D. JACOB Vs. ANDHRA UNIVERSITY AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three writ petitions viz., W.P. Nos. 31, 32 and 255 of 1985 raise certain common questions of law and fact and are directed against the same respondent viz., the Andhra University represented by its Registrar at Waltair. It is proposed to dispose off all the three writ petitions by a common judgment. But it may be necessary to state the facts of each case separately and to deal with them as such. Nevertheless the common principles of law which may be governing in all the three cases can be made applicable to all the three writ petitions. W.P. No. 31 of 1985 :

(2.) The first writ petition to be taken up in this connection is W.P. No. 31 of 1985. The petitioner in this writ petition is one Mr. D. Jacob who is a Research Assistant in the Department of Politics and Public Administration of Andhra University and claims to be a member of the Schedule Caste. The case of the petitioner, briefly stated, is that the respondent University by its Advertisement No. 3 of 1983 dated 1-8-1983 invited applications for the posts of Readers and Lecturers in different departments. The petitioner has applied for the post of a Lecturer in the department of Politics and Public Administration. He was interviewed by the Selection Committee along with other applicants and was included in the panel for appointment as a Lecturer. The Syndicate of the Respondent-University at its meeting held on 29-12-1984 selected candidates from out of the panel put up to the Selection Committee. The petitioner challenges this selection on the ground that the selection has been made in a manner contrary to the regulations of the university and the orders issued by the Government with respect to reservation of posts for candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Backward Class categories. The petitioner has obtained his Master Degree in Public Administration and joined the Andhra University as a Research Scholar in the Department of Politics and Public Administration in the year 1973. In 1979 he was appointed as a Research Assistant and ever since then he has been teaching to the Post-graduate students. In the year (illegible) obtained a further Master Degree in Politics and on the strength of these qualifications he applied for the advertisement to the post of a Lecturer which was made by the University in Advertisement No. 3/83 dated 1-8-1983. The petitioner says that in the panel prepared by the selection committee for consideration of the Syndicate one candidate by name Sri B. S. R. Anjaneyulu was placed in the OC category, the respondent No. 2 Smt. Meena Koteswaran was placed in B.C.(A) category and the petitioner was placed in the S.C. category. The syndicate after considering the names on the panel selected respondent No. 2 to the post of a Lecturer in the Department of Politics and Public Administration. The petitioner further states that the Respondent No. 2 is only a research Scholar with Ph.D. who has been associated with the respondent University for about 6 years while his association with the University commenced from 1973. It is further contended by the petitioner that he was appointed as a Research Assistant in 1979 and was teaching the post graduate students ever since then. Therefore, in view of his experience and long standing in the field of teaching and evaluation the petitioner feels that he had a superior claim for selection to the post of a lecturer in the department of Politics and Public Administration. It is, therefore, obvious that the petitioner's case is based firstly on the ground of relative merit and higher qualifications which he assumes that he possesses as compared to Respondent No. 2. Secondly, the petitioner states that the authorities have failed to follow the Rules of reservation of seats to different categories under G.O.Ms.No. 927 dated 20-11-1982 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh dealing with reservation of posts for Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Backward Class categories. It is the contention of the petitioner that under the provisions of G.O.Ms.No. 927 dated 20-11-1982 the rules of reservation for direct recruitment are to be applied and followed in respect of posts up to the category of Readers and the Universities are directed to follow the roster system for appointment as prescribed in R. 22 of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules in the matter of appointment of Lecturers and Readers. Through another G.O.Ms.No. 995 Education dated 16-12-1982 it has been provided that the reservation in the teaching posts should be made by grouping the faculties as follows:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_28_LAWS(APH)7_19851.htm</FRM> Each group is directed to be treated as a single unit and the roster system described in R. 22 of the General Rules is made applicable. However, the respondent-University in complete disregard to the specific directions of the State Government contained in the above G.O.Ms.No. 927 dated 20-11-1982 and G.O.Ms.No. 995 dated 16-12-1982 have evolved a procedure of its own for reservation of posts without any reference to the roster system. Under the procedure being followed by the university it is provided that the Selection Committee shall prepare and recommend a panel of selected candidates from among the reserved categories viz., S.Cs. S.Ts. and B.Cs. and from among others under Open Competition in a separate list. The selector committee is also expected to select a number of candidates in several panels each equal to the number of posts available to be filled so that the Syndicate may select the candidates from different panels to balance the total reserved quota as per the percentage of reservations. The final selection of candidates should be made keeping in view the proportional representation to all the categories and carrying forward of the vacancies is applicable to the posts of Readers and Lecturers. The main contention of the petitioner, therefore, is that the procedure evolved by the University is contrary to the directions of the Government under G.O.Ms.No. 927 dated 20-11-1982 and G.O.Ms.No. 995 dated 16-12-1982, whereby the Universities have been placed under an obligation to follow the roster system in the matter of providing for reservations. The absence of any roster system, therefore, results in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and whimsical and unbridled exercise of discretion vested in the University authorities. The petitioner further contends that there is no choice for the University authorities to deviate from the Rules laid down in G.O.Ms.No. 927 dated 20-11-1982 and G.O.Ms.No. 995 dated 16-12-1982 when they themselves have clearly stated in the advertisement itself that the rule of reservation and carrying forward of vacancies is applicable to all the posts including consequential vacancies in these cadres and that the earmarking of the vacancies among S.Cs, S.Ts, B.Cs, and O.Cs. will be done in accordance with G.O.Ms.No. 927 dated 20-11-1982, G.O.Ms. No. 995 dated 16-12-1982 and G.O.Ms. No. 117 dated 5-3-1983 of the Government of Andhra Pradesh at the time of actual filling up of vacancies. The petitioner further submits that the total number of posts to be filled in Group-I is 21. Three S.C. candidates have been shown within the said group including the petitioner. The rule of reservation is 15% of the seats for S.C. category. Therefore, all the three S.C. candidates selected and placed in the panel including the petitioner are eligible for appointment. He further claims inter se priority and superior qualifications even among the three S.C. candidates shown in the panel in Group-I. Therefore, failure of the Syndicate in selecting the petitioner is deemed to be arbitrary and illegal. The respondent No. 2 is said to belong to B.C.-A group and the fact that there is already a lecturer of B.C.(A) group along with 8 lecturers in that category makes it incumbent upon the authorities to follow the norms laid down as on 8-2-1983 and selected the petitioner instead of Respondent No. 2. In this view of the matter the petitioner impeaches the action of the respondent University in not following the orders of the Government and the guide-lines evolved by the University itself as manifestly illegal and arbitrary, in addition to being in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

(3.) It is significant to note that the question involved in this writ petition apart from the relative merits of the petitioner and respondent No. 2 is the alleged failure of the authorities to fill up the posts in different categories. The question of reservation in a matter like this tends to be a complicated affair as the reservation has to be assigned to each group and it has to be ensured that in each department of the university the proportional representation is maintained so as not to create an imbalance contrary to the rules of reservation prescribed by the Government. It would be necessary, therefore, to keep in view the various reservations involved at the level of each group and then at the level of each department and also to have in mind the ratio of a particular reserved class along with the new appointments which are to be made by the University. In other words delicate balancing has to be done so as not to upset the apple cart and to ensure that the policy of reservations enunciated in the Government Orders in G.O. Ms. No. 927, D/- 20-11-1982 G.O. Ms. No. 995, dated 16-12-1982 and G.O. Ms. No. 117 D/- 5-3-1983 is fulfilled. The 1st respondent university in a detailed counter affidavit filed by it has dealt with the points raised by the petitioner in the following manner. However, it may not be necessary to refer to all the details that have been mentioned about the advertisement No. 3/83 D/-1-8-1983 and the circumstances under which the University was forced to make the appointments in view of the academic demand made on it and to ensure the excellence of teaching which has been a hall-mark of the Andhra University. The main contention of the 1st respondent University is that in making the selection of candidates for appointment to various vacancies of lecturers the University has taken into account the University Regulations, the guidelines adopted by the Syndicate as well as the criteria prescribed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in G.O. Ms. No. 927 D/- 20-11-1982, G.O. Ms. No. 995 D/- 16-12-1982 and G.O. Ms. No. 117, D/-5-3-1983. Dealing with the first contention of the petitioner that he possessed better qualifications for appointment to the post of a lecturer as compared to Respondent No. 2 the qualifications required for appointment to the post of a lecturer must be seen. Further more keeping in view the prescribed qualifications a comparative table of qualifications of petitioner and the 2nd respondent must be studied to determine whether the petitioner is a better qualified person than Respondent No. 2.