Back
2018 Supreme(Online)(KER) 4255
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A. Muhamed Mustaque, J
vs
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 23470/2018
SMT.K.V.BHADRA KUMARI, SRI.M.SASINDRAN, SRI.P.DEEPAK, SRI.SAYED MURTHALA THANGAL
Misapplication of reservation policies in university appointments was highlighted, necessitating adherence to meritocracy over misinterpretation of categorization based on vacancies.
Headnote:
Appointment - Assistant Professor - Kerala University Act - Sections related to Reservation and Employment - The court highlighted the importance of correct application of reservation policies in university appointments and concluded that the petitioner was eligible for appointment due to errors in the University's reservation application process.
Fact of the Case:
The case concerns the appointment of Assistant Professors for Science and Mathematics at a university. The petitioner ranked first but was not appointed due to a claim of reservation by the university for the third respondent, who was ranked second.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the university misapplied reservation policies, and clarified that reservation could not apply to a single vacancy. It ruled that the petitioner, being the highest ranked, should be appointed in place of the third respondent.
Issues: Whether the university's justification for appointing the third respondent under reservation was valid when the petitioner ranked first and there was only one vacancy in the relevant subject.
Ratio Decidendi: Reservation policies must be applied correctly, and cannot be extended to single posts when there are not multiple vacancies available for categorization under reservation. The candidate with the highest merit should be appointed.
Final Decision: The appointment of the third respondent was set aside, and the petitioner was ordered to be appointed as Assistant Professor.
JUDGMENT
The Kannur University invited applications for two vacancies in the posts of Assistant Professor in Science Education and Mathematics Education in the School of Pedagogical Sciences. Ext.P2 is the notification dated
08.06.2018.
2. The petitioner stood first and the third respondent stood second in the rank list. The University gave appointment to the third respondent, that is under challenge in this writ petition.
3. The University justified the appointment of the third respondent on the ground that the post was reserved for E/B/T and since none turned as E/B/T, the third respondent being another OBC was given reservation. The stand of the University is that contractual appointment is only for one year; extendable to three years and therefore even if eligible candidate is not available in their turn, the University cannot hold a repeated notification for the reason that, that would frustrate the very object of the appointment in making a contractual appointment.
4. The Department of Pedagogical Sciences imparts pedagogy and methodology of teaching school subjects like Science, Mathematics, Language, Commerce, etc. The University decided to implement reservation from 2014 onwards.
5. The petitioner herein was first appointed on
24.06.2015 in Science Education. It appears that the University followed subject wise roster for implementing reservation. This is how the University takes the stand that the next turn should go to E/B/T and in the absence it go to other reserved communities. The petitioner and the third respondent alone were interviewed. No other candidates were available.
6. If the subject wise reservation is followed, there would be only single post. In such a situation, reservation cannot be applied. The pleadings in this case clearly show that the University made an attempt to justify their appointment of the third respondent on the ground that the first turn being given to the open candidates, the second turn should go to reserved community.
7. It is to be noted that the notification was issued for two subjects; Science and Mathematics. On the same day, petitioner and the appointee under the subject Mathematics namely Lisha were interviewed. The University appointed Lisha in the reserved quota of Mathematical Education. Paragraph No.3 of the counter affidavit filed by the University dated 28.07.2018 indicates that she was appointed in the reservation category. If the subject wise roster cannot be followed as the subject being a single post, it has to taken as a department wise roster. In department wise roster, when there are two vacancies in a department one should go to the reservation category and other should go to open category. Lisha's appointment being in a reservation category, certainly the next turn should go to a candidate from open category. Therefore, University could only appoint the petitioner.
8. All the problem that appears to have been occurred in this matter is on account of the confusion of the University in following the roster. University appears to have initially moved that it should be based on subject wise reservation and for that reason University adopted subject wise reservation. In case subject wise reservation is followed and if there are more than one posts, reservation can be applied and therefore, appointment of the second respondent could have been justified. If subject wise reservation cannot be followed the entire subjects have to be pooled under the department, reservation will have to be worked out in such a way to ensure that all candidate included in the list, get opportunity. The latest counter filed by the department shows that if department wise reservation is followed, the third respondent would come under the reservation category. Anyway, the pleadings as well as the rotation chart register would clearly indicate that the University was following subject wise reservation and not department wise reservation. The present chart shown in the latest counter affidavit cannot ta
