1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No 1495 of 2016

R R Inamdar

.... Appellant(s)

Versus

State of Karnataka & Ors

....Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J

This appeal arises from a judgment of a Division Bench of the High

Court of Karnataka dated 17 November 2015. The High Court, while

dismissing the Writ Appeal filed by the appellant, confirmed the judgment of

a learned Single Judge dated 1 October 2015 holding that since there was

a solitary post of a Lecturer in English, the appellant could not have been

appointed to the post on the basis of reservation and that the fifth

respondent, who was senior to the appellant, had a valid claim and

entitlement to the post.

The appeal relates to the services of the appellant and the fifth

respondent in an institution known as Sri Jagadaguru Annadaneshwari High

School at Mundaragi, Gadag District of the State of Karnataka. The fifth

respondent was appointed as a teacher on 2 November 1988 and is senior

Digitally signed by

SANJAY KUMAR

Date: 2019.12.05

17:09:47 IST

Reason:

Signature Not Verified

2

to the appellant, who was appointed on 1 December 1990. The appellant

belongs to a Scheduled Caste. On the retirement of the then incumbent

Lecturer in English on 31 March 2002, the post fell vacant. The appellant

was promoted to the post on 28 September 2002 on the basis of roster

points. The appointment of the appellant was approved by the Director of

Pre-University Education on 28 September 2002. The fifth respondent

challenged the approval initially by filing a writ petition before the Karnataka

High Court. By an order dated 2 March 2005, the fifth respondent was

relegated to the remedy of a revision before the Director of Pre-University

Education, Bangalore. The revision and a further review came to be

dismissed by the Director of Pre-University Education on 3 May 2006 and

by the Commissioner on 23 February 2007. The Government of Kerala

dismissed the appeal filed by the fifth respondent on 12 November 2008.

The fifth respondent then moved the High Court in a writ petition under

Article 226 which was allowed by a judgment of the learned Single Judge

dated 1 October 2015. The learned Single Judge held that the post of

Lecturer in English was a solitary post and in view of the law laid down by

this Court in State of Karnataka v K Govindappa¹, the post could not have

been reserved. This view of the learned Single Judge was approved in a

writ appeal by the Division Bench on 17 November 2015 which gave rise to

the proceedings before this Court.

At the outset, it would be necessary to note that the decision of the

two-Judge Bench of this Court in K Govindappa (supra), which has been

followed by the learned Single Judge as well as by the Division Bench in

1 (2009) 1 SCC 1

3

appeal, dealt with the issue as to whether all posts of Lecturers taken

together constituted a cadre for the purpose of reservation or whether a

solitary post of Lecturer in History which was not interchangeable with other

posts constituted a separate cadre. The High Court held that the post of a

Lecturer in History could not be construed to be a cadre together with all

other posts of Lecturer. This Court noted that the Constitution Bench in

Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research v Faculty

Association² had approved the view in Dr. Chakradhar Paswan v State

of Bihar³ to the effect that there could be no reservation in respect of a

single post. This was, however, sought to be distinguished by the State in

K Govindappa (supra). This Court held:

“While there can be no difference of opinion that the expressions

"cadre", "post" and "service" cannot be equated with each other, at the

same time the submission that single and isolated posts in respect of

different disciplines cannot exist as a separate cadre cannot be

accepted. In order to ap