JUDGMENT
Hrishikesh Roy, J.
1. The writ petitioner has come before this court to challenge the selection of respondent No. 4 to the post of Manager, Printing & Stationary Department, Government Press, Tripura and seeking a further direction for appointment of the petitioner to the said post. The said post of Manager is to be filled up on the basis of selection to be made by the Tripura Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the TPSC) and the contention of the writ petitioner is that by virtue of holding the post of Superintendent in the same office, the writ petitioner was holding an appropriate post which makes him eligible for being considered for selection to the post of Manager. It has been contended that a recruitment process for the said post was initiated in the year 1986 and although the writ petitioner appeared in the selection held by the TPSC, the appointment did not fructify through the said process. Thereafter, the TPSC brought out an advertisement on 15.11.1997 (Annexure-1) seeking application from intending candidates for consideration to the post of Manager. In the advertisement, the post has been indicated to be one reserved for ST category candidates only. The petitioner being a person who belongs to general category, was naturally not entitled to apply in response to the aforesaid advertisement and it appears that in pursuance of the selection held an offer of appointment on 7.11.1998 was made to the respondent No. 4 for the said post of Manager and the respondent No. 4 joined in the post of Manager following the said offer made to him. As has already been indicated, the selection and appointment of the respondent No. 4 is under challenge in the present writ petition. It may be noted herein that in the present case, notices were issued to all the respondents including the private respondent No. 4 whose selection is under challenge. The office report dated 11.9.2001 indicates that the notice issued by this court was duly served on respondent No. 4. However, the respondent No. 4 has chosen not to appear in the present proceedings despite service of notice.
2. Mr. Biswas, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the post of Manager is a lone post and there could not have been any reservation in respect of such lone post. The petitioner on the basis of the said contention has argued that keeping the petitioner out of reckoning by issuing an advertisement keeping the post reserved for ST category has deprived him of his legitimate right guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India for being considered for the said post of Manager. In support of the said contention, Mr. Biswas, learned Counsel has drawn attention of this court to the five-Judges’ decision of the Apex Court (Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research v. Faculty Association and Ors.). The decision reported in (1998) 2 SCC 214 (Dr. Chakradhar Paswan v. State of Bihar and Ors.) has also been pressed into service in support of the contention made that there cannot be any reservation to a single post for which selection and appointment is to be made.
3. In Dr. Chakradhar Paswan’s case (supra) the Supreme court held that for a single post cadre, no reservation can be made for backward classes. In the later decision rendered by five-Judges of the Supreme court in Post Graduate Institute’s case (supra) by approving the decision in the Chakradhar’s case and after clarifying the doubts created by the judgments rendered in some other cases of the Supreme Court it has been laid down that in a single post cadre, reservation at any point of time on account of rotation or roster is bound to bring about a situation where such a single post in the cadre will be kept reserved exclusively for the members of the backward classes and in total exclusion of the general members. Such total exclusion and 100 per cent reservation is not permissible within the constitutional framework. The Supreme Court has further reiterated that, decision of the Apex Court in such directions have been consistent over the years.
4. Considered in the light of the aforesaid decision relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, this court is of the view that the reservation of the lone post of Manager for ST category candidates and selection made to the said post of respondent No. 4, who belongs to ST category, by keeping out of the contention the other candidates including the petitioner who belongs to general category, has resulted in manifest injustice and it is a clear case where equal opportunity in matters of public employment as envisaged under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India has been violated. This court is accordingly of the view that unless there is plurality of posts, reservation should not be enforced and lone post or single cadre post should be posts, where all categories should have the right of equal consideration. Positive discrimination for the backward classes is not permissible when only a single post is available in a particular grade or cadre.
5. As regards the contention raised that a direction may be issued for appointment of the petitioner to the said post, this court is of the view that such direction cannot be issued and the only direction that is possible, on quashing of the appointment of respondent No. 4, is to direct the respondent-authorities to take up a process for selection and appointment to the post of Manager by treating the post to be open for all categories of eligible persons.
6. In view of above, the selection and appointment of the respondent No. 4 to the post of Manager, Printing & Stationary department, Government Press, Tripura pursuant to the advertisement of the TPSC. dated 15.11.1997 is set aside and quashed. The respondent-authorities are further directed to consider the said post as an open post as and when they go for fresh selection and appointment to the said post of Manager. The writ petitioner along with other eligible candidates may also apply and be considered when such selection process is undertaken by the respondent-authorities.
7. With the above direction, this writ petition is allowed. No costs.