The court ruled that the University violated reservation principles by creating additional roster points for disabled candidates, necessitating a rework of the selection process without affecting existing appointments.

JUDGMENT :

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J.

In all these writ petitions, the issue pertains to the selection of Assistant Professors in various subjects as per notification dated 31.12.2019 (Ext.P1 in W.P(C) No.25602/23 and hereinafter referred to as Ext.P1). Total number of posts notified as per Ext.P1 was 63. As per Section 6 (2) of Calicut University Act, in making appointments to the teaching and non teaching posts in the University, the provisions as per Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Rule 14 and the provisions of Rules 15, 16, 17 and 17A of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958 (KS&SSR) shall be Mutatis mutandis applicable.

2. As per the provisions in the KS&SSR, a roster for the purpose of reservation has to be maintained for various communities elgible for the same. Exhibit P3 in W.P(C)No. 25602/23 is the amendment brought to the Rule 15 Part II to KS&SSR which contains the roster. As per the provisions contained therein, a roster with 100 points is to be maintained and the same has to be followed for making appointments against the vacancies earmarked for open competition and the reserved categories of SC/ST and Other backward communities.

3. The grievance of the petitioners is that, despite the aforesaid statutory stipulation, the respondent University carried out selections based on Ext.P1, by creating additional three roster points, namely, 1A, 26A and 51A, for the physically disabled candidates and filled up the vacancies based on the same. This additional slots were created by the University for implementing the statutory reservation for persons with disabilities as contemplated under Section 34 of The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPWD Act), which provided for 4% reservation for such persons.

4. According to the petitioners, by providing reservation to persons with disabilities by creating additional slots, which are not contemplated in the roster provided as per the provisions of the KS&SSR, the rotation contemplated as per the law is deviated from. As a consequence of the same, the petitioners who were otherwise eligible to get appointments based on the reservation criteria were denied their rightful opportunities. According to the petitioners, as far as special reservation contemplated under RPwD Act is concerned, it is a horizontal reservation, which has to be implemented without affecting the social reservation as per Article 16 (4) of the Constitution of India, for SC/STs and other Backward Communities.

5. W.P(C)Nos.7250/22, W.P(C)No.16407/21 and 16078/21 were filed challenging the appointments made by the University based on Ext.P1 notification referred to above. In W.P(C)No.16078/21 and 16407/21 the petitioners have challenged the constitutional validity of Section 6 (2) of the Calicut University Act as well. In W.P(C)No.7250/22 and W.P(C)No.16078/21, all the candidates who were granted appointments based on the selection process carried out by the University were impleaded as the respondents.

6. During the pendency of the aforesaid writ petitions, one Dr.Anupama K.P, a candidate for Assistant Professor in journalism and Mass Communication, approached this Court by filing W.P(C) No.16456/21, challenging the appointment made as per Ext.P1 with regard to the post of Assistant Professor in the discipline referred to above. In the said writ petition, similar contentions that are raised in the above writ petitions were raised. The learned single judge dismissed the said writ petition, which was challenged before a Division Bench of this Court by filing Writ Appeal No.1527/21. The Division Bench, in the writ appeal set aside the judgment of the learned single judge and the said judgment is produced as Ext.P6, in W.P(C) No.25602/23, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Ext.P6’).

7. As per Ext.P6 judgment, this Court accepted the contention of the appellant therein that, while creating additional slots of 1A, 26A and 51A in the hundred point roster, the University violated the requirements under the KS&SSR and