F. I. REBELLO, J.

( 1 ) RULE. Heard forthwith.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is presently holding the post of Reader in Mechanical engineering. It was earlier known as the University Institute of Chemical technology (UDCT) University of Mumbai. It is now the University Institute of chemical Technology. When the petitioner was appointed UDCT was the Department of respondent No. 1. It is the case of the petitioner that the post of reader in Mechanical Engineering with respondent No. 2 is an isolated post being the only post of its kind. The respondents have been unlawfully treating the said post as a reserved post. It is further set out that the post of Reader is incapable of being reserved as it is a post superior to the last post to the post of which reservation can be made, namely that of Lecturer.

( 3 ) IT is not necessary to refer various other pleading expect to the extent they are required. When the petitioner was first appointed it was pursuant to the advertisement dated 30th August, 1990 which appeared in the Times of india. The post was shown as reserved post in terms of the advertisement issued by respondent No. 1. As reserved candidate was not available the petitioner came to be appointed. The post was re-advertised once again on 19th july, 1991, 16th July, 1993, 21st May, 1994, 10th August, 1999 and 6th february, 1997. In the advertisement which appeared in the Indian Express of 14th August, 1995 it was pointed out that the post of reader in Mechanical engineering was not being re-advertised as it had already been advertised six times The petitioner continues to hold the post.

( 4 ) THE petitioner has annexed letter dated 24th March, 1998 of the University grants Commission. That letter shows that the policy of reservation in university and Collages was applicable for direct recruitment up to the posts of lecturers only. It is also set out that UGC had received communication from the national Commission S. C. /s. T. setting out that there is negligible representation of S. C. /s. T. at the level of Readers and Professors and asked for review of the matter. The Commission considered the matter in detail and decided that reservation can only be up to the level of Lecturer for S. C. /s. T candidates. In other words what is sought to be pointed out based on the letter of U. G. C. is that posts of Reader and Professors are not subject to reservation.

( 5 ) THE respondent No. 1 University in the case of candidate who has been duly selected against reserved post in the event a candidate belonging to reserved category is not available, after the post has been advertised five times and in sixth advertisement, it is shown as interchangeable, recommends to respondent No. 4 to de-reserve the post. This is in terms of the policy of respondent No. 4. In the instant case also the University wrote to respondent No. 4 to de-reserve the post. The respondent University received a communication dated 1st February, 2003 setting out that whilst issuing advertisement, the advertisement did not mention for which category of Backward class candidate the post is reserved. The advertisement was as if it was for all Backward Class candidates and as such it is not clear which particular post was reserved for which category and as such the University has recommended the case without following the proper procedure. In view of that University was informed that the post could not be de-reserved. The petitioner was thereafter informed by letter of 16th August, 2004 that the respondent no. 4 had rejected the proposal sent by the University and had directed to re-advertise the posts by following the procedure for inter-changeability.

( 6 ) ON behalf of the University an affidavit has been filed by Shri V. S. Gokhale, Deputy Registrar. It is pointed out that the post of Reader is not an isolated post as there are four posts and the reservation policy of the State government is binding on the University. There is reservation in all levels in teaching and