(1.) THE University of Cochin was granted special leave to appeal to this Court against the Judgment and order of the Kerala High Court allowing a Writ Petition of the respondent Dr. N. Raman Nair who had applied unsuccessfully on 15-10-1972 for the post of Reader in the Department of Hindi after coming into force of the Cochin University Act 30 of 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act') THE High Court had quashed a resolution passed by the Syndicate on 6-1-1973 for appointing Dr. A. Ramchandra Dev to the post. THE High Court had also quashed the resolution of the Syndicate of the University passed on 7-7-1972, the relevant part of which runs as follows :
(2.) SECTION 6 of the Act, read as a whole, indicates that it was meant to eliminate unjustifiable discrimination. The provisions of SECTION 6 (1) are directed against discrimination against particular individuals on any of the grounds given there. SECTION 6 (2) is meant to ensure equality of treatment between citizens as members of groups, and in particular, to enable "backward" classes to secure appointments so as to remove the gap between the "advanced" and the "backward". In doing so it may appear that the principle of equality of opportunity on the basis of individual merit is being modified. Even if that be the result, the wider object is to promote equality between groups of citizens.
(3.) SECTIONS 6 (2) lays down the mandatory duty upon the University to observe clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Rule 14 as well as Rules 15, 16 and 17 of the Rules set out above. But it does not indicate the manner in which the classification of members of a service under the University has to be made for the purposes of applying these rules. Inasmuch as every statutory power to be exercised reasonably we can say that the classification has to be reasonable. Thus, the University may treat all the teaching of posts as belonging to one class for the application of the rules. On the other hand it may treat only posts of Readers in all subjects or in a particular subject as a category by itself for the application of these rules. It cannot exempt any class or category such as Professors from the operation of the rules altogether. Only if it so classifies all posts in a service under the University as to make its classification prima facie unreasonable, could the validity of the classification made by it be assailed. The power is presumed to be exercised reasonably on the strength of facts and circumstances relevant for purposes intended to be achieved by the classification. These purposes have also to pass the test of legality and constitutionality.