Judgement

BEG J. : The University of Cochin was granted special leave to appeal to this Court against the Judgment and order of the Kerala High Court allowing a Writ Petition of the respondent Dr. N. Raman Nair who had applied unsuccessfully on 15-10-1972 for the post of Reader in the Department of Hindi after coming into force of the Cochin University Act 30 of 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) The High Court had quashed a resolution passed by the Syndicate on 6-1-1973 for appointing Dr. A. Ramchandra Dev to the post. The High Court had also quashed the resolution of the Syndicate of the University passed on 7-7-1972, the relevant part of which runs as follows :

"Resolved that

1. the rules mentioned under Section 6 (2) of the Cochin University Act, 1971 be implemented in the case of teaching staff as a class except in the case of post of Professor which shall be filled up exclusively in consideration of merit; but the reservation quota against this category should be provided additionally in the category should be provided additionally in the category of Readers. Lecturers, Teaching Assistant,etc., taken colectively."

It had directed the University to make appointments in confirmity with Section 6 (2) of the Act. Section 6 lays down :

"6, University open to All Classes and Creeds :-

(1) No person shall on grounds only of religion race, caste, sex, descent place of birth residence, language political opinion or any of them, be ineligible for or dis-criminated against in respect of any employment or office under the University or membership of any of the authorities or bodies of the University or admission to any degree or course of study in the University.

(2) In making appointments to posts in any service, class or category under the University, the University shall mutatis mutandis, observed the provisions of Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of rule 14 and the provisions of Rules 15, 16 and 17 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules as demanded from time to time.

2. Section 6 of the Act, read as a whole, indicates that it was meant to eliminate unjustifiable discrimination. The provisions of Section 6 (1) are directed against discrimination against particular individuals on any of the grounds given there. Section 6 (2) is meant to ensure equality of treatment between citizens as members of groups, and in particular, to enable "backward" classes to secure appointments so as to remove the gap between the "advanced" and the "backward". In doing so it may appear that the principle of equality of opportunity on the basis of individual merit is being modified. Even if that be the result, the wider object is to promote equality between groups of citizens.

3. Rule 14 mentioned in Section 6 (2) lays down a rule of rotation in making appointments. Rule 15 indicates that the principles of minimum qualifications to determine whether candidates are suitable for selection is not abandoned. Rule 16 provides for a "sub-rotation" among sub-groups of major backward classes. This concept is further explained and elaborated in rule 17. These rules are set out below in toto.

"14. Reservation of appointments. - Where the Special Rules lay down that the principle of reservation of appointments shall apply to any service, class or category or where in the case of any service, class or category for which no Special Rules have been issued, the Government have by notification in the Gazette declared that the principle of reservation of appointments shall apply to such service, class or category, appointments by direct recruitment to such service, class or category shall be made on the following basis :-

(a) The unit of appointment for the purpose of this rule shall be 20, of which two shall be reserved for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes and 8 shall be reserved for the other backward classes and the remaining 10 shall be filled on the basis of merit:

Provided that one out of every five posts reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes shal