J.CHELAMESWAR, GODA RAGHURAM, JJ - (1.) We have had the benefit of perusing the painstaking and meticulously crafted judgment of our learned brother Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.V.S. Rao. We agree with the OPERATIVE conclusion that the appointments of over 200 candidates (party respondents) ought not to be invalidated as these persons having been appointed as Lecturers/Readers have continued as such for over a decade, have settled down, got married, begot children and are now of an age disabling them from securing alternative employment. Some of these persons had already resigned, some have retired, some have died and the dependents of those who have died are also being given pension. If at this stage their initial appointments are declared invalid the social costs in terms of human misery and individual privations would be incalculable. Besides, for the resultant vacancies the petitioners may either be not interested in applying at this distant point of time, may not be able to compete or may not derive an advantage in terms of career opportunities commensurate with the misery and hardship that would be caused by the invalidation of appointments already made. For the reasons recorded by our learned brother Justice Rao, we therefore concur with the conclusion that it is not a fit case for grant of relief to the petitioners.
(2.) On the above view of the matter it may not perhaps have been necessary to go into the other questions presented for adjudication in the writ petitions. Our learned brother Justice Rao has however dealt with and recorded conclusions on the several aspects urged for consideration and perhaps appropriately as the Supreme Court while remanding the matter by its order dated 26.9.2003 in Civil Appeal No.106 of 2003, directed adjudication afresh. We are in complete agreement with the opinion of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rao on his conclusions on the following issues: (A) That the writ petitions are maintainable including the one filed in public interest; (B) On the conclusions with regard to applicable criteria for determining the eligibility for consideration for appointment including the principles enunciated and the conclusions recorded as to the relevant date for reckoning qualifications to the post; (C) The conclusion that it is impermissible for the University to make appointments in excess of the posts advertised for recruitment without establishing an exceptional circumstance or an emergent situation, justifying a departure from this normal principle; (D) That there was manifest arbitrariness in the conduct of the respondent- University in identifying the posts in faculties/departments for applying reservations; and (E) On the conclusion that the respondent-University is required to identify the posts to which reservation is to be applied and specify this aspect by the time the selection process is initiated, preferably in the advertisement calling for applications to the notified posts. We however consider it appropriate to record a caveat on the issue whether clubbing of posts, unit or groupwise, is valid.
(3.) To identify the appropriate and binding ratio on this aspect the decisions of the Supreme Court and of this Court in: (i) University of Cochin v Dr. N. Raman Nair and others, 1975 (3) SCC 628; (ii) Dr. Suresh Chandra Verma and others v. The Chancellor, Nagpur University and others, AIR 1990 SC 2023; (iii) State of U.P. v Dr. Dina Nath Shukla and another, (1997) 9 SCC 662; (iv) Dr. N. Chandrayudu v Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupati, 1995 (1) ALD 627; (v) The Scholars and Teachers Action Committee v Andhra University, [W.P. No.2081/99, dated 14.6.1993]; (vi) K. Satyanarayana v University of Hyderabad and (v) The Scholars and Teachers Action Committee v Andhra University, 1996 (2) ALD 1220 (DB); were cited.;