SAPNA MARIA GOMEZ Vs. UNIVERSITY OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is strange that the Appellant, a female member of the minority community, has to seek assistance from this Court to get employment in the 2nd respondent institution, which is established and run essentially for the benefit of the community to which the Appellant belongs. The Appellant's grievance is that in spite of the excellent academic record she has and the selection she got for appointment to the post of Lecturer in English, the 2nd respondent College deliberately refused to fill up the permanent posts lying vacant only to defeat her claim. Even though on Appellant's application, the University directed the 2nd respondent to consider her for appointment from the select list, the 2nd respondent refused which dragged the Appellant to this Court. The learned Single Judge without appreciating the scope of the statutory provisions which entitles the Appellant to get appointment in the permanent vacancy available in the 2nd respondent College during the currency of the select list, rejected the Appellant's claim is her case. Hence she is in appeal before us.

(2.) We have heard learned counsel appearing for the Appellant, learned Senior counsel Shri. Kurian George Kannanthanam appearing for the 2nd respondent and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the University.

(3.) Appellant's grievance developed as follows. The Appellant is a Post Graduate in English with first class and 6th rank and has passed the National Eligibility Test (UGC) and the State Eligibility Test (State) which qualify her for appointment as Lecturer in English in any College affiliated to the 1st respondent University. Two of the permanent Lecturers in the English Department of the 2nd respondent College were retiring on 31/03/2010. Besides the two vacancies arising on account of the retirement, the Government vide Annexure B order dated 24/06/2009 sanctioned three additional permanent posts of Lecturers in English in the 2nd respondent's College. The 2nd respondent vide Annexure A notification published in the newspapers on 27/07/2009 invited applications for appointment of Lecturers in the College in various subjects including English. It is pertinent to note that number of vacancies available or proposed to be filled up were not stated in the notification and all what the notification says is that posts of Lecturers against permanent vacancies are proposed to be filled up. Under the notification 50% of the posts are reserved for community quota (Latin Community) to which the Appellant belongs and the remaining 50% only will be filled up by merit quota. Pursuant to Annexure A notification, the selection committee conducted interview and prepared the select list, a copy of which is obtained by the Appellant under the Right to Information Act. Ext. P1 is the proceedings of the selection committee dated 10/10/2009 wherein separate select lists were prepared for appointments under merit quota and under community quota. Candidates with Rank Nos.1 & 2 in the merit list and Rank No.1 in the Community list were appointed. Even though two permanent posts of Lecturers fell vacant from 01/04/2010 onwards, the 2nd respondent refused to fill up the said posts from the select list prepared just six months back. Since Ext. P1 select list was prepared on 10/10/2009 and it's validity is one year from the date of preparation i.e. up to 09/10/2010, the Appellant's case is that besides the three additional permanent vacancies sanctioned by the Government, two permanent vacancies that arose on 31/03/2010 on account of retirement of two Lecturers in the English Department should be filled up from Ext. P1 list. Admittedly, there is no dispute with regard to the availability of two more permanent posts to be filled up in the English Department, which arose on 31/03/2010 i.e. during the currency of Ext. P1 select list prepared by the Committee appointed by the 2nd respondent which select list is approved by the University. The next candidate to be appointed from the list is the Appellant, and according to the Appellant, if the balance two permanent vacancies available are also filled up from Ext. P1 select list, the Appellant will be the first to get appointment. The specific case of the 2nd respondent is that even though number of candidates proposed to be filled up was not mentioned in Annexure A notification, it was issued only to fill up the additional posts sanctioned by the Government vide Annexure B order, and so much so, the list has no relevance or validity after three persons were appointed from the list. The Appellant's case is that under Annexure A notification, the 2nd respondent proposed to fill up all permanent vacancies and it is specifically stated so, and the contention now raised by the 2nd respondent that the permanent vacancies that arose from 01/04/2010 onwards cannot be filled up from the select list prepared is only to deny appointment to the Appellant.