Holding

Reservation cannot be applied to a solitary post; each single post in a discipline is a separate cadre, so the appellant's appointment under reservation is invalid.

Summary

The appellant, R.R. Inamdar, a Scheduled Caste teacher, was promoted to the solitary post of Lecturer in English in a Karnataka school based on roster points. The senior fifth respondent, who was appointed earlier, challenged the appointment, arguing that reservation under Article 16(4) could not apply to a solitary post. The High Court held that the post was solitary and could not be reserved, granting the respondent a claim to the post. The Supreme Court affirmed the principle that reservation requires a plurality of posts within a cadre and that each single post in a discipline constitutes a separate cadre, rendering the reservation-based appointment invalid. The Court dismissed the appeal, ordered that no salary be recovered from the appellant, fixed the respondent's pay notionally for retirement calculations, and directed the State to consider creating an additional or supernumerary post and to promote the respondent promptly.

Issues considered

Whether a solitary post of Lecturer in English can be subject to reservation under Article 16(4) of the Constitution.
Whether each single post in a discipline must be treated as a separate cadre for the purpose of reservation.
Whether a state circular can override Supreme Court jurisprudence on reservation.
What appropriate relief should be granted to the appellant and respondent regarding salary, promotion, and creation of posts.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Art.16(4)

Subjects

reservationsolitary postArticle 16(4)cadreservice lawteacher appointmentseniorityKarnataka

Judgment

[2019] 14 S.C.R. 505 505

R. R. INAMDAR A
v.
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No 1495 of 2016)
NOVEMBER 28, 2019 B
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.]
Service Law: Reservation – Solitary post – Appellant-teacher
belonged to Scheduled Caste – Fifth respondent-teacher was senior
C
to her – When a post of Lecturer in English fell vacant, appellant
was promoted to the said post on the basis of roster points – Fifth
respondent challenged the appointment before High Court – High
Court held that the post of Lecturer in English was a solitary post
and that the appellant could not have been appointed to the post
on the basis of reservation and the fifth respondent who was senior D
to the appellant had a valid claim and entitlement to the post – On
appeal, held: There can be no reservation of a solitary post and
that in order to apply the rule of reservation within a cadre, there
must be a plurality of posts – Where there is no interchangeability
of the posts in different disciplines, each single post in a particular
E
discipline has to be treated as a single post for the purpose of
reservation within the meaning of Art.16(4) of the Constitution –
There was no error in the judgment of High Court – Prayer of the
appellant that she continued to work as a Lecturer in English since
her appointment in 2002 and during the pendency of appeal, she
was also protected by an order of status quo; that the proposal of F
the management to the State of Karnataka for her appointment to a
second post was not acceded to – In view of the prayer of the
appellant, the State of Karnataka is requested to consider the matter
afresh – Since the appellant has been working as a Lecturer in
English since 2002, no recovery be made from her for the period
G
during which she has worked – As regards the fifth respondent, her
pay shall be fixed notionally for the purpose of computing the salary
which will be payable to her effective from the date of her joining
as Lecturer in English and in the ultimate computation of her retiral
dues on the date on which she attains superannuation – Fifth
H
505
506 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 14 S.C.R.

A respondent to be considered for promotion in pursuance of the
directions issued by the High Court expeditiously – Constitution of
India – Art.16(4) – Reservation.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. There can be no reservation of a solitary post
B and that in order to apply the rule of reservation within a cadre,
there must be a plurality of posts. Where there is no
interchangeability of the posts in different disciplines, each single
post in a particular discipline has to be treated as a single post
for the purpose of reservation within the meaning of Article 16(4)
C of the Constitution. If this principle were not to be followed,
reservation would be in breach of the ceiling governed by the
decisions of this Court. A circular cannot take away the binding
effect of the decisions of this Court interpreting the policy of
reservation in the context of Article 16(4). [Paras 9 and 10][511-
A-C]
D
2. The State of Karnataka is requested to consider afresh
the request of the management for the creation of an additional
post if such a request falls within the parameters of the rules or
regulations of the State of Karnataka. In the event that it is not
possible for the State of Karnataka to create another post under
E its rules and regulations, the State of Karnataka shall consider,
in the alternative, the creation of a supernumerary post for such
period until a substantive post is made available, having regard
to the fact that the fifth respondent is due to attain the age of
superannuation. [Para 12][511-F-G]
F 3. Since the appellant has continued to work as a Lecturer
in English since 28 September 2002, it would be appropriate to
direct that no recovery should be made from the appellant for
the period during which she has worked. Insofar as the fifth
respondent is concerned, her pay shall be fixed notionally for the
G purpose of computing the salary which will be payable to her
effective from the date of her joining as Lecturer in English and
in the ultimate computation of her retiral dues on the date on
which she attains superannuation. The fifth respondent shall be
considered for promotion in pursuance of the directions issued
by the High Court expeditiously. [Paras 13 and 14][511-H; 512-
H A-C]
R. R. INAMDAR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. 507

Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and A
Research v. Faculty Association (1988) 2 SCC 214 :
[1998] 2 SCR 845 – Followed
State of Karnataka v. K Govindappa (2009) 1 SCC 1 :
[2008] 16 SCR 457 – relied on
Dr. Chakradhar Paswan v. State of Bihar (1988) 2 SCC B
214 : [1988] 3 SCR 130; State of Uttar Pradesh v.
Bharat Singh (2011) 4 SCC 120 : [2011] 4 SCR 525;
Sanjeev Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh Civil Appeal
Nos 6385-6386 of 2010 – referred to
Case Law Reference C
[2008] 16 SCR 457 relied on Para 2
[1998] 2 SCR 845 followed Para 3
[1988] 3 SCR 130 referred to Para 3
[2011] 4 SCR 525 referred to Para 5 D
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1495
of 2016.
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.11.2015 of the High Court
of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench in Writ Appeal No. 100790 of 2015
(PRO). E

S.N. Bhat, N.P.S. Panwar, Advs. for the Appellant.
Chandrashekhar A. Chakalabbi, Shiv Pandey, Awanish Kumar,
Anshul, V. N. Raghupathy, Manendra Pal Gupta, Prakash Jadhav, Advs.
for the Respondents. F
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
1. 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 G
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. H
508 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 14 S.C.R.

A 2. 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 to the appellant, who was appointed on 1 December 1990.
The appellant belongs to a Scheduled Caste. On the retirement of the
B
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
C 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
D
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
E 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.
3. At the outset, it would be necessary to note that the decision of
F 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 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
G 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 Association2had approved the
1
(2009) 1 SCC 1
H 2
(1998) 4 SCC 1
R. R. INAMDAR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. 509
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J]

view in Dr. Chakradhar Paswan v State of Bihar3 to the effect that A
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, B
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 apply the rule of reservation
within a cadre, there has to be plurality of posts. Since there
is no scope of inter-changeability of posts in the different
disciplines, each single post in a particular discipline has C
to be treated as a single post for the purpose of reservation
within the meaning of Article 16(4) of the Constitution. In
the absence of duality of posts, if the rule of reservation is
to be applied, it will offend the constitutional bar against
100% reservation as envisaged in Article 16(1) of the D
Constitution.” (emphasis supplied)
4. The Court held that the case fell within the category of a single
or isolated post within a cadre in respect of which the rule of reservation
was inapplicable. In other words, each discipline which consisted of a
single post was required to be dealt with as a separate cadre for the said E
discipline, particularly, having regard to the fact that the several disciplines
were confined only to one college.
5. A similar issue arose in a subsequent decision in State of Uttar
Pradesh v Bharat Singh4, where this Court held that:
“It is abundantly clear from the above that the attribute of F
interchangeability and transferability is missing in the case
of Principals - in much the same measure as in the case of
teachers, in the lower cadre. We have, therefore, no
hesitation in holding that there is no cadre of Principals
serving in different aided and affiliated institutions and that G
the Principal’s post is a solitary post in an institution.
Reservation of such a post is clearly impermissible not only because
the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled
3
(1988) 2 SCC 214
4
(2011) 4 SCC 120 H
510 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 14 S.C.R.

A Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994
provides for reservation based on the `cadre strength’ in aided
institutions but also because such strength being limited to only
one post in the cadre is legally not amenable to reservations in the
light of the pronouncement of this Court to which we shall presently
refer.”
B
(emphasis supplied)
6. We may also note at this stage that on 19 January 2017, a two-
Judge Bench of this Court in Sanjeev Kumar v State of Uttar Pradesh5
affirmed a similar view of the Allahabad High Court, observing as follows:
C “We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. We are
in agreement with the view taken in the impugned judgment. The
judgment of the High Court is accordingly affirmed.
The civil appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.

D Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.”
7. These decisions were sought to be distinguished by Mr S N
Bhat, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, by relying on
a circular of the State of Karnataka dated 31 May 1991. The following
provisions of the circular were in particular sought to be emphasised:
E “The roster system be maintained unit-wise (i.e, one school or
college is an unit even if the management is running more than
one school or colleges). The roster should be maintained for the
teaching and non teaching staff separately and not subject-wise
as is being done now.”
F 8. Mr Bhat urged that the above provisions would demonstrate
that the roster has to be maintained unit-wise so that each school or
college would be treated as a unit in a situation where a management is
running more than one institution. Moreover, the roster is to be maintained
for the teaching and non-teaching staff separately and not subject-wise.
The submission was that the circular dated 31 May 1991 did not fall for
G consideration before the two-Judge Bench in K Govindappa (supra).
9. We are unable to accept the submission for more than one
reason. The circular dated 31 May 1991 is prior to the decision of the
Constitution Bench in Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education
5
H Civil Appeal Nos 6385-6386 of 2010
R. R. INAMDAR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. 511
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J]

and Research (supra). As a matter of fact, the circular is prior to the A
decision in K Govindappa (supra) as well. The principle which has
been enunciated by this Court is that there can be no reservation of a
solitary post and that in order to apply the rule of reservation within a
cadre, there must be a plurality of posts. Where there is no
interchangeability of the posts in different disciplines, each single post in
B
a particular discipline has to be treated as a single post for the purpose
of reservation within the meaning of Article 16(4) of the Constitution. If
this principle were not to be followed, reservation would be in breach of
the ceiling governed by the decisions of this Court. A circular, of the
nature that has been issued by the State of Karnataka, cannot take away
the binding effect of the decisions of this Court interpreting the policy of C
reservation in the context of Article 16(4).
10. For the above reasons, we are of the view that the judgment
of the High Court cannot be faulted and is consistent with the law which
has been laid down by this Court.
11. However, in the alternative, Mr Bhat has submitted that the D
appellant has continued to work as a Lecturer in English since her
appointment on 28 September 2002 and during the pendency of this
appeal, she has been protected by an order of status quo since 16
February 2016. He stated that the management has submitted a proposal
to the State of Karnataka for the appointment of the appellant to a second E
post which was not acceded to by the State of Karnataka.
12. We would request the State of Karnataka to consider afresh
the request of the management for the creation of an additional post if
such a request falls within the parameters of the rules or regulations of
the State of Karnataka. This exercise be completed expeditiously and F
within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified
copy of this order. In the event that it is not possible for the State of
Karnataka to create another post under its rules and regulations, the
State of Karnataka shall consider, in the alternative, the creation of a
supernumerary post for such period until a substantive post is made
available, having regard to the fact that the fifth respondent is due to G
attain the age of superannuation in approximately three years and seven
months from today.
13. Since the appellant has continued to work as a Lecturer in
English since 28 September 2002, it would be appropriate to direct that
H
512 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 14 S.C.R.

A no recovery should be made from the appellant for the period during
which she has worked. Insofar as the fifth respondent is concerned, her
pay shall be fixed notionally for the purpose of computing the salary
which will be payable to her effective from the date of her joining as
Lecturer in English and in the ultimate computation of her retiral dues on
the date on which she attains superannuation. We are not granting any
B
benefits by way of payment of arrears of salary for the period during
which the fifth respondent did not work as a Lecturer in English, since
payment has already been made to the appellant.
14. We further direct that the fifth respondent shall be considered
for promotion in pursuance of the directions issued by the High Court
C expeditiously within one month from the date of receipt of a certified
copy of this order.
15. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order
as to costs.
D
Devika Gujral Appeal disposed of.

E

F

G

H