K. RAJAMOHAN Vs. KERALA AGRL. UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first respondent published Ext. P5 notification for recruitment to the post of Director of Extension Education. The notification contains the details regarding scale of pay, essential qualifications, academic attainments, experience etc. It was also notified that reservation of appointments will be as per S.43 of the Kerala Agricultural University Act 1971. According to the petitioner the above post must be filled up from a candidate belonging to the backward community. S.43 of the Kerala Agricultural University Act enjoins that R.14 to 17 of the General Rules of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules will apply to the appointments in the Agricultural University. Therefore, according to the petitioner, there is only one post of Director of Extension Education. When a vacancy arose in 1995, the above vacancy was filled up by a general candidate from the forward community. Therefore the next vacancy which arose in the post has necessarily to be filled up by a candidate from the backward community following the rules regarding reservation.

(2.) A statement has been filed on behalf of the University. According to the University, there is only a single post of Director of Extension Education and therefore the rules regarding communal rotation cannot be followed in respect of a single post. Reliance was placed by Sri. Haridas, learned standing counsel for the University on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Chakradhar v. State of Bihar ( AIR 1988 SC 959 ). In the above case the Supreme Court was considering the application of the rules of reservation with reference to one post in the cadre. The learned counsel relied on the following observation of the Supreme Court in the above ruling:

(3.) On the other hand Sri. N. N. Sugunapalan, learned counsel for the petitioner brought to my notice a subsequent ruling of the Supreme Court reported in State of Bihar and Ors. v. Bageshwari Prasad and Anr, (1995 Supp. (1) SCC 432). In the above ruling the Supreme Court took a slightly different view with regard to the filling up of a single post in a cadre. There may be cases where vacancies will arise in a single post in a cadre. Every time a vacancy may be considered as a single vacancy and that may go to a general candidate. Thus for all times to come, all the vacancies arising in a single post can be filled up only by appointing general candidates. That will clearly defeat the very purpose of the policy of reservation. The ruling of the Supreme Court in Paswan's case (AIR 1988 SC 959) was based on the fact that if there is only one post of Director, that must be filled up by appointing a general candidate. If it is reserved for appointment from the candidates belonging to backward classes or scheduled caste, then that will be violative of equality of opportunity and exceeding the 50% limit prescribed in Paswan's case. But if vacancies are arising in the same post successively, then it is always scope for applying the communal rotation as enjoined in the rules. As happened in this case, a vacancy in the post of Director of Extension Education arose in 1995. Considering the fact that there is only a single vacancy/post, the above vacancy was filled up by a general candidate. He retired. Thereafter the present vacancy arose in 1996. Considering again the theory of a single post, the University is of the view that the same must be filled up by a general candidate. If this process goes on, there may not be any reservation for the successive vacancies arising in a single post. I do not think that is the reasoning of the Supreme Court in Paswan's case (AIR 1988 SC 959). I am fortified in taking the above view on the basis of the subsequent Supreme Court ruling relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner by which Paswan's case was distinguished. The following observation of the Supreme Court is relevant in this contest: