ASHITHA R.K. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dtd. 22/6/2022 in W.P.(C) No.24642 of 2020. The appellant is the petitioner in the writ petition. The matter relates to the selection pursuant to Ext.P1 notification for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit (the University).

(2.) In terms of Ext.P1 notification, the University invited applications for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in various subjects. The appellant was an applicant for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in Sanskrit (Nyaya) pursuant to Ext.P1 notification. As far as the said post is concerned, it was provided in the notification that there are four vacancies, of which one is reserved for candidates belonging to Ezhava community, one is reserved for Scheduled Castes and the remaining two are intended for open competition candidates. As per Sec. 32 of the Sree Sankaracharya University Act, 1994 (the Act), while making appointments to teaching posts, the University is bound to observe, mutatis mutandis, the provisions of clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Rule 14 and the provisions of Rules, 15, 16, 17 and 17A of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958, treating all the departments of the University as a single unit. Earlier, the rules of reservation and communal rotation were being applied in the University department-wise and it is by virtue of an amendment made to Sec. 32 of the Act in terms of Act 26 of 2014, the Rules of reservation and communal rotation are now being applied category-wise treating all departments of the University as one unit. The appellant is a candidate entitled to reservation in terms of the provisions contained in the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958. According to the appellant, the amendment introduced to Sec. 32 of the Act in order to apply the Rules of reservation and communal rotation category-wise treating all the departments of the University as one unit, is against the mandate of communal reservation envisaged in the Constitution.

(3.) The selection pursuant to Ext.P1 notification was as provided for in the UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2018 (the UGC Regulations). As per the UGC Regulations, as far as the selection for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor is concerned, the candidates are required to be shortlisted based on their academic excellence as prescribed in Table 3A of Appendix II of the UGC Regulations. The Note appended to Regulation 4.1.I of the UGC Regulations dealing with Assistant Professors provides that the academic score as specified in Table 3A of Appendix II for Universities shall be considered for short-listing of the candidates for interview and the selections shall be based only on the performance in the interview. Table 3A of Appendix II clarifies that the number of candidates to be called for interview shall be decided by the concerned Universities. According to the appellant, the Note appended to Regulation 4.1.I of the UGC Regulations is unconstitutional inasmuch as it provides for selection solely based on the performance in the interview.