Back
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
K.C.Bhargava, N.B.Asthana
RAM NIWAS PANDEY
Versus
STATE OF U P
Decided On : 11 September 1994
Writ Petition No. 876 (S/b) of 1984 Connected with W. R Nos. 783, 489, 878, 877, 506 (S/b) of 94
RESERVATION - SINGLE POST - CADRE - SELECTION PROCESS - U. P. PUBLIC SERVICES (RESERVATION OF SCHEDULED CASTES, SCHEDULED TRIBES AND OTHER BACKWARD CLASSES) ACT, 1994 (U. P. ACT NO. 4/94) - U. P. STATE UNIVERSITIES ACT, 1973 - Held, there can be no reservation against a single or isolated post. All the posts of Professors in different departments cannot be clubbed together and treated as belonging to one cadre for the purposes of reservation. The provisions of U. P. Act No. 4/94 will not apply to the selection for the post of Professors, Readers and Lecturers under the U. P. State Universities Act.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitions related to the same controversy involving similar question of facts and law regarding reservation for the post of Professors. One post of Professor in Political Science, one post of Professor in the department of Sanskrit, one post of Professor in Medieval and Modern History, one post of Professor in the department of Applied Economics fell vacant between June 1989 to September, 1993. For filling up all these posts Lucknow University issued an advertisement No. 5/1993. In pursuance of this advertisement applications were invited from the eligible candidates. Last date for submission of application Forms was 20th October, 1993. Interview letters for these posts were issued sometimes in March 1994 and the interview of the candidates took place between 4. 4. 94 to 22. 4. 94 by the Selection Committee. The Selection Committee after interviewing the candidates submitted its report to the Vice-Chancellor for placing the same before the Executive Council, who had to approve these selections and thereafter appointment letters are issued. But before these proceedings could be placed before the Executive Council of the University, an Ordinance No. 5/94 was issued on 11. 2. 94 by the State Government for reservation of the posts in the cadre of Professors, Readers and Lecturers. Thereafter this Ordinance was replaced by Act No. 4 of 1994, which notified on 23. 4. 94 and was given retrospective effect from 11th December, 1993. This Act is known as U. P. Public Services (Reservation of Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes) Act 1994, (here in after called the Act ).
Finding of the Court:
1. There can be no reservation against single or isolated post. 2. All the posts of Professors in different departments cannot be clubbed together and treated as belonging to one cadre for the purposes of reservation. 3. The provisions of U. P. Act No. 4/94 will not apply to the selection for the post of Professors, Readers and Lecturers under the U. P. State Universities Act.
Issues: 1. Whether there can be reservation against a single post? 2. Whether all the posts of Professors in various departments can be clubbed together and treated as one cadre for the purposes of U. P. Act No. 494 providing for reservation? 3. Whether the vacancies which arose before coming into force the amendment, will be covered by the U. P. Act No. 4/94. 4. Whether the provisions of U. P. Act No. 4/94 does not apply to the case of Universities, to which U. P. State Universities Act applies.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that there cannot be any reservation in the post like Professor and other technical and the super-speciality post, because it affects the efficiency of Administration, which cannot be compromised. 2. The provisions of U. P. Act No. 4/94 will not apply to the selection for the post of Professors, Readers and Lecturers under the U. P. State Universities Act.
Final Decision: Writ Petition No. 489 (SB) of 1994 and Writ Petition No. 506 (SB) of 1994 are dismissed while Writ Petition Nos. 783 (SB) of 94, 876 (SB) of 94, 877 (SB) of 94 and 878 (SB) of 94 are allowed. In writ Petition No. 783 (SB) of 94 it is directed that the recommendations of the Selection Committee shall be placed before the Executive Counsel as indicated in the earlier part of the judgment and after considering the report, appointment letter shall be issued to all the successful candidates simultaneously on the same day. The advertisement dated 22-3-1995 contained in Annexure-14 to the W. P. No. 783 (SB) of 1994 is hereby quashed. It is further declared that the U. P. Public Services (Reservation of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes) Act 1994 and the roster notified under Section 3 (5) of the said Act would not apply to the universities governed by the U. P. State Universities Act. There shall be no order as to costs.
All the aforemen tioned writ petitions relate to the same con troversy involving similar question of facts and law regarding reservation for the post of Professors, hence these writ petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment.
2. The facts, in short, which are relevant for the purposes of disposal of these writ petitions, are that one post of Professor in Political Science, one post of Professor in the department of Sanskrit, one post of Professor in Medieval and Modern History, one post of Professor in the depart ment of Applied Economics fell vacant be tween June 1989 to September, 1993. For filling up all these posts Lucknow Univer sity issued an advertisement No. 5/1993, copy of which is contained in Annexure-1, giving the number of posts required in dif ferent departments. In pursuance of this advertisement applications were invited from the eligible candidates. Last date for submission of application Forms was 20th October, 1993. Interview letters for these posts were issued sometimes in March 1994 and the interview of the candidates took place between 4. 4. 94 to 22. 4. 94 by the Selec tion Committee. The Selection Committee after interviewing the candidates submitted its report to the Vice-Chancellor for placing the same before the Executive Council, who had to approve these selections and there after appointment letters are issued. But before these proceedings could be placed before the Executive Council of the Univer sity, an Ordinance No. 5/94 was issued on 11. 2. 94 by the State Government for reser vation of the posts in the cadre of Profes sors, Readers and Lecturers. Thereafter this Ordinance was replaced by Act No. 4 of 1994, which notified on 23. 4. 94 and was given retrospective effect from 11th Decem ber, 1993. This Act is known as U. P. Public Services (Reservation of Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Clas ses) Act 1994, (here in after called the Act ).
3. When this Ordinance was promul gated, the University keeping in view the provisions of the reservation made, issued fresh advertisement in 1995 inviting ap plications for the post of Professors and Lecturers. Before this advertisement was issued by the University and after promulga tion of Ordinance No. 5/94, the present writ petitions were filed.
4. In some of "the writ petitions, by means of interim direction, it was provided that the proceedings of Selection Commit tee shall be placed by the Vice-Chancellor before the Executive Council, who shall take decision on the report of the Selection Committee, but shall not issue appointment letters. This interim order was not passed in one of the writ petitions, viz. W. P. No. 783 (SB) of 1994. After the issuance of this interim order the Executive Council approved the selection made by the Selec tion Committee but refrained from issuing any appointment letter in terms of the Court order. As there was no direction to consider the decision of the Selection Com mittee in W. P. No. 783 (SB) of 1994, there fore, proceedings of Selection Committee was not placed before the Executive Coun cil, which still remains at that stage.
5. In the writ petitions it is alleged that the Selection Committee was duly con stituted in accordance with the provisions of U. P. State Universites Act, 1973 and after coming into force Act No. 4 of 1994, the provisions of Ordinance No. 5 of 94 will not have any effect on the constitution of Selec tion Committee in view of Section 31 of the U. P. State Universities Act. It has been al leged that the panel of Experts is to be drawn by the Chancellor and the nomina tion of that Expert should be indicated in the panel. The panel was constituted by the Chancellor after coming into force the Act No. 4 of 1994, hence the Chancellor is now bound by his act and he cannot cancel the recommendations made by the Selection Committee. The provisions of Act No. 4 of 94 are not attracted in the present case in view of the judgmen
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
