Back
1991 Supreme(Bom) 527
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Srikrishna B.N.
on difference between
Deshpande M.S. Wahane B.U., JJ.
Pramod Madhukarrao Padole another .... Petitioners.
Versus
Chancellor, Nagpur University others.... Respondents.
Transferred Writ Petition Nos. 3346, 3343, 3342, 3336, 3334, 3338, 3332, 3341, 3345, 3333 3331 of 1991, decided on 1-11-1991.
judgment
Advocates appeared :
Sunil V. Manohar with S.C. Dhamadhikari, in transferred W.P. Nos. 3336 3338/1991, for petitioners.
Arvind Bobde A.G., with S.K. Sanyal, S.G. Aney B.P. Pandya, in W.P. Nos. 3336 3338/1991, for respondents.
Important Points
Act Referred
NAGPUR UNIVERSITY ACT : S.11(6)(b)
Headnote
RESERVATION OF POSTS - CADRE - SOLITARY POST - GROUPING OF POSTS - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES AND RULES - CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY - WRIT PETITION - ARTICLE 226 - ARTICLE 16(4) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - NAGPUR UNIVERSITY ACT, 1974 - SECTION 57(4)(a) - SECTION 76 - SECTION 77-C - GOVERNMENT RESOLUTION DATED 30TH MARCH, 1981 - DIRECTIVE DATED 29TH MAY, 1987 - EMPLOYMENT NOTICES DATED JULY AND AUGUST, 1987 - ROSTERS - HELD, there cannot be reservation of posts in any of the three cadres of Professors, Readers and Lecturers, where there is a solitary post in a particular discipline. Reservation must be made only with reference to the posts in the cadres, available in a particular discipline, subject only to the availability of more than one post. Grouping would be permissible only of the posts and appointments, if there be more than one in a particular discipline. Grouping cannot be done of the posts and appointment of a single post together with similar single posts in different disciplines.
Fact of the Case:
The Nagpur University issued three employment notices for the posts of Professors, Readers and Lecturers. The validity of these notices was challenged by the petitioners on several grounds, including the reservation of posts for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Denotified Tribes. The Division Bench of the High Court referred the matter to a third Judge, as there was a difference of opinion between the two Judges.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that there cannot be reservation of posts in any of the three cadres of Professors, Readers and Lecturers, where there is a solitary post in a particular discipline. Reservation must be made only with reference to the posts in the cadres, available in a particular discipline, subject only to the availability of more than one post. Grouping would be permissible only of the posts and appointments, if there be more than one in a particular discipline. Grouping cannot be done of the posts and appointment of a single post together with similar single posts in different disciplines.
Issues: 1. Whether there can be reservation of posts in any of the three cadres of Professors, Readers and Lecturers, where there is a solitary post in a particular discipline? 2. Whether the reservation to be made must be only with reference to the posts in the cadres, available in a particular discipline, subject only to the availability of more than one post? 3. Whether grouping would be permissible only of the posts and appointments, if there be more than one a in a particular discipline, or grouping can be done of the posts and appointment of a single post together with similar single posts in different disciplines?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India permits reservation of posts in favor of backward classes, but this reservation cannot be excessive and must be within reasonable limits. 2. The Nagpur University Act, 1974 and the rules made thereunder provide for reservation of posts for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Denotified Tribes. 3. The reservation of posts must be made in a manner that does not create a monopoly or unduly disturb the legitimate claims of other communities. 4. The reservation of posts must be made on a cadre-wise basis, and not on the basis of individual posts. 5. Grouping of posts for the purpose of reservation is permissible only if the posts are in the same department or discipline.
Final Decision: The Court quashed and set aside the employment notices issued by the Nagpur University and the rosters upon which they were based.
2. The Division Bench has formulated the points of difference, on which my opinion, as the third Judge, is sought under Clause 36 of the Letters Patent. The points of difference are as follows:
""(1) Whether there can be reservation of posts in any of the three cadres of Professors, Readers and Lecturers, where there is a solitary post in a particular discipline.
(2) Whether the reservation to be made must be only with reference to the posts in the cadres, available in a particular discipline, subject only to the availability of more than one post.
(3) Whether grouping would be permissible only of the posts and appointments, if there be more than one a in a particular discipline, or grouping can be done of the posts and appointment of a single post together with similar single posts in different disciplines.""
3. In order to appreciate the controversy, it would be necessary to state a few salient facts and the background in which these petitions were filed.
4. The Nagpur University is a university governed by the Nagpur University Act, 1974. (The Nagpur University shall, hereinafter, for the sake of brevity, be referred to as ""the university""). The university had published an Employment Notice dated July 27, 1984, for the posts of 13 Professors, 29 Readers and 35 Lecturers in different subjects. Though the said employment notice mentioned the total number of reservations in the categories of Professors, Readers and Lecturers, it did not indicate the reservations subject-wise. Selection committees were constituted for selection of candidates and 47 candidates were recommended for selection. The Executive Council of the university decided to set apart 17 posts and made permanent appointments of 30 of the 47 selected candidates by Appointment Orders issued on March 30, 1985, in the academic year 1985-86. The 17 posts were set apart for Reserved Candidates to be filled by making temporary appointments pending the availability of suitable candidates from backward classes. At this point of time, there were several representations made by organisation representing the interests of persons belonging to backward classes, that their interests had not been properly safeguarded in making these appointments. Acting on the basis of these representations, the Chancellor of the university appointed a one-man committee (Justice Patel Committee) under section 76 of the Nagpur University Act. This committee was required to enquire into the matter and make appropriate recommendations by its report. The Chancellor accepted the report submitted by this Committee on September 24, 1986.
5. In the meantime, the employment notice itself was challenged in some writ petitions on the ground that the recommendations of the Board of University Teaching And Research (BUTR for short) had not been obtained before issuing the employment notice. This Court quashed the employment notice and set aside the appointments made to the posts in respect of which challenges had been raised in the pending writ petitions. The university was restrained from making any appointments to such posts without obtaining the recommendations of the BUTR. Acting upon the report of the Patel Committee, the Chancellor directed the Vice-Chancellor to terminate the appointments of all such appointees. The Vice-Chancellor issued orders terminating the services of all the appointees who had been
