JUDGMENT :

J. Sathya Narayana Prasad, J.

Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying to set aside the order dated 23.11.2016 made in W.P.No.2261 of 2016 and allow the present Writ Appeal.

1. The Writ Appeal No.1656 of 2016 is directed against the order dated 23.11.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.2261 of 2016, dismissing the Writ Petition.

2. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material documents available on record.

3. The facts of the case in a nutshell:

The appellant was appointed as Lecturer (Tamil) in the second respondent college and worked there from 01.07.2003 to 30.12.2005. Thereafter, the appellant worked as Lecturer in Vivekananda Arts College, Thiruchengode between 2005 and 2006. The second respondent issued a notification dated 23.12.2015 calling for applications to fill up the post of Assistant Professor in various discipline. In response to the above notification, the appellant submitted her application for the post of Assistant Professor (Tamil) and after submitting the application, the appellant came to know that while issuing the notification dated 23.12.2015, the second respondent did not follow the communal rotation in respect of the vacancies which were sought to be filled up department-wise, rather, the second respondent clubbed all the posts of Assistant Professor and applied the roster system, which is illegal. Only on this ground, the appellant has challenged the notification dated 23.12.2015 issued by the second respondent by filing the subject matter Writ Petition.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Rule of reservation is a Constitutional mandate which has to be followed by the second respondent while filling up the vacancies. The Government has also made an amendment in respect of the roster, reserving vacancies for B.C.(Muslim) and B.C.(Christian) and the second respondent ought to have followed the roster system from the last appointment in the second respondent college. The last recruitment was made by the second respondent in the year 2013, in which the last roster candidate was from Scheduled Caste Community.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the second respondent ought to have issued the notification commencing the roster from M.B.C. because in the previous turn the last candidate was appointed from Scheduled Caste community. Therefore, the second respondent ought to have followed the roster system from Most Backward Class, Backward Class, General Turn, Scheduled Caste etc., If the roster system is followed properly, the appellant, who belongs to Most Backward Class, would have got the chance of getting selected and appointed to the post of Assistant Professor (Tamil) and non-adherence to the roster system has deprived the appellant’s employment opportunity.

6. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent contended that in S.L.P(C).No.4466 of 1992 filed against the order made in Writ Appeal No.1296 of 1991 (University of Madras Vs. Madras University Teacher’s Association), the Apex Court upheld the decision of the High Court that the roster system should be followed treating each department of the University as a Single Unit. In the case of Aided colleges, the Post of Assistant Professors were being filled by direct recruitment. Therefore, the roster system has been followed taking into consideration the whole college, comprising of all departments, as a single unit. Hence, there is no chance to defeat the reservation policy of the Government and also denial of fundamental rights. In respect of the departments in each college, it cannot be considered as a single unit for the purpose of recruitment, since, it would affect the reservation policy within a college as a whole and practically the same is not feasible. If each department in Aided colleges are considered as a single unit, very few posts in each department would suffer communal rotation. Therefore,