The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of reservation policies under Order Annexure-C and Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India in the appointment process.

( 1 ) THE petitioner in this petition was an applicant for the post of Lecturer-cum-Assistant Surgeon in the Department of Cardiology at Sri Jayadeva Institute of Cardiology (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1st respondent-Institution' ). In this petition, at the first instance the petitioner had called in question the appointment of respondents 2 and 3 and one Dr. P. Vijaya Kumar. However, since during the pendency of this petition the said Dr. P. Vijaya kumar had tendered his resignation and one Dr. Chandran was appointed to the said post, the said Dr. Chandran has been impleaded as the 4th respondent and his appointment has been called in question.

( 2 ) SRI V. C. Brahmarayappa, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, challenged the selection of respondents 2 and 3 in preference to the claim of the petitioner on two grounds. Firstly, he submitted that since the petitioner had acquired the qualification of super speciality in Cardiology and the appointment of Lecturer-cum-Assistant Surgeon was required to be made in the Department of Cardiology, the petitioner who had a better qualification and more. meritorious than respondents 2 and 3 should have been selected and appointed to the said post. Secondly, he submitted that as per the notification issued calling for the application, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-B, out of the three posts notified for appointment, one post was reserved for Scheduled Castes, one post was reserved for Scheduled Tribe and the remaining one post was made available for the General Merit category; and since there was no candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribe, the petitioner who belongs to Backward Tribe category should have been considered for the post reserved for the Scheduled Tribe, instead of appointing respondents 2 and 3 who belong to General merit category, in view of the Government Order bearing No. DPAR 28 SBC 86, dated 12th December, 1986, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-C. Elaborating this submission, sri Brahmarayappa submitted that in Annexure-C, it is clearly specified that in case a candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribe is not available, the post reserved to the Scheduled Tribe should be filled-up by recruiting a candidate belonging to Scheduled caste, and if a candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste is not available, then the candidate belonging to Group 'a' i. e. Backward Tribe must be considered for appointment. He further submitted that it was not permissible for the 1st respondent-Institution to select respondents 2 and 3 or any one of them to the post reserved for Scheduled Tribe as against the claim of the petitioner. It is his further contention that the stand taken by the 1st respondent-Institution that the Government order Annexure-C was not applicable to it is totally erroneous in law and since the case of the petitioner was not admittedly considered with reference to the Government Order Annexure-C in so far as the post reserved to Scheduled Tribe candidate is concerned, a direction will have to be issued by this Court to the 1st respondent-Institution to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as Lecturer-cum-Assistant Surgeon from the date on which respondents 2 and 3 came to be appointed, and if the petitioner is found suitable to be appointed, a further direction is also required to be given to the 1st respondent-Institution to give continuity of service to the petitioner from the said date either by creating a supernumerary post if there is no vacancy or in the event of a vacancy being available, to appoint the petitioner to the existing vacancy.

( 3 ) SRI B. L. Acharya, learned Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent-Institution, submitted that the 1st respondent-Institution is an Autonomous Institution and therefore the Government Order relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not apply to it. Further, he submitted that the 1st respondent did not take any decision to apply the s