1. This appeal by grant of special leave is directed against the judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 11-5-1988

2. The appellant-society is running a Girls High School at Nagpur. The school, at the relevant time, was governed by the Maharashtra Employees of the Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977. In view of the retirement of Mrs. Kenekar, as Headmistress of the High School on 30-9-1984 a vacancy arose for the post of Headmistress. The appellant-society appointed the respondent, Mrs. Kishori Deshpande as Headmistress with effect from 1-10-1984. A provisional approval for the said appointment was given by the Education Officer, Zila Parishad, Nagpur.

3. One Mrs. Chetna Motghare, respondent 3 herein sent an application to the Director of Education, Pune on 14/4/1987 stating that she was a Scheduled Caste candidate and serving in the school since 1977 and as such under the prevailing system it was her turn to be appointed as Headmistress. On the above representation, the Education Officer, Zila Parishad, Nagpur, by letter dated 7/5/1987 cancelled the approval of Mrs. Kishori Deshpande as Headmistress, earlier given by him. He also directed that the claim of Mrs. Chetna Motghare, be considered for appointment as Headmistress. The appellant-society then filed a writ petition in the High Court for quashing the communication dated 7/5/1987. The High Court following the decision of this Court in Arati Ray Choudhury v. Union of India dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant-society.

4. Aggrieved against the said order the appellant-society has come before this Court. It was contended on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant that in a later decision of this Court in Dr. Chakradhar paswan v. State of Bihar the earlier decision of Arati Ray Choudhury case has been distinguished and it has been squarely laid down that if there was only one post in the cadre, there can be no reservation under Article 16 (4) of the Constitution.

5. After the aforesaid decision in Dr. Chakradhar case the Government of Maharashtra also issued a circular dated 1/3/1989 whereby it was laid down as under.

"2. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Chakradhar Paswan v. State of Bihar, in Civil Appeal No. 2315/81 decided on 18/3/1988 it was held that when there is only one isolated post and while filling up the post or in case of vacancy which is likely to arise in future, and if it is filled as per the reservation policy under Article 16 (4) of the Constitution of India, that amounts to creation of monopoly. Therefore, if a reservation is made for a single post in the beginning of the year for the purpose of filling up the same in future, by way of promotion, that will amount to being unconstitutional.

3. In view of the law laid down by the highest Court, the Government hereby directs that when there is isolated post which arose in the beginning or in future year at the time of promotion, the principle of reservation would not apply and that post would be treated as unreserved post." *

6. In our view, the decision given by this Court in Dr. Chakradhar Paswan case concludes the controversy raised in the case before us. It is an admitted position that there is only one post of Headmistress in the High School run by the appellant-society and as such there cannot be any reservation on such post. We accordingly allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court and quash the communication addressed by respondent 1 - the Education Officer - to the appellant-society date 7/5/1987.
7. There will be no order as to costs.