N CHANDRAYUDU Vs. VENKATESWARA UNIVERSITY TIRUPATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent i.e., Sn Venkateswara University, in not specifying the reservations of the various posts advertised in Advertisement No.E-11(2)/ 1993/Advt/93(l) dated 17-12-1993 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, and setting aside the same and consequently directing the respondent to notify the vacancies specifying the reservations, subject-wise instead of groupwise etc

(2.) The petitioner states that he belongs to a Backward class in 'B' category. He states that he took his M.Sc. degree in Geography from Sri Krishnadevaraya University in first class in 1990 and that he got his Ph.D. degree in the same subject in March, 1994. He applied for the post of Lecturer in Geography in response to Advertisement No. E.1 1(2)/ Adverlisement/93(1) dated 17-12-1993 calling for applications for several posts of Professors, Readers and Lecturers in the various faculties of the colleges of the respondent- University and its constituent colleges. As per the said advertisement, the various faculties in the University were divided into three groups - Group I (Arts): Group II (Sciences) and Group III (Engineering and Technology). Group II comprises of II faculties brought under the heading 'Sciences', namely, Botany, Chemistry, Geography, Geology, Home Science, Mathematics, Psychology, Virology, Zoology and Anthropology. It is has to be pointed out that though serial Nos.are given from 21 to 31 for the faculties in this group, serial No.29 is missing. Applications for 10 posts of Lecturers falling in this group were invited of under the said advertisement dated 17-12-1993, 3 of which are temporary posts, the remaining 7 being regular. The regular posts advertised are one each in Botany, Geography and Virology, and 2 each in Geology and Home Science; the temporary posts advertised are one in Home Science and 2 in Zoology. The number of posts of Lecturers reserved for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes including carry forward vacancies of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes "as per the rule of reservation prescribed by the State Governmnent", have been shown as 3,5 and 2 respectively; also one temporary post for Scheduled Castes, and one temporary post for Scheduled Tribes. Thus the advertisement shows that all the posts in Group 11 for which applications were called for arc reserved But it docs not indicate any reservations faculty- wise The petitioner questions this type of reservation made without indicating the category for which the post in a particular faculty has been reserved. In the present case, as already stated above, the petitioner belongs to Backward class 'B" category and he applied for the post of Lecturer in the Geography faculty. His complaint is that the advertisement docs not show whether the said post is reserved for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or Backward Classes though it is state that two posts of Lecturers in Group II are reserved for Backward Class. The same is the position in respect of the other posts of Lecturers for which applications are invited by the said advertisement. The petitioner questions this method of groupwise reservation. He states dial the University seeks tojustify tliis method ofgroupwisc reservation on the ground that it is doing it as per Government orders He submits that group-wise method of reservation is leading to large scale irregularities and abuse of power leading to failure in the implementation of the reservation policy. He submits that this groupwise method of reservation enables the University authorities to accept the applications of candidates belonging to all categories including other castes category. This is leading to candidates belonging to all categories being interviewed simultaneously by the Selection Committee for every vacant post in the group for which applications have been invited because the Selection Committee itself will not know in advance which particular post in the group will be reserved for which particular category. The Selection Committee is therefore driven to recommending candidates for each vacant post in the group irrespective of the category to which they belong consequently leaving the entire matter to the discretion of the appointing authority to pick and choose the specific posts faculty- wise in the group in respect of which category wise reservations have to be made depending on the candidates they want to pick and choose. The petitioner submits that this groupwise reservation is thus leading to arbitrariness and invidious discrimination, apart from being unreasonable because it leaves both the candidates, as well as the Selection Committee, in the dark The petitioner also submits that the University is not bound by the Government orders and that the Universities Act docs not prov ide for such orders relating to selection of teaching staff being issued. The petitioner further submits that even otherwise, the Government order itself is liable to be struck down as arbitrary, unreasonable and defeating the policy of reservation The petitioner submits that so far as the advertisement in question is concerned, all the posts in Group II (Sciences) for which applications have been called for are for reserved categories and that he expected only candidates belonging to reserved categories to apply for the said posts. However, he discovered later that applications were received for the said posts from candidates belonging to other caste categories and that they have also been called for interviews and that therefore he has approached this Court questioning the groupwise reservations adopted by the respondent-University.

(3.) The Writ Petition was admitted on 25-6-1994 and on the same day the learned Single Judge who admitted the Writ Petition, dismissed the W.P.M.P.No: 13297 of 1994 seeking stay of recruitment pursuant to the said advertisement dated 17-12-1993, pending the Writ Petition. The Petitioner questioned the said order dismissing the W.P M.P. by way of Writ Appeal No.678 of 1994 The said Writ Appeal was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court after noticing the judgement of the Supreme Court in Suresh Chandra Verma v. Chancellor, Nagpur University (1) AIR 1990 SC 2023 - the order of the learned Single Judge in the W.P.M.P. w as set aside, and the recruitment pursuant to the said advertisement dated 17-12-1993, was stayed. In view of the importance of the question involved, the Division Bench directed the Writ Petition to be posted before a Division Bench for final disposal at an early date and that is how this Writ Petition has come up before us for final disposal.