RAJKUMAR MEENA Vs. RANKASWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The third respondent in W.P.(C) No. 36354/2015 is in appeal challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 14.11.2016. The first respondent herein is the writ petitioner. He had filed the writ petition challenging Ext. P-5 Rank list as well as Ext. P-8 order by which the appellant herein was appointed as an Assistant Professor in Hindi. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned proceedings and has directed the second respondent University to conduct a fresh selection. The dispute arose in the following facts and circumstances.

(2.) As per Ext. P-2 notification dated 24.04.2013, applications were invited from qualified members belonging to Scheduled Tribes for selection and appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in the Department of Hindi. The notification was later on re-issued on 06.02015. The appellant, respondents 1, 4, 5 and 6, had submitted applications in response to the said notification. An interview was conducted and Ext. P-5 Rank list was published wherein the first respondent was rank No. 1, the fourth respondent rank No. 2, and the fifth respondent rank No. 3. On the basis of the ranking, the appellant was appointed as Assistant Professor, as per Ext. P-8 order. The first respondent challenged the rank list as well as Ext. P-8 order of appointment by filing W.P.(C) No. 36354/2015. Though the first respondent had also participated in the interview, he was not ranked as per Ext. P-5. According to him, the candidates who were so ranked are persons hailing from other states and are not entitled to claim the benefit of the reservation that is meant to be extended only to persons belonging to the Scheduled Tribes of Kerala. In fact, the first respondent had submitted Ext. P-7 representation on 16.10.2017 pointing out the infirmities in ranking persons from outside the State as per Ext. P-5. However, there was no action. It was in the said circumstances that the writ petition was filed.

(3.) The case of the first respondent was that the reservation that is provided to members belonging to Scheduled Tribes were available only to those persons who belong to the Scheduled Tribes of the State of Kerala. Persons belonging to other States were not entitled to claim the said benefit on the basis of their status as members of a Scheduled Tribe of their parent State.