SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Ker) 58

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.B. SURESH KUMAR, SOPHY THOMAS, JJ.
Dr. Anupama K.P. - Appellant
Versus
University of Calicut, Represented by its Registrar & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Appeal No. 1527 of 2021
Decided On : 03-02-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : P. Ravindran (SR.), Lakshmi Ramadas, Aparna Rajan, Sreedhar Ravindran, M.R. Sabu.
For the Respondent: Amal Kasha, T.B. Hood, M. Isha, P.C. Sasidharan, SC.

Point of Law : Procedure to be followed while effecting horizontal reservations, which we are bound to follow in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution.

Headnote:

Service Matter - Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules - Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Rule 14 and Rules 15, 16 and 17 - Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - Section 34 - Special Reservation Category “persons with disabilities” - Appointment as Assistant Professor in Journalism and Mass Communication - Petitioner is assigned rank No.2. Even though there were 2 vacancies, the candidate who was assigned rank No.1 alone was appointed - Whether the procedure adopted by the University for effecting reservation in favour of “persons with disabilities” is correct.

Finding of the Court :

Procedure adopted by the University for effecting reservation in favour of “persons with disabilities” was incorrect and wrong and as persons selected following the incorrect and wrong procedure have already been appointed and are working in the University for quite some time, and since their appointments are not under challenge in the writ petition, with a view to avoid further disputes as regards the selection process, we deem it appropriate to direct the University to rework the rotation chart in respect of the appointments already made pursuant to Ext.P1 notification notionally, following the procedure prescribed by the Apex Court in Indra Sawhney, Anil Kumar.

Result : Writ appeal is allowed.

JUDGMENT :

P.B. Suresh Kumar, J.

Social justice is said to be one of the fundamental means to build a healthy and contented society. In a country of diversities like ours, where the need for conferment of special benefits and reservation to different classes of citizens are recognised from time to time for socio-economic and educational advancement, laying down a proper and correct procedure for conferment of such benefits without offending the constitutional and other rights of others, is a constant struggle. We are confronted with one such situation in this case and let us make an attempt to resolve the same.

2. The writ appeal arises from W.P.(C) No.16456 of 2021. The matter relates to the right of the petitioner therein for appointment as Assistant Professor in Journalism and Mass Communication in the University of Calicut (the University). The appellant is the petitioner in the writ petition. Parties and documents are referred to in this judgment for convenience, as they appear in the writ petition.

3. In terms of Ext.P1 notification, the University invited applications from eligible candidates for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in various departments of the University. The number of vacancies notified were 63, of which 2 vacancies were of the Department of Journalism and Mass Communication. The petitioner who was qualified to be considered for appointment as Assistant Professor in Journalism and Mass Communication, had applied for selection for appointment in response to the notification. Ext.P4 is the rank list of the candidates applied for selection in the Department of Journalism and Mass Communication. In Ext.P4, the petitioner is assigned rank No.2. Even though there were 2 vacancies, the candidate who was assigned rank No.1 alone was appointed.

4. Section 6(2) of the Calicut University Act, 1975 provides that while making appointments to teaching posts by direct recruitment, the University has to mutatis mutandis observe the provisions contained in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Rule 14 and Rules 15, 16 and 17 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules (KS & SSR), as amended from time to time. In light of the said provision, the University is following the 100 Point Roster contained in the Annexure to Part II KS & SSR, category-wise, based on the date of occurrence of vacancies, treating all departments of the University as one single unit. It is stated by the petitioner that going by the respective dates of occurrence of the vacancies in the Department of Journalism and Mass Communication, roster points 31 and 54 are the slots to be applied for filling up the vacancies that arose in the Department, of which the vacancy corresponding to roster point 31 is a slot due to open competition candidates and the vacancy corresponding to roster point 54 is a slot due to candidates belonging to Ezhavas, Thiyyas and Billavas Communities (ETB Communities). According to the petitioner, insofar as there were 63 vacancies, the first rank holder should have been appointed against the vacancy corresponding to roster point 31 and the petitioner being the second rank holder as also a candidate belonging to the category ETB Communities, should have been appointed against the vacancy corresponding to roster point 54. It is stated by the petitioner that instead, even though the University has appointed the first rank holder in the first vacancy that arose in the Department of Journalism and Mass Communication, the petitioner was not appointed against the second vacancy that arose in the said department, on the ground that the said vacancy is one to be earmarked for candidates belonging to the Special Reservation Category “persons with disabilities” in terms of Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (the Act). It is stated by the petitioner that social reservation in favour of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes are to be effected vertically and special reservation in favo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top