2021 Supreme(AP) 90

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J
Dr. M. Reddi Bhaskar Reddy, S/o. M. Narayana Reddy – Petitioners
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh - Respondents
W.P.Nos.23770, 37479, 39248, 42902, 43887 of 2017
W.P.Nos.1942, 2975, 3474, 3489, 3809, 4641, 6533, 7572, 8804, 9841, 9932, 10813, 13723, 15724, 20227, 21520, 22226, 23194, 33051, 33349, 36716, 44932, 47427, 47458 of 2018
W.P.Nos.218, 465, 486, 1752, 10496 of 2019 And W.P.No.12589 of 2020
Decided On : 05-03-2021

Point of law: The proper and correct course is to first fill up the OC quota (50%) on the basis of merit; then fill up each of the social reservation quotas i.e. SC, ST and BC; the third step would be to find out how many candidates belonging to special reservations have been selected on the above basis. If the quota fixed for horizontal reservations is already satisfied—in case it is an overall horizontal reservation—no further question arises. But if it is not so satisfied, the requisite number of special reservation candidates shall have to be taken and adjusted/accommodated against their respective social reservation categories by deleting the corresponding number of candidates therefrom

Headnote:

A.P. State and Subordinate Service rules – Rule 22 and 22A – Process of implementing reservations – 14 Universities issued separate notifications between December, 2017 and June, 2018 calling for applications for the posts which were vacant in the respective Universities. – After this notification, Act 3/2018 was enacted entrusting the conduct of written examination to the A.P. Public Service Commission. –Whether the reservations, provided for deprived sections of the society and women, are applicable to the posts of Professors also – Whether the roster point table set out under Rule 22, as applicable to the Universities, is vacancy based or post based and if it is vacancy based, whether it has to be set aside – Whether the impugned notifications provide for vacancy based reservation or post based reservation and if they are vacancy based, whether they can be permitted – Whether the roster point table being applied for reservation to Women and persons with disabilities is valid and permissible – Whether, the roster point table, under Rule 22 of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, as applicable to the Universities is breaching the 50% limit for Reservations – Whether, the process of rationalisation undertaken, on the basis of the Raghavulu Committee recommendations, should be continued or set aside – Whether, the Petitioners in W.P. are entitled for regularisation of their services

Finding of court: Candidates who are seeking a continuation of the recruitment process would contend that, the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad was delivered on 07.04.2017 and the same was affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court after the process of recruitment had started by way of the issue of G.O.Ms.Nos.28 to 41 dated 30.06.2017 and as such the Judgment can only affect the proceedings initiated after the delivery of the Judgment. – This contention cannot be accepted for two reasons, viz., the Judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad was delivered on 07.04.2017, which is before the issue of G.O.Ms.Nos.28 to 41. – The appeal against this Judgment was dismissed on 21.7.2017 before any of the employment notifications were issued. – The contention cannot be accepted for another reason, a Judgment is only a declaration of existing law, and the declaration that the process adopted under G.O.Ms.995 and G.O.Ms.No.420 is wrong, would apply from the time, the said G.Os., were issued. – Impugned notifications contained details of the posts that were being allotted to the reserved candidates. – This has been understood by the petitioners to mean that the notification is vacancy based and not post based. – The notifications are not uniform. In the notifications issued by the Acharya Nagarjuna University, Andhra University, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar University-Srikakulam, and Sri Venkateswara University, Rayalseema University and Yogi Vemana University, the roster points were disclosed. – In the notifications issued by Adikavi Nannayya University, Dravidian University, JNTU University Kakinada, JNTU University Anantapur, Krishna University, Sri Krishnadevaraya University Ananthapuramu, Sri Padmavathi Mahila Visvavidyalayam Tirupati and Vikrama Simhapuri University, only the number of posts reserved were given. – A perusal of the notifications where roster points were given, for example, the notification issued by the Acharya Nagarjuna University dated 04.01.2018 shows that the roster point system has been applied to the posts starting at roster point 61 in the case of Assistant Professors (Arts group), roster point 60 in the case of Assistant Professors (Science group), roster point 11 in the case of Assistant Professors (Engineering group). – This does not appear to be a roster point table being applied on a vacancy based method and appears to be an application of roster point against the posts. – A comparison of the roster point set out in the table in the notification against the roster point table set out under Rule 22 of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules would show that it is identical to the roster point table under Rule 22. – The Universities, which did not give the roster points in their notifications, also appear to have indicated only the number of posts, which are reserved, and not on the basis of vacancies. – In the circumstances, it has to be held that the impugned notifications provided for post based reservation and not vacancy based reservation. – Process of recruitment would have to be initiated afresh with a fresh notification of the vacancies that require to be filled. For this purpose, it would always be open to the Universities to decide on the reorganisation of the teaching staff structure and numbers. – The candidates, who are seeking continuation of the recruitment process, would not have any vested right to insist on continuation of the posts created under the rationalisation process as the recruitment would be under a fresh process. – Viewed from any angle, this issue does not arise for consideration before this court. – Court is fully aware of the human dimension to these cases. – There has effectively been no recruitment to the teaching staff of any of the Universities for the past 13 years. – This has caused havoc to the careers of an entire generation of academicians in the state. – A large number of the hopefuls would have crossed the maximum age limit for such posts. – This delay has caused damage to the interests of the students in all institutions of higher learning in the State of Andhra Pradesh. – Court is also sensitive to the fact that setting aside the entire recruitment process will affect a large number of candidates. However, this Court cannot ignore the law, however painful the consequences.

Result: Writ Petitions Disposed off