The main legal point established is that the amendments to the University Statutes, allowing the grouping of teaching posts as separate cadres for applying reservation principles, were constitutional and necessary for ensuring plurality of posts in each category.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.

In these batch of writ appeals we are called upon to examine the correctness of the judgment dated 31.03.2021 of a learned single judge of this court that disapproved of an amendment effected to the various University Statutes in Kerala to change the pattern of rotation while implementing the communal reservation in the services under the University, from department wise to category wise, by treating all departments as one unit.

2. The contention of the writ petitioners, placing reliance on precedents of the Supreme Court, was that the clubbing of posts of Assistant Professors, Associate Professors and Professors of all departments to create separate cadres in relation to each of the above categories of posts, and applying the rules of communal rotation to the said cadres would effectively tantamount to providing 100% reservation in single post cadres, which is legally and constitutionally impermissible. The said contention found favour with the learned single judge who allowed the writ petitions by initially setting aside the recruitment notification dated 27.11.2017 issued by the Kerala University that indicated that communal reservation was being applied by treating all the posts in the categories of Professors/Associate Professors/Assistant Professors in the various teaching departments of the University as one category for the purposes of reservation. Thereafter, through a ‘corrigendum’, the learned judge set aside the notification dated 20.07.2014 of the State Government publishing the University Laws (Second Amendment) Act, as well as the University Order dated 25.10.2017 of the Kerala University implementing the amended provisions in the University.

3. The judgment of the learned single judge gave rise not only to the appeals preferred by the State and the University that were parties in the writ petitions before the learned judge, but also to a host of other appeals, that were filed after obtaining the leave of this court, by persons who had already secured appointments based on the recruitment notifications and who would, therefore, be prejudicially affected by the judgment of the learned judge. The said persons were not parties in the writ petitions that were disposed by the common judgment that is impugned in these appeals. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants before us that, while the impugned judgment of the learned single judge did not actually declare the amended provisions of the University statutes as illegal or unconstitutional, but merely set aside the gazette notification publishing the amendments effected in the various statutes, as also the recruitment notification, pursuant to which recruitments had already been effected during the pendency of the writ petitions, the appeals were preferred in anticipation of any consequential orders that might be passed by the Kerala University cancelling their appointments, based on the judgment of the learned single judge.

4. We have heard the learned Advocate General Sri. Gopalakrishna Kurup, assisted by the learned senior Government Pleader Sri.V.Manu and the learned Government Pleader Sri. T.B.Hood, for the State Government, Sri. Thomas Abraham, the learned counsel appearing for the Kerala University, the learned Senior Counsel Sri. P.Ravindran, assisted by Smt.Lakshmi Ramadas, the learned counsel, the learned Senior Counsel Smt. Sumathi Dandapani, assisted by Sri.Millu Dandapani, the learned counsel Sri. Elvin Peter, Sri. Raghuraj, Sri. Mohan Jacob, Sri. Aravindaksha Pillai, and Sri. C.Unnikrishnan, the learned counsel for the other appellants, the learned Senior Counsel Sri. George Poonthottam, assisted by Sri. Navneeth, the learned counsel and also Sri. Ajaykumar, the learned counsel for the respondent writ petitioners.

5. Before proceeding to consider the submissions made before us by the learned counsel appearing in these matters, we deem it apposite to set out the factual backdrop in which the writ pet