The main legal point established in the judgment is that reservation in appointments cannot exceed 50% and must be balanced to provide reasonable opportunities for both reserved and general category candidates.

( 1 ) HEARD Sri Ashok Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Saumitra Singh learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4, Sri B. P. Singh learned counsel for respondent No. 6 and Sri P. S. Baghel, learned counsel for respondent No. 5.

( 2 ) THIS writ petition has been filed for writ of certiorari against the impugned order dated 10. 2. 2003 (Annexure-13 to the writ petition) and for a writ of certiorari for quashing the orders dated 9. 9. 2002 and 13. 9. 2002 (Annexures-9 and 10 ).

( 3 ) THE Chandra Shekhar Azad University of Agriculture and Technology is an Agricultural university and is governed by the provisions of the U. P. Agricultural Universities Act, 1958 and the Statutes and Ordinances framed thereunder. The petitioner was initially granted appointment as Research Associate (Agronomy) in an ad hoc scheme in the University vide order dated 28. 2. 2001 Annexure-1 to the writ petition. This appointment order was passed by the vice-Chancellor on the recommendation of a Selection Committee. The petitioner joined as research Associate (Agronomy) in Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Dalip Nagar, district Kanpur Dehat on 5. 3. 2001. Prior to the appointment of the petitioner, by the order dated 28. 2. 2001 the respondent university had issued Advertisement No. 1 of 2000 whereby applications had been invited for filling up nine posts of Subject Matter Specialist (Yield Production) in Krishi Vigyan kendra of the University. True copy of the said advertisement is Annexure-2 to the writ petition. A perusal of this advertisement shows that out of the nine posts of Subject Matter Specialist, two posts were reserved for Scheduled Caste, three posts for other backward class, and four posts were in general category.

( 4 ) THE petitioner being eligible applied as a general category candidate in pursuance to the aforesaid advertisement and appeared in an interview. In para 4 of the writ petition it is stated that the selection committee recommended the following names in order of merit in the general category : (i) Chun Chun Kumar ; (ii) Rajiv Kumar Singh ; (iii) Sanjeev Sharma ; and (iv) Amal Saxena. The petitioner was at serial No. 1 in the waiting list in the general category. The selection committee recommended the names of Shyam Singh and Rajesh Kumar Kanaujiya for the two posts reserved for scheduled caste. The selection committee recommended the following names in order of merit for the three posts reserved in the other backward class category : (i) Dr. Anokhey Lal ; (ii) Rajiv ; and (iii) Arvind. The aforesaid recommendations of the selection committee were considered and approved by the Board of Management of the respondent university on 29. 12. 2000. The relevant extract of the proceedings of the Board of Management dated 29. 12. 2000 is Annexure-3.

( 5 ) IT appears that out of the selected general category candidates, Chun Chun Kumar who was at serial No. 1 in that category and who had joined in January, 2001, submitted his resignation on 13. 9. 2001. Hence an order dated 15. 10. 2001 was issued by the Chief Personnel Officer of the university granting appointment to the petitioner as Subject Matter Specialist (Yield Production) and posting him at Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Farrukhabad vide order dated 15. 10. 2001, Annexure-4 to the petition. A perusal of the said order shows that it is mentioned therein that the appointment has been made by the Vice-Chancellor of the University on the recommendation of the selection committee and it has been communicated by the Chief Personnel Officer. In pursuance of order the petitioner joined as Subject Matter Specialist (Yield Production) on 26. 10. 2001, vide Annexure-5.

( 6 ) IT appears that subsequently the respondent No. 5 Amal Saxena filed a representation before the Chancellor under Section 23 of the Act vide Annexure-6 and the petitioner was asked to submit his reply to the same vide letter of the Chancellors Secretariat by communication dated 7. 5. 2002 vide Annexure-7. Th