University of Cochin Vs. N.S. Kanjoonjamma & Ors [1997] INSC 315 (20 March
1997)
K.
RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
WITH CIVIL
APPEAL NO. 2224 OF 1985
O R D
E R
The
appeals by special leave arise from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Kerala
High court made on February
13, 1985 in op no.
5366/1982. The contesting first respondent a section officer in the University
appointed a section officer in the university appointed by direct recruitment
challenged the promotion of v. vasudevan as deputy Registrar and P.K. Sudhakaran
as assistant registrar of the Cochin
university. The facts are that the syndicate in its Resolution dated December 3, 1980 adopted Rules 14 to 17-a of the Kerala
state and subordinate services Rules (for short the Rules ) so as to be
applicable to the university in the matter of recruitment. The syndicate in its
meeting dated January
20, 1981 resolved that
non-teaching posts in the university in class I class iii and class IV would be
made available for application of rule of reservation in the matter of
promotion to the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. In resolution dated March 7, 1981 the syndicate further resolved that
special recruitment to six vacant posts be advertised for recruitment of the
scheduled castes and scheduled tribes declaring them to reserved posts be
advertised for recruitment of the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes
declaring them to reserved posts. by further Resolution dated October 1, 1981 it resolved to recommend
constitution of staff selection committee for recruitment of those candidates.
By a further Resolution dated June 4, 1982
the syndicate authorised the vice- Chancellor to constitute the selection
committee to make selection. accordingly the Vice-Chancellor constituted a
selection committee. the advertisement was made for recruitment to fill up the
said six posts the respondents 3 and 4 candidates above- named and the first
respondent along with others applied for the said posts and were interviewed by
the selection committee on July 17,1982.
It selected and the appointment of respondents 3 and 4 came to be made on July 20 1982. Accordingly the syndicate approved
of the selection by its proceedings of the even date and appointed respondents
3 and 4 as Deputy Registrar and Assistant Registrar respectively.
The
first respondent as stated earlier filed writ petition in the High court
questioning the correctness of the appointment of Respondents 3 and 4 on the
ground that when selection was made there was on rule for special recruitment of
the reserved candidates. The Rule have not been specifically applied for
special recruitment and therefore the selection and appointment or the
respondents is not in accordance with law. The Ruse is when inservice candidates were available direct recruitment
could not be resorted to. that these appeals by special leave.
The
only question that arises for consideration is whether the view taken by the
high court is correct in law? Rules 14 to 17Ae of the Rules relates to the
reservation of the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes and the method of
recruitment has been provided therein and Rule 17-a reads as under;
"Special
recruitment from among the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes-
Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules or in the special rules the
state Government may reserve a specified number or posts in any service class
category to be filled by direct recruitment exclusively from among the members
of the scheduled castes and scheduled Tribes.
This
rule shall be deemed to have come into force with effect from November 25, 1959." It is not in dispute that
Rules 14 to 17-A having specifically been adopted by the aforesaid Resolutions
of the syndicate and approved by the university the power of the university to
adopt the Rules has not been challenged.
The
aforesaid Resolutions of indicate that the University has properly made of
Rules 14 to 17-a applicable in relation to the recruitment of non-teaching
staff to the university in certain posts viz., class I class III and class IV.
In furtherance thereof the vice-chancellor was authorised by the syndicate to
advertise the posts and constitute a selection committee for recruitment of the
candidates. In furtherance thereof , a committee was constituted.
Advertisement
came to be made. it is seen that when the general rules have been made
applicable there is no necessity by the university to make a special;
recruitment.
Therefore
the non-mention of the special recruitment in the resolution is of little
consequence As seen the syndicate adopted the Rules in relation to the non
teaching staff of the university As a consequence the advertisement came to be
made for special recruitment of the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes to
the posts reserved for them. In fact the first respondent also had applied for
and sought selection but remained unsuccessful. Having participated in the
selection she is estopped to challenge the correctness of the procedure. That
apart we have already held that procedure was correctly followed and therefore
the omission to mention in the advertisement the it was a special recruitment
is of no consequence. the further finding of the High court relates to proviso
1 to Rule 4 which provides that when duly qualified candidates are available
the appointment shall be made to them. In other words if duly qualified
candidates are available the appointment shall be made to them. In other words
if duly qualified candidates are not available then advertisement could be made
for selection. That rule is applicable to the general recruitment. But with
reference to the special recruitment of the candidates belonging to the
scheduled castes and scheduled Tribes Rules 14 to 17-A stand attracted. In
addition as seen earlier the advertisement came to be made as early as on April 22, 1982 by which time the Resolution of the
syndicate was not adopted the same having been adopted on March 7,1982. so Rule 4 is inapplicable to the
special recruitment advertised on October 1,1981. Therefore the later Resolution
applying Rule 4 has no retrospective effect. It is contended by the learned
counsel for the respondent No.1, that respondent s 3 and 4 have left the jobs
and so there is no need to disturb the appointment of the first respondent. As
they are said to be on foreign service they are entitled to join back on their
posts. thus considered the high court was clearly in error in allowing the writ
petition.
The
appeals are accordingly allowed. allowed. the writ petition sta nds dismissed.
No costs.
Back
Pages: 1 2
