K. Vinod Chandran, CJ. – Reservations in appointments have always given rise to contentious issues of the application of the percentage vis-a-vis the vacancies; which in the present case has stalled the appointments pursuant to an advertisement of the year 2020, till today. The above batch of appeals challenge the judgment of the learned Single Judge in a batch of writ petitions. The writ petitions were allowed directing the Government to redo the reservations, by clubbing the vacancies in each subject of the various Universities and after determining the backlog vacancies properly. The State in their appeals challenge only the direction to club the vacancies in the different Universities. LPA No. 622 of 2023 challenge the judgment in its entirety; both on the clubbing and the reworking of backlog vacancies and pray for the selection to be carried out as per the advertisement. LPA No. 890 of 2023 and LPA No. 1007 of 2023, challenge the judgment as wholly erroneous and seek quashing the advertisement for a proper determination of backlog vacancies, but, support the State insofar as the challenge against clubbing of vacancies. The appeals were placed before us along with two writ petitions (CWJC Nos. 12518 of 2021 and 14270 of 2021) which challenge the amendment made to the Rules based on which the advertisement is brought out and another writ petition (CWJC No. 1024 of 2024) in challenge of the subsequent exercise carried out by the State to determine the backlog vacancies.

2. The respondents in LPA No. 604 of 2023 and LPA No. 834 of 2023, who were the writ petitioners, support the stand of the State; asserting that clubbing of vacancies in the various Universities is not provided under the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Universities Act’) and support the impugned judgment on all other aspects. In LPA No. 832 of 2023, LPA No. 833 of 2023 and LPA No. 835 of 2023, respondents fully support the judgment of the learned Single Judge. In LPA No. 836 of 2023 none appears for the respondent despite service of notice having been carried out.

3. Shri P.K. Shahi, learned Advocate General, argued on behalf of the State and pointed out that he had been appearing for the petitioners before the learned Single Judge, but has taken consent from them to appear in the appeals since the appointments are delayed and the contentions raised have ramifications insofar as the reservation in appointments to the Universities within the State. None of the learned counsel appearing for either party objected to the learned Advocate General appearing for the State.

4. Shri Shahi pointed out that the very challenge to the advertisement was on the ground that the reservations were in excess of 50% in certain subjects; which was sought to be explained as backlog vacancies. The advertisements were issued subject-wise and university-wise since the sanctioned posts for which prior approval has to be obtained by the State Government, is given subject-wise. Out of the 52 subjects, in 26 subjects appointments have been made. There was a total of 4638 vacancies advertised, out of which 461 candidates have been appointed. The learned Single Judge had specifically observed, while directing the re-working of backlog vacancies and also the reservations, after clubbing the entire vacancies advertised; that the persons already appointed would not be disturbed and they would be set off against either the backlog vacancies as per the reservation vacancies worked out and then, in the reservation vacancies of the instant selection. It was pointed out that in Para-30 of the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge had observed that the provisions of the Universities Act provide for treating all the Universities as a collective unit of selection; which is erroneous. It is pointed out from the Universities Act that Section 33 speaks of establishment of a University and sub-section (3) specifically provides that each University shall have a perp