IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 24900 of 2008(L)
1. BEENA.V.I., 35 YEARS
... Petitioner
Vs
1. REGISTRAR, KERALA GRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI (SR.)
For Respondent :SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN,SC,KERALA AGRL.UTY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :15/07/2009
O R D E R
S. Siri Jagan, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
W. P (C) No. 24900 of 2008
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this, the 15th July, 2009.
J U D G M E N T
In this writ petition, the petitioner, who is an aspirant for
appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in the discipline of Soil
Science and Agricultural Chemistry in the 1st respondent’s University,
raises a grievance regarding violation of the principles of communal
rotation by the University in making appointments pursuant to the
selection for which the petitioner participated. Ext. P4 is the rank list
prepared pursuant to the selection in which the petitioner is rank
no. 3. There were 5 vacancies. However, only two vacancies have
been filled up by open competition candidates. One candidate was
appointed in the rotation applicable to Ezhava community. Since
other reservation community candidates were not available, the
balance two vacancies were left unfilled in view of Rule 15(b) of
Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, which stipulated that
whenever candidates from the reservation community is not available
those vacancies should not be filled up and should be notified
separately. The petitioner’s contention is that since there were five
vacancies, if three vacancies are set apart for being filled up by
communal rotation, that would violate the 50% Rule in Rule 15(d),
which stipulates that in one selection year, the reservation category of
posts shall not exceed 50% of the total number of vacancies for which
selection is resorted to in a selection year. One selection year is
defined to mean the period from the date on which the rank list of
candidates comes into force to the date on which it expires.
Therefore, according to the petitioner, out of the five vacancies
available for filling up, only two could have been filled up by
communal rotation lest it would violate the 50% rule. According to
the petitioner, therefore, three of the five vacancies should have been
filled up from open competition candidates, in which case, the
W.P.C. No. 24900/08 -: 2 :-
petitioner being rank no. 3 would be the one to be appointed.
Therefore, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:
“[i] issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction, commanding the respondent to appoint the
petitioner against the vacancies notified as per Ext. P2;
[ii] issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction, restraining the respondent from filling up all
the available vacancies from Ext. P3 ranked list;
[iii] declare that the respondent is liable to fill the vacancies
from Ext. P3 ranked list only to the extent of notified vacancies as
per Ext. P1 and the 5 vacancies notified as per Ext. P2
notification are to be filled from Ext. P4 ranked list.”
2. A statement has been filed by the respondent-University in
which the rotation as worked out by the University has been
explained. Going by the same, the rotation for this particular
selection should start at the 18th point in the 100 point roster which
goes to an Ezhava. The first Ezhava available in Ext. P4 rank list is
Smt. Mini V, who has been appointed in that vacancy. The next
vacancy goes to open competition candidate and the 1st rank holder
was appointed to that post. The roster point 20 has to be filled up by
a Viswakarma candidate. Since no Viswakarma candidate is
available, the said vacancy was left unfilled. Roster point 21 goes to
open competition candidate. The second rank holder, namely,
Thulasi, V., was accommodated in that roster point and appointed.
According to University, since the roster point 22 should go to a
Latin Christian and no Latin Christian candidate was available, that
vacancy was also left unfilled to be filled up by notification. According
to the University, the rotation has been worked out strictly in
accordance with Rule 15 and the roster prescribed thereunder.
3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail.
W.P.C. No. 24900/08 -: 3 :-
4. Up to roster point 21, there is no infirmity in the rotation
adopted. The question is whether the 5th vacancy could have been
left unfilled as one to be filled up by a Latin Christian by separate
notification or whether it should be filled up by an open competition
candidate. Admittedly, for the selection year, there were only five
vacancies. Therefore, if more than two vacancies are filled up by
communal rotation, then that would violate the 50% Rule. Hence, the
selection can be completed in respect of that selection year without
violating 50% Rule only by filling up the 5th vacancy by an open
competition candidate. Admittedly, the petitioner is the next open
competition candidate to be appointed. That being so, clearly, the
petitioner is the one to be accommodated in the 5th vacancy available
for filling up in the selection year.
In view of the above findings, I allow the writ petition and direct
the respondent to appoint the petitioner in the 5th vacancy, which has
been notified as per the notification pursuant to which Ext. P4 rank
list has been prepared. Orders in this regard shall be issued as
expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date
of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is allowed as
above.
Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.
Tds/