When the matter was carried to this Court, it set aside the order and remitted the matter to the High Court for reconsideration.
The learned single Judge observed that he felt bound by the Division Bench judgment in Dr. Parminder Kaur v. State of Punjab, 1976 1 Serv LR 502 1976 Lab IC 18 wherein it was held that a solitary vacancy in the relevant year cannot be treated as reserved one as that would amount to reservation of 100 in violation of Articles 14 and 16 1 of the Constitution.
He companytended that since it was the solitary post, reservation in favour of a Scheduled Caste would amount to 100 reservation violating Articles 16 1 and 14 of the Constitution.
As per Office Report dated September 13, 1996, the numberice sent to the first respondent was received back by the Registry with the postal endorsement No such person indicating avoidance thereof on his part.
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment passed by the High Court of Punjab Haryana, Chandigarh on 22nd November, 1995 in LPA No.
The admitted facts are that the first respondent, a general candidate, was appointed as a Junior Technical Assistant in the Department of Industries of the State of Punjab.
The said post was reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates as per the roster and in view of the judgment of this Court in Arathi Ray Choudhury v. Union of India Bhagat Ram, the second respondent who was a qualified candidate was companysidered and duly promoted to the said post.
The post of Assistant Superintendent, Quality Marking center, Textile , i.e., in the next promotional cadre, is the single post in that cadre.
Thus though he was inclined to take the view that Constitutionally it was permissible, in view of the Division Bench judgment in Dr. Parminder Kaur s case he allowed the writ petition.
The Division Bench by the impugned judgment held thus Consequently, we are of the view that since it is a single post cadre, there companyld number be any reservation at all and the question of applicability of Parminder Kaurs case supra also does number arise on the facts of the present case.
Thus this appeal by special leave.
The first respondent, feeling aggrieved, filed writ petition in the High Court seeking relief in the form of a mandamus or direction to the Government to dereserve the carried forward post and to companysider his case for promotion as a general candidate.
Consequently, he was set ex parte.
The second respondent was directed to file companynter affidavit.
Leave granted.
We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and the second respondent.
351 of 1981.
On appeal, it was affirmed by the Division Bench.
