1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 5 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 5668 OF 2006 Nisha Prananath Khanolkar .. Appellant. vs. Deputy Director, Vocational Education & Training, Mumbai & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr. Amit Borkar for the appellant. Mr. R.M. Patane, AGP., for respondent no. 1. Mr. A.A. Joshi i/by P.M. Patwardhan & N.G. Helekar for Respondent Nos. 2 & 3. CORAM : J. N. PATEL, ACTING C.J. & B.R. GAVAI, JJ. DATE : 15TH JANUARY, 2010 P.C. : By the present appeal the appellant challenges the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 8.6.2007 thereby dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner. 2 2. Mr. Borkar, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that since the petitioner was appointed in M.C.V.C. for the subject of office management, the said post was an isolated post and there could not have been reservation for the said post. He submits that in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka and Ors. vs. K. Govindappa and Anr., reported in AIR 2009 SC 618, the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the petition. 3. The learned Single Judge while confirming the order passed by the learned School Tribunal found that the appointment of the petitioner was purely on temporary basis and that too also against a post reserved for backward classes. In that view of the matter, the learned Single Judge dismissed the petition and confirmed the order passed by the learned School Tribunal. 4. In the judgement cited above, the Apex Court has taken a view that since the post of Lecturer in History was a separate cadre and that there was no provision for inter­changeability of posts, the said post of Lecturer in History has to be treated as an isolated post. Same is not the case here. The post of instructors in M.C.V.C. forms a cadre and as such there is a plurality of post in the cadre of instructor in M.C.V.C. If a suitable candidate is not available 3 for the said post from backward classes, there is also a provision of inter­changeability. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to entertain the appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. ( J. N. PATEL, ACTING C. J.) ( B.R. GAVAI,, J.)