1. Challenge to appointments of reserved category candidates in university posts following the adoption of state recruitment rules for special recruitment. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1997 Supreme(SC) 534
1997(3) Supreme 693
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy & S. Saghir Ahmad, JJ.
University of Cochin, Rep. by its Registrar University of Cochin etc. -Appellants
versus
N.S. Kanjoonjamma & Ors. etc. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2223 of 1985
With
Civil Appeal No. 2224 of 1985
Decided on 20-3-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : K. John Mathew, Sr. Advocate, (E.M.S. Anam) Advocate (NP), N. Sudhakaran, K.R.R. Pillai, Advocates.
Important Points
The Court held that special recruitment for SC/ST under adopted Rules 14 to 17-A is valid without a separate special reservation rule and is not subject to general recruitment rules prioritizing in-service candidates. Additionally, candidates participating in the selection process are estopped from challenging the procedure.
Subject
Employment - Reservation in Promotion
Act Referred
Headnote
SERVICE LAW-Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules-Rules 14 & 17-A-Rules adopted by University so as to be applicable in recruitment-By resolution non-teaching posts in Class I, Class III & Class IV made available for application of rule of reservation in the matter of promotion to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes-Post of Deputy Registrar and Assistant Registrar were advertised and respondents 3 & 4 were selected by Selection Committee and were appointed-When general rules were made applicable, there was no necessity by the University to make special reservation rules-Respondent No. 1 having participated in the selection was estopped to challenge correctness of procedure-Omission to mention in advertisement that it was a special recruitment was of no consequence-High Court was in error in allowing the writ. (Para 4)
(ii) SERVICE LAW-Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules-Rule 4 proviso (1)-Advertisement for recruitment to fill up post of Deputy Registrar and Assistant Registrar of University-Appointment challenged on ground that Rule provides when duly qualified candidates were available, appointment shall be made to them-Rule is applicable to general recruitment-For special recruitment of candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, Rules 14 to 17-A were attracted-Resolution applying Rule 4 was even subsequent to the appointment and had no retrospective effect-High Court was in error in allowing writ. (Para 4)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether appointments were illegal due to absence of specific special recruitment rules and whether direct recruitment was permissible when in-service candidates were available. (Para 2 )
3. Adoption of general reservation rules suffices for special recruitment; participation in selection creates estoppel; general recruitment rules regarding candidate availability do not apply to special recruitment. (Para 4 )
4. Special recruitment for reserved categories under specific rules overrides general recruitment rules regarding the availability of qualified in-service candidates. (Para 4 )
5. Appeals allowed and writ petition dismissed. (Para 5 )
6. Does the adoption of general reservation rules necessitate a separate special reservation rule for special recruitment?
No. When general rules regarding reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are adopted, there is no necessity for the authority to create a separate special reservation rule for special recruitment. (Para 4 )
7. Can a candidate challenge the recruitment procedure after participating in the selection process?
No. A candidate who has participated in the selection process is estopped from challenging the correctness of the procedure. (Para 4 )
8. Does the requirement to prioritize qualified in-service candidates apply to special recruitment for reserved categories?
No. Rules requiring the appointment of duly qualified available candidates apply to general recruitment, but not to special recruitment of candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes under specific reservation rules. (Para 4 )
ORDER
These appeals by special leave arise from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, made on February 13, 1985 in OP No. 5366/1982. The contesting first respondent, a Section Officer in the University, appointed by direct recruitment, challenged the promotion of V. Vasudevan as Deputy Registrar and P.K. Sudhakaran as Assistant Registrar of the Cochin University. The facts are that the Syndicate in its Resolution dated December 3, 1980 adopted Rules 14 to 17-A of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules (for short, the Rules ) so as to be applicable to the University in the matter of recruitment. The Syndicate in its meeting dated January 20, 1981 resolved that non-teaching posts in the University in Class I, Class III and Class IV would be made available for application of rule of reservation in the matter of promotion to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. In Resolution dated March 7, 1981, the Syndicate further resolved that special recruitment to six vacant posts be advertised for recruitment of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes declaring them to reserved posts. By further Resolution dated October 1, 1981, it resolved to recommend constitution of Staff Selection Committee for recruitment of those candidates. By a further Resolution dated June 4, 1982, the Syndicate authorised the Vice-Chancellor to constitute the Selection Committee to make selection. Accordingly, the Vice-Chancellor constituted a Selection Committee. The advertisement was made for recruitment to fill up the said six posts. The respondents 3 and 4, candidates above-named and the first respondent along with others applied for the said posts and were interviewed by the Selection Committee on July 17, 1982. It selected and the appointment of respondents 3 and 4 came to be made on July 20, 1982. Accordingly, the Syndicate approved of the selection by its proceedings of the even date and appointed respondents 3 and 4 as Deputy Registrar and Assistant Registrar respectively.
2. The first respondent, as stated earlier, filed writ petition in the High Court questioning the correctness of the appointment of Respondents 3 and 4 on the ground that when selection was made, there was no rule for special recruitment of the reserved candidates. The Rules have not been specifically applied for special recruitment and, therefore, the selection and appointment of the respondents is not in accordance with law. The Rule is when in service candidates were available, direct recruitment could not be resorted to. That contention found favour with the High Court. Thus, these appeals by special leave.
3. The only question that arises for consideration is: whether the view taken by the High Court is correct in law? Rules 14 to 17-A of the Rules relate to the reservation of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and the method of recruitment has been provided therein and Rule 17-A reads as under :
"Special recruitment from among the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes-
Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules or in the special rules, the State Government may reserve a specified number of posts in any service, class, category to be filled by direct recruitment exclusively from among the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
This rule shall be deemed to have come into force with effect from November 25, 1959."
4. It is not in dispute that Rules 14 to 17A having specifically been adopted by the aforesaid Resolutions of the Syndicate and approved by the University, the power of the University to adopt the Rules has not been challenged. The aforesaid Resolutions do indicate that the University has properly made of Rules 14 to 17-A applicable in relation to the recruitment of non-teaching staff to the University in certain posts, viz., Class I, Class III and Class IV. In furtherance thereof, the Vice-Chancellor was authorised by the Syndicate to advertise the posts and constitute a Selection Comm
