ABDUL HALEEM Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that arises in this Writ Appeal is whether a non-Keralite can claim communal reservation in a Pan India selection process conducted by the 2nd respondent University. The unsuccessful writ petitioner who challenged the selection and appointment of the 5th respondent to the post of Associate Professor in Information Technology in the 2nd respondent University pursuant to Ext. P1 notification, is the appellant before us. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the Writ Appeal are as follows:-

(2.) Ext. P1 notification was issued by the 2nd respondent University inviting applications from eligible candidates for the post of Associate Professor in Information Technology ear-marking the said post for the Muslim Category among the other backward classes. By Ext. P3 general instructions for the applicants, it was made clear that the reservation for applicants from SC, ST, OBC (non-creamy layer), and differently abled categories will be applicable as per Kerala Government norms. Applicants seeking reservation benefits available for SC/ST/OBC/differently abled categories were to upload the necessary documents justifying the claim of respective reservation as per Government of Kerala norms from the competent Authority. The 5th respondent, a native of Karnataka, produced a certificate claiming to be a person belonging to the non-creamy layer of the OBC and the said certificate was issued from the Revenue Department of the Government of Karnataka (Ext. P5). The Writ Petitioner contends that the application of the 5th respondent could not have been entertained as he is a non-domicile hailing from the State of Karnataka and the principle of reservations envisaged under the provisions Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules ("KS&SSR" for short) will not permit reservation in favour of non-domicile candidates. Further it is the contention of the writ petitioner that as per Kannur University First Statute,1998 Chapter III Clause (iii) the teachers of the University shall be appointed observing the provisions of Clause (a), (b) and (c) of Rule 14 and Rules 15, 16 and 17A of the KS & SSR as amended from time to time. Since the 5th respondent is not a native of Kerala and not being certified to be an eligible candidate under the OBC by the State of Kerala, his candidature could not have been considered let alone being selected. It is also alleged that the 2nd respondent University has favoured the 5th respondent in the writ petition by extending the last date of submitting the application and also that all the Universities in Kerala State except the 2nd respondent University follows the principle of reservation based on the provisions and stipulations under the KS & SSR. As a matter of fact, even the University of Mysore did not permit the non-domicile candidates to claim reservation as is evident from the document produced. Thus, a writ of a certiorari was sought to quash Exts. P6 and P13, the orders leading to the selection and appointment of the 5th respondent and for a declaration that the 5th respondent is totally ineligible to be considered for selection pursuant to Ext. P1 notification and also for a declaration that only domicile candidates alone be considered for selection to the post which are ear-marked for reserved communities as per the provisions of KS & SSR.

(3.) The University filed a counter affidavit stating that Ext. P1 notification was for appointment to the single post of Associate Professor in the Department of Information Technology reserved for Muslim Candidate, but contended that as per the UGC Regulation, 2018, direct recruitment for the post of Associate Professor in the Universities and colleges shall be on the basis of merit through an all India test and that there was no bar for a candidate belonging to Muslim Community from any State of India to participate in the selection process and further that the 5th respondent though a native of the State of Karnataka belongs to the Muslim Community which is notified as backward class in the State of Kerala as well as in the State of Karnataka. Accordingly, the University tried to justify the selection of the 5th respondent.