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

2010 Supreme(Online)(KER) 26447

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J
RAJALAKSHMI R – Appellant
Versus
THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY AND OTHERS – Respondent
WP(C)/8573/2010



Advocates:
SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM, SRI.T.N.MANOJ

Educational agencies must adhere to specified quotas in appointments post-notification, ensuring merit in the process.

Headnote:

Appointment - Educational Appointments - Mahatma Gandhi University Statutes, 1997, Clause 12 - The court held that vacancies must be filled according to the established notification and cannot convert open vacancies to community vacancies post-notification, leading to the rightful appointment of the petitioner.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged the appointment of two Lecturers in Economics, arguing she was rank No.1 in the open quota while the appointed lecturers were from the community quota, violating statutory provisions.

Issues: Whether the management could appoint candidates exclusively from the community quota after advertising the vacancies as open/community and not following the defined selection method.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that once vacancies are advertised as open, they cannot be unilaterally converted to community quotas, supporting the principle of merit-based appointments as outlined in the Statutes.

Final Decision: The writ petition is allowed; the petitioner is entitled to be appointed as Lecturer in Economics.

JUDGMENT

In this writ petition the petitioner seeks to quash Exts.P5 and P6 orders appointing respondents 4 and 5 as Lecturers in the Faculty of Economics by the third respondent Manager. The further prayer is to direct the third respondent to effect appointment to the open quota pursuant to the notification and the rank list prepared.

2. The notification for appointment has been produced as Ext.P1, under which applications were invited for the posts of Lecturers in Mathematics, Psychology, History, Economics and Botany in open/community quotas and English and Physics showing the quota as community alone.

3. The petitioner’s case is that the minutes prepared by the Selection Committee as per Ext.P3 shows that she is rank No.1 in the open quota, whereas respondents 4 and 5 are respectively rank Nos.2 and 1 in the community quota. It is therefore pointed out that the petitioner ought to have been appointed in the open quota, as out of two vacancies one had to be filled up from it. The management appointed respondent No.5 initially wpc 8573/2010 2 and thereafter the 4th respondent, by the respective orders. Even though the petitioner requested for appointment by filing a representation, since it failed to evoke any response, this writ petition has been filed.

4. Heard Shri George Poonthottam, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Senior Counsel Shri M. Pathrose Mathai appearing for the third respondent, learned Senior Counsel Shri Kurian George Kannanthanam appearing for the fourth respondent, Shri T.A. Shaji, learned Standing Counsel for the M.G. University and Shri Sasith Panicker, learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the minutes of the Selection Committee produced as Ext.P3 will show that the petitioner is rank No.1 in the open quota and the 5th respondent is rank No.1 in the community quota. Therefore, the petitioner ought to have been appointed in the first vacancy. It is pointed out that now the management has appointed two candidates from the community quota and did not appoint the petitioner who is eligible under the open category. It is also pointed out that two vacancies are available in Economics. It should have been filled up by appointing one from the open category and one from the community category in the ratio 1 : 1. The educational agency cannot convert an open vacancy for the community quota or vice-versa, against the provisions of wpc 8573/2010 3 the notification and Clause 12 of Chapter 45 of M.G. University Statutes, 1997. Initially, rank No.5 was appointed as per the sanction issued by the Government and when subsequently sanction was accorded for appointment of another candidate, violating the provisions of the Statutes and the ranking given, the 4th respondent has been appointed. It is pointed out that there cannot be any alteration of the method of appointment after the notification was issued for appointment of open/community candidates.

In para 7, the petitioner has alleged favouritism also in the matter.

6. The stand taken by the third respondent Manager in a nutshell is the following: The third respondent has the absolute right to make appointments to 50% of the posts of teachers of the college, in accordance with the agreement dated 14.10.1972 signed with the Government of Kerala. According to Clause 12 of the Statutes also, 50% are to be reserved for being filled up against the community quota and 50% against open quota. The appointments were being made in terms of the above agreement from 1972 onwards and so far appointments could not be made to 50% of the posts of lecturers in the college from the community of the Educational Agency. The third respondent was not following the system of appointment to alternate vacancies for open candidate and community candidate. Even though the 50% of the vacancies reserved for community wpc 8573/2010 4 candidates could not be filled up, more than 50% of the candidates have been appointed from open

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top