VALSAMMA PAUL Vs. COCHIN UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Issues raised in these Original Petitions are identical. Contesting parties in these Original Petitions are also the same. Therefore, I consider it advantageous to dispose of these Original Petitions by a common judgment. Petitioner in O.P. 1629/1988 is the third respondent in O.P. 9450/1991. Her appointment in the University as Lecturer in Law is under challenge in O.P. 9450/1991. I am referring to the parties as they are arrayed in O.P. 9450/1991.

(2.) The short facts germane for decision of these Original Petitions are as follows:- Cochin University of Science and Technology invited applications for the post of Lecturer in Commercial Law/Labour Law by notification dated 25th June, 1987. In pursuance to that notification, third respondent, petitioner in O.P. 1629/1988, put in her application. After a due process of selection, University prepared a ranked list. Third respondent was assigned rank No. 4. It is common case that the post of Lecturer in Law was to go to a member of the Backward Community, namely Muslim Community. No candidate of that community was available in the ranked list. So, University appointed a candidate, who was ranked No. 1 in Open Merit quota. 3rd respondent challenges that appointment by filing O.P. 1629/1988 on the ground that she being a member of the Backward Community, should have been preferred and the post available to the Backward Community should not have been allotted to Open Merit quota. It is her case that though born as a Syrian Christian, she is entitled to be treated as a member of the Latin Catholic Community, which is a Backward Community. This stand of the 3rd respondent was not accepted by the University. Hence O.P. 1629/1988.

(3.) Cochin University of Science and Technology invited applications for the post of Lecturer in the Department of Law by notification dated 17th November, 1989. In pursuance to that notification, petitioner and third respondent applied. Two vacancies were available and two candidates were to be given appointment. After a due process of selection, a ranked list was prepared on 20th July 1991. Petitioner was assigned rank No. 4 and the third respondent rank No. 2. First vacancy, which went to open merit, was filled up by appointing a candidate, who was assigned rank No. 1. The second post goes to a member of the Backward Community as per R.14 to 17 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, which are to be followed in the appointments in the University. Third respondent, who was denied the benefit of R.14 to 17 while making the selection in pursuance to the notification dated 25th June, 1987, was found by the University as a member of the Backward Community and was appointed. Petitioner, a member of the Latin Catholic Community by birth, who is entitled to benefits under R.14 to 17 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, was denied appointment. Hence she challenges the appointment of the third respondent.