UNIVERSITY OF COCHIN REP Vs. N S KANJOONJAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These 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 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. 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 Vie-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.

(2.) 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 no rule for special recruitment of the reserved candidates. The Rules have not been specifically applied for special recruitment and, therefore, the selection and appointment of the respondents is not in accordance with law. The Rule is when in-service candidates were available, direct recruitment could not be resorted to. That contention found favour with the High Court. Thus, these appeals by special leave.

(3.) The only question that arises for consideration is:Whether the view taken by the High Court is correct in law Rules 14 to 17A of the Rules relate 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: