SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SURYA KANT, J.K. MAHESHWARI, JJ.
DR. SREEJITH KRISHNAN & ORS. – APPELLANTS
Versus
ANU JAYAPAL & ORS. – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.551-553 OF 2023 (Arising out of SLP(C)Nos.13654-13656 of 2022) WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.556 OF 2023 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.13012 of 2022), CIVIL APPEAL Nos.554-555 OF 2023 (Arising out of SLP(C)Nos.12941-12942 of 2022),CIVIL APPEAL No.557 OF 2023 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.16086 of 2022), SLP(C)No.15826 of 2022
Decided On : 27-01-2023
Fact of the Case:
Anu Jayapal, a specially abled person, challenged her non-selection for the post of Assistant Professor (English) due to failure to provide reservation for disabled candidates.Finding of the Court:
The court directed Anu Jayapal's appointment as Assistant Professor without arrears and ranked her junior-most among those previously appointed. It allowed further recruitments by the institute and set aside previous judgments.Issues:
Failure to provide reservation for disabled candidates, non-selection challenge, and fairness in appointments.Ratio Decidendi:
Invocation of Article 142 powers, sympathetic consideration for disabled candidate's appointment, and fairness in addressing non-selection challenges.Final Decision:
Anu Jayapal was appointed as Assistant Professor without arrears; previous judgments were set aside; selected and appointed candidates were allowed to continue in service.ORDER :
C.A Nos.551-553 of 2023 @ SLP(C)Nos.13654-13656/2022, C.A.No.556 of 2023 @ SLP(C)No.13012/2022, C.A.Nos.554-555/2023 @ SLP(C)Nos.12941- 12942/2022 & C.A.No.557/2023 @ SLP(C)No.16086/2022
1. Leave granted.
2. Respondent No.1 – Anu Jayapal was the writ petitioner before the High Court. She is a specially abled person, who suffers from locomotor disability to the extent of 50%. She competed for the post of Assistant Professor (English) but having not been selected, she challenged the selection before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam.
3. Learned Single Judge of the High Court vide judgment dated 10.05.2022 set aside the entire selection of about 60 candidates on the ground that the Institute -Sree Narayana College failed to provide 4% reservation to the disabled candidates in violation of the statutory mandate. The Division Bench of the High Court vide impugned judgment dated 29.06.2022 has affirmed the view taken by the learned Single Judge of the High Court.
4. The institute as well as the candidates, whose selection and appointment has been set aside, are before us.
5. We have heard learned Senior Counsel for the parties and carefully perused the material placed on record.
6. It appears to us that the claim of respondent No.1 -Anu Jayapal for appointment as Assistant Professor (English) against a post reserved for `disabled persons’ requires sympathetic consideration. Similarly, the selection and appointment of other candidates need not be interfered with especially when respondent No.1 can be accommodated against a vacant post.
7. Moreover, the aggrieved selected/appointed candidates were not parties in the proceedings before the High Court and their selection/appointment has been set aside without hearing them.
8. We, accordingly, without going into the rival contentions, deem it appropriate to invoke our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and dispose of these appeals with the following directions:
(ii) Respondent No.1 - Anu Jayapal shall rank junior-most amongst those Assistant Professors(English), who were appointed on 01.01.2021 or prior thereto; and
(iii) The Institute shall, thus, be at liberty to proceed for further recruitments in accordance with law.
9. The judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 10.05.2022 as well as the Division Bench of the High Court dated 29.06.2022 are set aside. Consequently, the appellants whose selection and appointments have been quashed shall continue in service.
10. The appeals stand disposed of in the above terms.
11. The question of law is kept open to be decided in an appropriate case.
12. As a result, pending interlocutory applications also stand disposed of.
SLP(C)No.15826 of 2022
1. By a separate order in C.A.Nos.551-553 of 2023 @ SLP(C)Nos.13654-13656/2022 etc. of even date, the petitioner has been directed to be given appointment retrospectively.
2. In view of the above, the instant petition has become infructuous and the same stands disposed of as such.
3. As a result, pending interlocutory applications also stand disposed of.
The court can invoke Article 142 powers to address issues related to reservation and fairness in appointments.
Promotion claims under disability quotas must align with established recruitment policies of the university.
Point of Law : Government is bound to act upon the recommendation without further delay, particularly in view of the fact that written examination as part of selection to the post of District Judge h....
Mandatory reservation under Section 34 ensures fair recruitment practices for differently abled candidates.
Rules of 2011 exempt any Government establishment from filling up vacancy by appointing persons suffering from benchmark disabilities.
Only in those cases that the Government is of the view that the posts in the promotional cadres cannot be reserved for the PwD category due to functional or other reasons, the same cannot be used as ....
The court ruled that the University violated reservation principles by creating additional roster points for disabled candidates, necessitating a rework of the selection process without affecting exi....
Timeliness and prior adjudication limit the ability to claim reservation under disability provisions in employment contexts.
Employment and Service matter - Post of Lecturer - Appointment of - Court direct Respondents shall consider case of petitioner, in terms of observations made hereinabove, for engagement/ appointment ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.