As per case facts, this Review Petition stemmed from conflicting Supreme Court decisions regarding reservation policies, specifically on whether reservation for backward classes could be implemented in a single cadre ... post, either directly or through a roster system. The Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research Chandigarh was involved in this dispute. Earlier judgments varied, with some, like Madhav's case, upholding roster-based reservation for single posts, while others, such as Chakradhar Paswan's case, ruled against it, arguing it would lead to impermissible 100 percent reservation. This created a need for a definitive ruling on the matter. The question arose as to whether reservation for backward classes, including Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, could be made in a single cadre post, either directly or by applying the rotation of roster point, given these conflicting precedents. Finally, the Supreme Court, after reviewing multiple precedents, definitively held that there cannot be any reservation in a single cadre post. The Court explicitly disapproved of previous reasonings that had upheld reservation in single cadre posts through roster rotation, such as those in Madhav's and Brij Lal Thakur's cases. It concluded that any attempt at reservation in a single cadre post, even with a rotation device, would effectively result in 100% reservation whenever implemented. This was deemed impermissible as it would unfairly exclude other community members from open competition, particularly in higher echelons of service requiring special expertise. Consequently, the Review Petition was allowed, and the impugned decision was set aside.