PRADEEP SHINDE Vs. JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present petition the Petitioners seek quashing of Advertisement Nos. RC/60/2019 and RC/61/2019 both dtd. 19/8/2019 as well as the proceedings pursuant to the said Advertisements. A mandamus is also sought directing Respondent No.1 to advertise the vacant posts afresh in accordance with the applicable rules and post-based roster as per judgment of the Supreme Court in R.K. Sabharwal and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors. (1995) 2 SCC 745 and provisions of DOPT OMs issued pursuant thereto.

(2.) Petitioner No.1 is an Assistant Professor of Sociology at the Centre for Informal Sector and Labour Studies, School of Social Sciences in the University (hereinafter referred to as Centre I) and is concerned with the Advertisement No. RC/61/2019 while Petitioner No.2 who is an Assistant Professor at the Centre for Inner Asian Studies (Tibetan and Himalayan Studies), School of International Studies (hereinafter referred to as Centre II) is concerned with the Advertisement No. RC/60/2019. Petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 are Professors in the University and are not affected by the selection process pursuant to the impugned Advertisements, but have impleaded themselves as Petitioners only with the purpose of highlighting the alleged illegalities in filling up the reserved posts by the University. In short, the grievance of Petitioner No.1 is that post No.63 in the Advertisement issued in 2016 was advertised for post of Associate Professor in Centre I and was reserved for SC candidate while the same has now been converted to an ST post and is shown as post No. 135 in the impugned Advertisement. Petitioner No.2 is aggrieved by the fact that post No.50 being the post of Professor in the Advertisement RC/02/2016 was reserved for ST candidate and has been now converted to an Unreserved post and is shown as post No.60 in the impugned Advertisement. Thus, according to the Petitioners, the total number of SC/ST reserved posts advertised have significantly dropped in the impugned Advertisement creating a shortfall and a shift of roster points due to exchange of points and de-reservation. This action is assailed on several grounds.

(3.) The first contention of Mr. Akhil Sibal learned senior counsel for the Petitioners is that the appointments to the teaching posts in the Universities have to follow the policy of "post-based reservation", which mandates that specific teaching posts be designated/reserved for persons belonging to specific reserved categories such as SC, ST and OBC. The reservations shall not apply to the vacancies. Reliance for this proposition is placed on the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in R.K. Sabharwal (supra) wherein the Court held that the cadre strength is always measured by the number of posts comprising the cadre and therefore right to be considered for appointment can only be claimed in respect of a post in the cadre. As a consequence, the percentage of reservation has to be worked out in relation to the number of posts and the 'vacancy' shall have no relevance in operating the percentages of reservations. Mr. Sibal also argues that the said judgment was implemented by the DOPT by issuing an OM dtd. 2/7/1997, which clearly states that the points at which reservation for different categories apply are fixed as per the roster. The roster is thus operated on the principle of replacement, wherein the roster itself pre-determines the nature and reservation status of each post. The post-based reservation system envisages that the number of posts filled by reservation for any category should be equal to the quota prescribed for the category.