Reservation In University Cannot Be Applied By Treating All Professors Of Different Subjects As One Cadre : Kerala High Court
Lydia Suzanne Thomas
8 May 2021 8:09 AM GMT
The Kerala High Court has quashed a recruitment notification issued by the Kerala University on the ground that it treated professors of different departments as one unit to apply reservation for communities.A single bench of Justice Amit Rawal held that reservations had to be made subject-wise and each post in a particular discipline has to be treated as a single post. The bench struck...
The Kerala High Court has quashed a recruitment notification issued by the Kerala University on the ground that it treated professors of different departments as one unit to apply reservation for communities.
A single bench of Justice Amit Rawal held that reservations had to be made subject-wise and each post in a particular discipline has to be treated as a single post. The bench struck down the recruitment notification holding that it amounted to giving 100% reservation.
"Once there is no scope of interchangeability of posts in different disciplines, each post in particular discipline has to be treated as a single post. The notification inviting application tantamount to 100% reservation of posts in various disciplines, which are not interchangeable", the bench observed.
The bench observed :
"There is no dispute to the proposition that reservation in respect of a post of a Professor and the provisions of the reservation provided in the rules (KSSR) would apply, but the same cannot be applied taking all Professor as a "Cadre". In fact, it has to be made "Subject Wise" otherwise, it would create an anomalous situation by treating all Professors of different subjects as one cadre. It would take away the right of consideration/reasonable opportunity to meritorious candidates belonging to general category for appointment."
What transpired in Court
The Court was considering a challenge to a Kerala University recruitment notification dated November 27, 2017.
As per the notification, a single vacancy of Professor in Aquatic Biology & Fisheries was reserved for Ezhava/Billva/Thiyya candidate and a single vacancy of Professor in Zoology was reserved for Muslim candidate.
This was challenged as unconstitutional for granting 100% reservation in a post.
The question of law considered by the court was :
"whether reservation in teaching posts in Universities is to be applied by treating the University as a unit or department/subject as a unit for different levels of teachers, ie. all posts of Professors, Assistant Professors or Associate Professors would be construed as a cadre or solitary post in a particular stream meant for either Professor, Assistant Professor or Associate Professor, which admittedly are not interchangeable".
The petitioners, represented by Senior Advocate George Poonthottam, submitted that the amendments to the reservation system were vague and violated of Article 16(1) and 16(4), since it resulted in a situation where there was 100% reservation.
The Counsel for the State argued that the amendments were permissibile, while the University Standing Counsel Thomas Abraham urged Court to dismiss the writ petition since that various selection processes were underway or completed.
Court's holding
The Court held that the the attempt of clubbing as noticed from notification dated 27.11.2017 is not of a different and distinct cadre, carrying different scales of pay, but in fact for all the posts Professors,Assistant Professors, Associate Professors of all the departments as one unit. This is turn would lead to a situation where there was 100% reservation in a single post for which only one vacancy was available.
The reservation applied as per the notification as follows :
The State had supported this notification by arguing that it was based on Rule 14 of KSSR, which mandates that rotation has to be applied by taking a unit of 20.
With reference to this, the Court said - "By treating them as one cadre without subject wise", the notification went against various Supreme Court precedents.
"...it is crystal clear that a single post cadre reservation at any point of time on account of rotation of roster would definitely bring a situation where such a single post in the cadre will be kept reserved exclusively for the members of backward classes, in total exclusion to the general members of the public, which is not the import of provisions of Article 16 (4) and (4A) of the Constitution of India."
Therefore, the Court proceeded to quash the notifications. At the close of the judgment, the Bench observes that the appointments of candidates already selected during the pendency of the writ petitions was subject to the outcome of the writ petitions.
With a direction to the University/Competent authority to take appropriate steps as per law, the petitions were allowed.
CASE: Dr Radhakrishna Pilla v. State of Kerala and Anr. With connected petitions
COUNSEL: Senior Advocate George Poonthottam, Advocates Nisha George, Vineeth, TV Ajayakumar, PH Rimju for petitioners. Senior Advocate Jaju Babu and Standing Counsel Thomas Abraham for the various university respondents, GP B Harish Kumar and PG Pramod for the state.
