The main legal point established in the judgment is that reservation can be applied subject-wise to the post of Professor in the University, and the need to follow the roster issued by the State Government for applying reservation.

ORDER :

G.B. Pattanaik, J.

These appeals arise out of the judgment of the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court wherein the Court has held that there cannot be any reservation in respect of the post of Professor in the University. The aforesaid conclusion is based upon the earlier Division Bench decision of the said Court in a batch of writ petitions which were disposed of by judgment since reported in [(1996) 3 UPLBEC 1869]. In the aforesaid judgment in paragraph 29, the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court has held that the reservation has to be applied subject-wise and the Professors of the Departments cannot be clubbed together and treated as one cadre for the purpose of applying reservation. The aforesaid observation has been construed in the impugned judgment to be a total prohibition for applying the reservation policy to the post of Professor. Further the Court in the impugned judgment is of the conclusion that because of a different selection mechanism for the post of Professor, principle of reservation will have no application. This judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Dr. Ram Niwas Pandey v. State of U.P. & Ors. [(1996) 3 UPLBEC 1869] was assailed before this Court. But this Court being of the opinion that no exception can be taken to the judgment, did not entertain the special leave petition. The very advertisement of the University which had been issued in the year 1995 and was the subject matter of challenge before the Allahabad High Court in the impugned judgment, had also come up for consideration before this Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Dr. Dina Nath Shukla & Anr. [JT 1997 (2) SC 467]. A Bench of two learned Judges of this Court construed the provisions of the Reservation Act and also the provisions of the University Statute and came to hold that it would not be permissible to club all posts of Professors together and then apply the principle of reservation. It was felt that if the total posts are advertised without subject-wise specification in every faculty, discipline, speciality or super-speciality, it would be difficult for the candidate to know as to which of the posts would be available either to the general or reserved candidate or whether or not they fulfil or qualify the requirements so as to apply for a particular post and seek selection. Necessarily therefore the Court approved a part of the earlier judgment of Allahabad High Court in Ram Niwas Pandey case (supra) even though that judgment had not been cited, by holding that the reservation has to be applied subject-wise and the Professors of all Departments cannot be clubbed together and treated as one cadre. The Court, however, interfered with the conclusion of the Allahabad High Court on the question as to whether there can at all be a reservation on a single post. The Court was of the opinion that if there exists any isolated post, rule of rotation be applied and by application of roster for appointment and for achieving the said objective the Vice Chancellor, who is responsible authority under Section 4 has to enforce the Act, would ensure that single post in each category of Professors, Readers or Lecturers carrying the same scale of pay would be subject to reservation by applying principle of rotation.

2. This conclusion of the Court in the aforesaid case of Dr. Dina Nath Shukla (supra) is no longer a good law in view of the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh since reported as JT 1998 (3) SC 223. Dr. Dina Nath Shukla relied upon the judgment in Madhav's case [JT 1996(9) SC 320]

3. It has been unequivocally held in the aforesaid Constitution Bench decision that there cannot be any reservation in respect of an isolated post and the judgment of this Court in Union of India & Anr. v. Madhav s/o. Gajanan Chaubal & Anr. [JT 1996 (9) SC 320] has been overruled on which judgment the Court had relied upon in the case of Dr. Dina Nath Shukla (supra).

4.