(1.) Leave granted.
(2.) Heard Mr. John, Mathew, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and also the learned counsel for the State of Kerala and Mr. Raju Ramachandran the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 was a candidate for the appointment to the post of Junior Assistant Professor in the Kerala Agricultural University when an advertisement for filing up such post had been given. It may be stated that the respondent No. 1 belongs to Ezhava community and it is an admitted position that there was a post reserved in the cadre of Junior Assistant Professor for a candidate belonging to Ezhava community. The respondent No. 1 was not selected against such reserved vacancy and a writ petition was presented by him before the Kerala High Court. One of the grounds urged in the writ petition was:
(3.) By the impugned judgment, the High Court has held that under the provisions of Rr. 14 to 17 of Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, no selection method was applicable for filling up the reserved vacancy and as the writ petitioner was eligible to be appointed against the said reserved vacancy the elimination of the writ petitioner on the score of not being found suitable in the selection process, was improper. The High Court, therefore, directed for appointment of the respondent No. 1 to the post of Assistant Professor in the said University because in the meantime the post of Junior Assistant Professor was abolished and the Junior Assistant Professors were upgraded as Assistant Professors. Mr. Mathew has contended that R. 14 of the said Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules should be considered along with R. 15. It will be quite apparent that even for the purpose of filling up post reserved for the members of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes and backward classes inter se merit assessment of candidates of such categories is required to be made. Our attention has been drawn to the proviso under Cl. (c) of the Rule 14 which is to the following effect: