'Vertical Reservation' By Calicut University For Persons With Disabilities Faulty And Illegal: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court on Friday held that the reservation procedure followed by the Calicut University by earmarking roster points for persons with disabilities, and providing them with vertical reservation instead of horizontal, as being faulty and illegal, and also violative of Rule 15 of Part II Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules (KS & SSR). Such reservation had resulted into reduction of the number of posts for Ezhavas, Thiyyas and Billavas (ETB) communitiesThe Division Bench of Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice Sophy Thomas also found the procedure to be violative of the principles laid down in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992), wherein the Apex Court had stated that while effecting the reservations in favour of category of persons like 'persons with disabilities', it would be obligatory on the part of the employer to ensure that the percentage of reservation in favour of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes remains intact. "It is seen that on account of the faulty procedure adopted by the University, candidates belonging to ETB Communities who were otherwise entitled to 9 posts in a process of selection for filling up of 63 vacancies, could get only 8 posts. That apart, the procedure adopted by the University is violative of Rule 15 of Part II KS & SSR also, for the same is contrary to the rotation turns provided for in the Annexure to Part II KS & SSR. In terms of the said Annexure, the rotation turns for ETB Communities are 2, 14, 18, 28, 34, 42, 54, 58 and 62 and on account of the introduction of additional slots in the roster, the turns of ETB communities have been changed to 3, 15, 19, 30, 36, 44, 57 and 61. When a percentage of reservation is fixed in favour of a category by allotting reserve points in a roster, the same are to be filled from among the members of that reserved category only," the court held.Factual BackgroundThe Calicut University had invited applications for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in various departments of the University. The number of vacancies that had been notified by the University were 63, of which two were in the Department of Journalism and Mass Communication. The petitioner had applied for the post and was assigned Rank 2 in the rank list. However, petitioner said, despite there having been 2 vacancies in the department, only the candidate who was allotted Rank 1 had been appointed, and not her.The University is following the 100 Point Roster which is given in the Annexure to Part II Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules (KS & SSR), and as per which all departments of the University is treated as a single unit. As per the same, roster points 31 and 54 were the slots for filling the vacancies in the Department, of which the vacancy corresponding to roster point 31 was due to open competition candidates, while the vacancy corresponding to roster point 54 was due to candidates belonging to Ezhavas, Thiyyas and Billavas Communities (ETB Communities).The petitioner argued that the first rank holder ought to have been appointed against the vacancy corresponding to roster point 31, while he, being the second rank holder as well as a candidate belonging to the category ETB Communities, should have been appointed against the vacancy corresponding to roster point 54. The petitioner averred that instead of doing so, the University claimed that the vacancy corresponding to roster 54, as well as those corresponding to roster points 2, and 28 were to be earmarked for candidates belonging to the Special Reservation Category - “persons with disabilities” - in terms of Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (hereinafter, Act, 2016)Proceedings Before the Single Judge The petitioner contended before the Single Judge that the social reservation in favour of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes had to be effected vertically, while the special reservation in favour of persons with disabilities had to be effected horizontally, which is to be given effect to after filling up the slots by accommodating the candidates entitled to reservation against the social reservation categories.The petitioner claimed that this was to be done after deleting the corresponding number of candidates therefrom, without affecting the percentage of reservations in favour of the former. However, the petitioner alleged that instead of following such procedure, the University effected reservation in favour of persons with disabilities vertically by earmarking roster points 2, 28 and 54 for the same, and it was due to this reason that the petitioner was not appointed against roster point 54. It was also alleged by the petitioner that on account of the incorrect procedure adopted by the University, the candidates belonging to ETB Communities who were otherwise entitled to 9 posts in a process of selection for filling up of 63 vacancies, could get only 8 posts.The University submitted...

'Vertical Reservation' By Calicut University For Persons With Disabilities Faulty And Illegal: Kerala High Court

Navya Benny

Tags