- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) Heard Mr. John, Mathew, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and also the learned counsel for the State of Kerala and Mr. Raju Ramachandran the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 was a candidate for the appointment to the post of Junior Assistant Professor in the Kerala Agricultural University when an advertisement for filing up such post had been given. It may be stated that the respondent No. 1 belongs to Ezhava community and it is an admitted position that there was a post reserved in the cadre of Junior Assistant Professor for a candidate belonging to Ezhava community. The respondent No. 1 was not selected against such reserved vacancy and a writ petition was presented by him before the Kerala High Court. One of the grounds urged in the writ petition was: 'on the basis of qualification, experience and performance in the interview put together, the petitioner can only be placed above respondents 4, 5 and 7. The elimination of the petitioner from the select list, therefore, smacks mala fides.'
(3.) By the impugned judgment, the High Court has held that under the provisions of Rr. 14 to 17 of Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, no selection method was applicable for filling up the reserved vacancy and as the writ petitioner was eligible to be appointed against the said reserved vacancy the elimination of the writ petitioner on the score of not being found suitable in the selection process, was improper. The High Court, therefore, directed for appointment of the respondent No. 1 to the post of Assistant Professor in the said University because in the meantime the post of Junior Assistant Professor was abolished and the Junior Assistant Professors were upgraded as Assistant Professors. Mr. Mathew has contended that R. 14 of the said Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules should be considered along with R. 15. It will be quite apparent that even for the purpose of filling up post reserved for the members of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes and backward classes inter se merit assessment of candidates of such categories is required to be made. Our attention has been drawn to the proviso under Cl. (c) of the Rule 14 which is to the following effect: 'Provided also that in preparing the list of eligible candidates to be appointed under this Rule applying the rotations specified above in every cycle of 20 vacancies, the candidates eligible to be selected on open competition basis, that is, turns 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17 and 19 shall be selected first and then the candidates for the reservation turns, out of those available in the ranked list in the particular groups having regard to their ranks. In finalising the select list any candidate of the same community selected on open competition turns, if found to be below in the order of the candidates selected from the same community on the basis of reservation, for the fixation of ranks as per R. 27 of these rules, candidates of the same community obtaining higher marks shall be integrated with the candidates of the same community in the reservation turn of the purpose of ranking.' The learned counsel has also drawn attention of the Court to Cl. (d) of R. 14 which indicates that notwithstanding anything contained in this Rule, posts to which appointments are made by direct recruitment from a common ranked list prepared on the basis of common test or interview or both, shall be grouped together for the purposes of observance of the rule relating to reservation of appointments. Referring to such provisions the learned counsel has submitted that selection process is implied and such selection by way of assessment of inter se merit position does not effect the rule for appointment on the basis of communal rotation scheme. It has been contended by Mr. Mathew that it is the specific case of the University that the respondent No. 1 was called before a Selection Committee but he was not found suitable for appointment on assessment of merit by such Selection Committee. Unfortunately the University records relating to such assessment by Selection Committee could not be traced because of certain events happening in the University in the meantime. Therefore, such records could not be produced before the High Court but the respondent No. 1 in his writ petition not having contended that the selection process was otherwise illegal or there was defect in constituting the Selection Committee there was no occasion to look to the records relating to the selection process made by the Selection Committee. The learned counsel has submitted that the High Court failed to appreciate Rules 14 and 15 particularly the proviso mentioned hereinbefore and proceeded on an erroneous footing that the University was not competent to make any exercise by way of selection for short listing the candidate. Therefore, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained and the same should be set aside. Mr. Mathew has further submitted that for the purpose of appointment to the post of Assistant Professor, a selection on All India basis is required to be made. In the greater interest of the students it is also necessary to make proper exercise for selecting suitable candidates. Therefore, the direction given by the High Court should be set aside. Mr. Mathew has, therefore, submitted that the University should be permitted to select the proper person even against a reserved vacancy.;