KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY Vs. BEENA V I

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The point that arises for decision in this case is whether a vacancy set apart for special recruitment from a backward community can be reckoned for the purpose of deciding whether reservation has exceeded 50% during any selection year, as contemplated under Rule 15(d) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules. The respondent in the Writ Petition - the Registrar, Kerala Agricultural University, is the appellant and the writ petitioner is the respondent herein. The brief facts of the case are the following : The respondent was a candidate for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in the discipline of Soil Science and Agricultural Chemistry, under the Kerala Agricultural University. Five vacancies were notified. Ext.P4 is the rank-list published by the University for appointment to the said post. The respondent was Rank No.3 in the said list. As per the relevant statutory provisions, rules of reservation contained in Rules 14 to 17 of Part II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules (for short, KS & SSR) are applicable, while making appointment under the University. As per the 100 point roster, mentioned in Rule 15(a) of Part II, KS & SSR, the communal rotation for the present recruitment, started at 18th point. Going by the roster, the 18th point is reserved for Ezhavas, 3 Thiyyas and Billavas, the 19th for open competition candidates, the 20th for Viswakarmas, the 21st for open competition candidates and the 22nd for Latin Catholics and Anglo Indians. The University appointed the candidate, having Rank No. 7, i.e., Mini V. an Ezhava candidate. in the first vacancy at the 18th roster point. The next vacancy, being reserved for open competition candidate, Sailajakumari. M.S., Rank No. 1, was appointed. The third vacancy at the 20th roster point was to be filled up by a Viswakarma candidate. But, there was no candidate, belonging to that community in the rank-list and so, the said vacancy was decided to be kept open. The next vacancy at the 21st roster point was filled up by Thulasi V. Rank No. 2. There was no candidate, belonging to Latin Catholics/Anglo Indians in the ranklist. So. the 5th vacancy (22nd roster point) was also decided to be kept open.

(2.) The respondent filed the Writ Petition, praying to appoint her in the 5th vacancy. According to her, if the 5th vacancy is set apart for Latin Catholics/Anglo Indians, reservation during the life of the rank-list will exceed 50%. To avoid that, the next open competition candidate, who is none other than the writ petitioner, should be appointed. The University resisted the reliefs sought in the Writ Petition, by filing a counter affidavit. After hearing both sides, the learned Single Judge took the view that out of the 5 vacancies, 3 cannot be set apart for reserved candidates. That will go against the mandate of Rule 15(d) of Part II, KS & SSR. Therefore, the last of the above said five vacancies should be filled up by an open competition candidate. The writ petitioner, being the next open competition candidate, the learned Single Judge ordered to appoint her.

(3.) Attacking this direction of the learned Single Judge, this Writ Appeal is filed. According to the learned Standing Counsel for the University, setting apart the vacancies for filling up after issuing separate notification, cannot be treated as reservation for the purpose of Rule 15(d). If that be so, there is nothing wrong with the action of the University in filling up 3 vacancies and keeping 2 vacancies open for fresh notification. The learned Senior Counsel Shri. K.P. Dandapani, who appeared for the respondent, submitted that during a selection year, there cannot be reservation of more than 50% of the vacancies available.