K. SATYANARAYANA AND ANOTHER Vs. UNIVERSITY OF HYDERABAD
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
K. Satyanarayana And Another
UNIVERSITY OF HYDERABAD
Click here to view full judgement.
V. Sivaraman Nair, J. -
(1.)I find considerable force in the submission of the respondent-University that it is not necessary that specified posts in the subjects are notified as reserved. The chances are that candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Schedule Tribes may not get their 'just desserts' by so doing, since there may not be any candidate qualified in that specified subject, whereas there may be required number of candidates who can be considered for appointment in other subjects/departments which are not specifically reserved. The method adopted and which the Supreme Court approved in the University of Cochin, 1975(1) SLR 20 (SC) was that the notification should indicate the percentage of reservations, and from among candidates who apply, the principle of reservation may be worked out on the basis of the roster prescribed by the statutory rules in favour of qualified candidates in the respective subject/department. Ordinarily, that should ensure better and greater justice to candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes rather than the subject-wise reservation specified in the notification.
(2.)I am aware that the later decision of the Supreme Court shall be followed by the High Court by virtue of the imperatives of Art. 141 of the Constitution of India. But if the later decision does not advert to the earlier decision of a larger Bench on the same point, the rigor of Art. 141 will not compel application of the later decision of the Bench consisting of lesser number of Judges. The High Court has to follow the decision of the larger Bench. In the present case, the decision of three judges of the Supreme Court in University of Cochin, 1975(1) SLR 20 (SC) is a binding precedent, which I have to follow in spite of the later decision in Dr. Suresh Chandra Verma, 1990(5) SLR 53 (SC).
(3.)I am also of the opinion that had there been an obligation in section 57(4)(a) of the Nagpur University Act to follow the roster of appointments, it should have been possible for any candidate to inform himself definitely and certainly as to his prospects for being selected for appointment in the reserved posts. Apart from all these, I am of the opinion that in cases where reservation is effectuated with reference to a roster specifying the points reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates, there is lesser likelihood of any injustice to such candidates. In the present case, it is evident that the Commission had directed that the 40 point roster as in Central Government services shall be followed. 5 out of 18 posts of lecturers being available for SC/ST candidates, it shall not be impossible for them to obtain appointment in the five vacancies which are reserved for them in any of the faculties/departments/schools, even in the absence of subject-wise reservation. The guarantee of effectuation of the policy of reservation is a 40 point roster from which there can be no escape, provided, of course, that there are sufficient number of qualified candidates in any of the disciplines.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.