Calicut University's PwD Reservation Method Flawed; Rework Roster Horizontally As Per KS&SSR, Protect Existing Appointees: Kerala High Court - 2025-06-02

Kerala High Court Orders Calicut University to Rework Faculty Reservation Roster, Protects Existing Appointments

Ernakulam: The Kerala High Court, in a significant ruling, has found the University of Calicut's method of implementing reservation for Persons with Disabilities (PwD) in Assistant Professor appointments to be flawed and contrary to established legal principles. Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. directed the University to rework its rotation roster in strict accordance with a prior Division Bench judgment (Ext.P6) that mandated horizontal application of PwD reservation, while also ensuring that the appointments already made under the disputed notification are not disturbed.

The judgment was delivered on May 22, 2025, in a batch of writ petitions challenging the selection process initiated by the University's notification dated December 31, 2019, for 63 Assistant Professor posts across various departments.

Background of the Dispute: Flawed Roster Points

The crux of the petitioners' grievance was the University's decision to create three additional roster points—1A, 26A, and 51A—to accommodate the 4% reservation for PwD candidates as mandated by Section 34 of The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act). Petitioners argued that this method violated Section 6(2) of the Calicut University Act, which makes the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958 (KS&SSR) applicable to university appointments. They contended that PwD reservation should be applied horizontally, without altering the existing 100-point roster and the social reservation turns (for SC/ST/OBCs), thereby ensuring the integrity of the rotation.

The Guiding Precedent: Ext.P6 Judgment

The High Court heavily relied on its own Division Bench judgment in Writ Appeal No.1527/21 (referred to as Ext.P6 in the current case), which had already adjudicated on a similar challenge concerning the same notification. In Ext.P6, the Division Bench held that: * Creating additional slots (1A, 26A, 51A) for PwD reservation was a violation of KS&SSR. * It contravened the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in cases like Indra Sawhney and Others v. Union of India , Rajesh Kumar Daria v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission , and Anil Kumar Gupta and Others v. State of U.P. , which distinguish between vertical (social) and horizontal (special, like PwD) reservations. * Horizontal reservation must be applied by placing selected PwD candidates into their respective social categories (SC/ST/OBC/Open) without disrupting the overall percentage of social reservations.

The Supreme Court had subsequently upheld the Ext.P6 judgment.

University's "Reworked" Roster Found Non-Compliant

Following Ext.P6, the University submitted a "re-worked" rotation chart (Ext.R1(a)). However, the petitioners argued, and Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. agreed, that this new chart was merely a "cosmetic change" and did not implement the Ext.P6 directions in letter and spirit. The Court noted: > "Earlier, in the initial selection process, the additional slots were created by providing 1A, 26A and 51A. Now the said slots are deleted from the rotation chart by reducing the number of posts to 60 from 63. Thereafter, a separate chart of three persons with physical disabilities were created... Therefore, Ext.R1(a) cannot be treated as a rotation chart re-worked in terms of the directions issued by this Court." (Para 25)

The Court reiterated the correct procedure as outlined in Ext.P6: > "…the University should have first filled up slots in the roster due to open competition candidates and candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes, and should have thereupon examined the number of candidates belonging to the category “persons with disabilities” who could secure the appointments. Insofar as three persons are entitled to appointment in that process, the shortfall, if any, should have been made up by adjusting/accommodating the required number of candidates belonging to the category “persons with disabilities” against their respective social reservation categories." (Para 17 of Ext.P6, quoted in Para 20 of current judgment)

Balancing Equities: Protection for Appointed Candidates

While finding the University's reservation methodology faulty, the Court decided against unsettling the appointments of the Assistant Professors selected under the 2019 notification. These individuals (party respondents) had been serving since 2021. The Court considered: * The significant time elapsed (nearly four years). * Many appointees had resigned from previous substantive posts. * Several had crossed the age of 40, limiting future employment prospects. * No fraud or misrepresentation was attributed to the appointees; the error lay with the University's incorrect application of reservation policy.

Citing Supreme Court precedents like Ritesh Tewari and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others , Girjesh Shrivastava and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others , and Sivanandan C.T and Others v. High Court of Kerala and Ors. , the Court emphasized that its discretionary power under Article 226 should advance justice and consider public interest. The Division Bench in Ext.P6 had also indicated that the roster rework should occur notionally, possibly by creating supernumerary posts to protect those already appointed.

Challenge to University Act Provision Dismissed

A challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 6(2) of the Calicut University Act was dismissed by the Court, citing the Division Bench decision in State of Kerala and Others v. Dr.G. Radhakrishna Pillai and Ors. , which had upheld an analogous provision in the Kerala University Act.

Final Directions

The High Court disposed of the writ petitions with the following key directions: 1. The University of Calicut is directed to rework the rotation chart for Assistant Professor appointments (pursuant to notification dated 31.12.2019) by strictly following the directions issued by the High Court in W.A No 1527/2021 (Ext.P6) . 2. The appointments already granted to the party respondents based on the said notification will not be interfered with. 3. The University must issue appropriate orders implementing these directions within three months from the date of receipt of the judgment copy.

This judgment reinforces the legal distinction between vertical and horizontal reservations and underscores the necessity for appointing authorities to adhere strictly to the prescribed roster system to ensure fairness and transparency in public employment.