and admitted Sri Bidarambika PUC College, Honnavalli, for salary grant to the teaching Staff. When the case of the second respondent was submitted for aid, the request for aid in the case of the second respondent was rejected on the ground that her appointment was not as per Rules. Annexure-'G' is the communication dated 25.1.2003 sent by the Government to the Director, Pre-University Education, Bangalore, rejecting the request for aid in the case of the second respondent. Annexure-'H' is the communication dated 27.2.2003 sent by the Director, Pre-University Education, Bangalore, to the Deputy Director, Pre-University Education, Tumkur, informing that the Government had rejected the proposal for granting aid in the case of the second respondent Copy of the communication was marked to the Management and also the Lecturer. Aggrieved by the rejection of the request for grant-in-aid, the Lecturer filed an appeal before the Government but the Appeal was rejected by the Government Thereupon, the Management filed Writ Petition No. 13627/2003 and the Lecturer filed Writ Petition No. 45321/2003. Both the Writ Petitions were heard together and were disposed of through a common order dated 11.2.2005 which is impugned in the Writ Appeal.
3. The learned Single Judge quashed Annexures-'G' and 'H' and also Annexure-'L' order passed by the Government in the appeal filed by the second respondent. The learned Single Judge also directed the respondents to extend the benefit of grant-in-aid to the petitioners in the Writ Petitions.
4. In Annexures-'G' and 'H', it was stated that the second respondent's appointment was not as per Rules but it was not specified how and which Rule was violated in the case of her appointment. However, in the statement of objections filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2, it was stated that the appointment was not in accordance with the Reservation Policy of the State Government. It was specifically contended that the post of Lecturer in Kannada should have been filled up by a candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribe and the second respondent belongs to the General Category. The learned Single Judge held that since there was only one post of Lecturer in Kannada, the Rules of reservation were not applicable to the filling up of the said post and therefore, there was no violation of any Rule relating to reservation in the case of the appointment of Smt Puttathyamma.
5. Having heard learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, we do not find any valid or sufficient reason to interfere with the impugned order of the learned Single Judge. It is not disputed that there was only one post of Lecturer in Kannada in the College. If there was only one post of Lecturer in Kannada, the post could not have been reserved. According to the learned Counsel for the appellants, for the purpose of reservation, all the posts available in the College were to be taken into account According to him, the Management appointed 7 Lecturers in different Departments and therefore Reservation Policy was applicable. However, we do not accept this contention. In the judgment dated 27.1.2006 in Writ Appeal No. 3125/2005, this Court held that if there is only one post in any subject, there can be no reservation at all. For taking the said view, this Court relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dr. Chakradhar Paswan v. State of Bihar and Ors. : (1988)IILLJ66SC and the decision of the Full Bench in Dr. Rajkumar v. Gulbarga University : AIR1990Kant320 . We agree with the view taken by this Court in Writ Appeal No. 3125/2005. In taking the said view we are also fortified by the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education And Research v. Faculty Association : [1998]2SCR845 wherein it was held as follows:
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 permitted within the constitutional framework.
The above decision judgment was followed by the Supreme Court in S.R. Murthy v. State of Karnataka and Ors. : AIR2000SC450 .
6. For the reasons stated above, we hold that the Policy of Reservation was not applicable to the single post of Lecturer in Kannada, to which the second respondent was appointed. Consequently, we hold that the reasons stated by the Government and the Director of Pre-University Education for rejecting the claim of the second respondent for admission to grant-in-aid are untenable and Annexures-'G', 'H' and 'L' were liable to be quashed by this Court. Since the reasons stated in Annexures-'G' 'H' and 'L' for rejecting the claim of the second respondent for admission to grant-in-aid were found to be untenable and since no other reason was stated by the Government or the Director of Pre-University Education for rejecting the claim, the teamed Single Judge was right and justified in directing the respondents in the Writ Petitions to extend the benefit of grant-in-aid to the petitioners in both the petitions (ie., the Management and the Lecturer).
7. In the above circumstances, we do not find any merit in the Writ Appeal and the Writ Appeal is dismissed.
8. We make it clear that the order of the learned Single Judge or this order will not affect any action taken or orders passed by the Government against the Bidarambika PUC College in the matter of grant-in-aid, for reasons unconnected with the subject matter of this case.