Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
A.P. Scheduled Castes Welfare ... vs Govt. Of A.P. And Ors. on 24 July, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1998(5)ALD57, 1998(4)ALT718
Author: P. Venkatarama Reddi
Bench: P. Venkatarama Reddi
ORDER A. Hanumanthu, J.
1. These writ petitions have been filed challenging the educational notification SKU/EE1/97, dated 20-3-1997 based on the G.O. No.995 (Edn.), dated 16-12-1992 issued by Srikrishna Devaraya University, Anantapur for the purpose of recruitment of teaching staff i.e., Lecturers, Readers and Professors in Sri Krishna Devaraya University, Anantapur, and in the Post-Graduate Centre, Kurnool affiliated to that University, on the ground that grouping of Departments for the purpose of reservations is illegal and contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court.
2. Now a glance at the introductory facts. Sri Krishnadcvaraya University (hereinafter referred to as "S.K. University") came into existence on 25-7-1981. The Post-Graduate Centre at Kurnool which was previously affiliated to Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupathi has been annexed to S.K. University in the year 1993. S.K. University has been offering various courses in various faculties. It has been following the rules of reservation applicable to State Government employees. For implementing the rule of reservation with respect to the teaching staff in the Universities existing in the State, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued the G.O. Ms. No.927, Edn., dated 20-11-1982 giving the following clear instructions to all the Universities (in the State) for strict compliance:
(1) the rule of reservation for direct recruitment shall be applied and followed in respect of posts of Readers also in the Universities;
(2) the roster system for appointments prescribed in Rule 22 of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules in its application to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes, shall be maintained and followed for filling up of vacancies by direct recruitment of the posts of Lecturers and Readers in the Universities; and (3) as far as carrying forward of vacancies is concerned the principles adopted by the Government should be followed.
On the above instructions, certain Universities had raised certain points for clarification as follows :
(1) to specify the principle adopted by the Government in regard to carry forward of vacancies.
(2) to clarify specifically, if the roster and carry forward is to be applied subject-wise, that is, in relation to all the concerned category of posts in all the departments put together. If the roster is to be maintained in relation to all the vacant lectureships in all the departments put together, and similarly for all the Readerships, the mechanics, how it should be implemented, that is, how the earmarking of the posts, should be done to specific reservation groups may be indicated.
(3) and the date from which the principles of carry forward is to be applied.
On the above points, the Government have issued the clarification in G.O. Ms. No.955, Edn., dated 16-12-1982 as follows :
(1) The principle of carry forward of vacancies in Government posts has been clearly indicated in Rule 22 of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules. The same procedure shall be adopted by the Universities, constituent colleges and post-graduate centres also in regard to carry forward of vacancies.
(2) Keeping in view, the decision taken in the Vice-Chancellors' Conference held at Tirupati on 9-4-1981, Government direct that the reservation in the teaching posts should be made by grouping the faculties as indicated below :
Group I: Arts, Commerce, Business
Management, Law, Social
Sciences and Education
including all languages.
Group II: Sciences.
Group III: Engineering and Technology.
Each group should be treated as a single unit and the roster system prescribed in Rule 22 of General Rules shall be followed.
(3) All appointments of Readers to be made with effect from 20-11-1982 shall be in accordance with the orders issued in G.O. Ms. No.927, Edn., dated 20-11-1982 and the carry forward rule shall be applicable for the vacancies that arise on and from 20-11-1982 Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes/ Backward Class candidates selected and appointed on merit against Open Competition should not be counted against reserved quota.
3. In pursuance of that G.O. Sri Venkateswara University issued an Employment Notification dated 17-12-1993 for recruitment of teaching staff without specifying the reservations on subject-wise basis. That notification was challenged in WP No. 10953/94 and batch and the Division Bench of this Court by its common order dated 23-12-1994 held that the employment notice issued without notifying the reservation of the posts subject-wise is bad and accordingly set aside the said notification. Thereafter, the Government has constituted a committee as per G.O. Ms. No.182, Edn, dated 20-5-1995 to suggest guidelines for observing the rule of reservation to be followed in the light of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in WP No. 10953/94, dated 23-12-1994. The Committee headed by Chairman, A.P. State Council for Higher Education and the Commissioner of Collegiate Education as Member-Convener and the Commissioner of Technical Education and the Commissioner of Social Welfare and the Director of Tribal Welfare as Members, submitted its report and suggested certain guidelines. In pursuance of the said report, the Government have issued G.O. Ms. No.420, Edn., dated 18-11-1995 as follows:
(i) Orders issued in G.O. Ms. No.995, Edn., dated 16-12-1982 regarding the observance of rule of reservation group-wise shall be continued. But the vacancies shall be notified department/ subject-wise as ordered by the Hon'ble Court;
(ii) The Departments/subjects within a group shall be arranged in alphabetical order for the purpose of roster points;
(iii) In filling up the backlog vacancies, the distribution of these vacancies shall be done based on the principle that the unrepresented and under-represented subjects/departments take precedence over the subjects/ departments having representation from SC/ST Communities. However, in some of the Universities, there has been no recruitment in certain departments/subjects since 1982. Therefore, the question of treating them as totally unrepresented for the purpose of distributing the backlog does not arise.
Among equally unrepresented departments/ subjects, the distribution of backlog vacancies shall be on the basis of alphabetical arrangement of departments/ subjects:
(iv) For filling up the future vacancies, or the vacancies other than backlog vacancies, the procedure shown at (i) and (ii) shall only be adopted;
(v) The following departments/subjects have been identified as unique departments/subjects:
(1) Arabic; (2) Islamic; (3) Persian; and (4) Urdu.
These departments/subjects in view of the uniqueness may be deleted from the roster points. Recruitment to these departments/ subjects may be thrown open to all qualified candidates.
The Universities were also requested to show the number of backlog vacancies for SC/STs to the Commissioner of Social Welfare/Commissioner of Tribal Welfare as precautionary measure before issue of notification.
4. Thereafter, S.K. University issued the impugned notification dated 20-3-1997 calling for applications in the prescribed forms on or before 25-4-1997 for the posts specified in the said notification. The said notification was issued for filling up the posts in the cadres of Lecturers, Readers and Professors. For the purpose of reservation, nine Arts departments have been grouped as Group I and thirteen Science departments have been grouped as Group II. Four backlog vacancies and eight future vacancies are notified relating to Lecturers in Arts (Group I). Eight backlog vacancies and nine future vacancies are notified relating to Lecturers in Science (Group II). Six backlog vacancies and seven future vacancies are notified for Readers in Arts (Group I) and two backlog vacancies and six future vacancies are notified in the category of Readers in Science (Group II). The reservations with respect to backlog vacancies and future vacancies are shown subject-wise with respect to Lecturers and Readers in both the Groups, but, no reservations are notified with regard to the category of Professors in both the Groups. These writs have been filed challenging the said notification grouping the departments for the purpose of reservation.
5. Sri C. V. Nagarjuna Reddy, learned Counsel for some of the petitioners, took the lead in submitting the arguments and canvassed the following points:
(1) G.O. Ms. No.995, dated 16-12-1982 as modified in G.O. Ms. No.420, dated 18-11-1995 providing for group-wise reservations are illegal and contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court and followed by other High Courts and consequently the method of making group-wise reservation adopted by the S.K. University and the impugned notification dated 20-2-1997 issued on that basis is to be declared as illegal. According to the petitioners each department of faculty included in either of these two groups is a separate and independent unit by itself, though the designation and pay scales of the posts of Professors, Readers and Lecturers in different subjects are one and the same and therefore there is no rationale behind the 2nd respondent University grouping these independent departments into one category and fixing up the reservation.
(2) Group-wise reservations leave wide discretion with the Management giving rise to manipulations for fixing up roster points of their choice and also create situations where there is either hundred percent reservation or no reservation in the particular subject and the guidelines contained in G.O. Ms. No.420 cannot effectively prevent the misuse or abuse of discretion by Management. The learned Counsel elaborates this point by submitting that if a person of the choice of the Management belonging to a particular category is available in respect of one department, the Management can notify the post in the said department as being reserved to the category to which such a person belongs.
(3) Failure to provide reservation for women to the posts of Professor as provided in G.O. Ms. No.456, dated 21-12-1995 vitiates the entire selection process for the posts of Professor and as such the impugned notification is bad.
(4) The constitution of Selection Committees by the University with regard to outside experts is in contravention of the mandatory provisions of Section 43(1)(ii) of A.P. Universities Act.
(5) Nomenclature of the departments is changed to suit the persons of their choice by manipulating the roster points. The learned Counsel elaborates the point stating that the nomenclature of the department of Telugu has been changed as Andhra Bharathi and the nomenclature of the department of Management (MBA) has been changed to Business Administration in the present impugned notification contrary to the earlier notifications dated 7-3-1992 and 15-6-1993.
(6) The impugned notification suffers with the procedural irregularities such as that the arrangement of departments in alphabetical order in each group as provided under G.O. Ms. No.420, dated 18-11-1995 has not been approved by the Executive Council of the University and the backlog vacancies and future vacancies were also not placed before the Executive Council of the University, and also the posts, and the backlog vacancies for SCs and STs were also not placed before the Commissioner of Social Welfare for approval.
(7) The roster points as fixed by the University is not in conformity with the roster points contained in Rule 22(C) of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules.
(8) The learned Counsel Sri C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, representing the writ petitioner in WP No.29758 of 1997 also contended that the group-wise reservation deprived the writ petitioner the chance of applying for the post of Lecturer in Rural Development Department as it has been notified as reserved for ST and if the subject-wise reservation had been followed, this post would have been reserved for SCs.
6. The learned Counsel for the University contends that the University has strictly followed the provisions of G.O. Ms. Nos.995, 420 and 456 relating to the rule of reservation and followed hundred, point roster as per Rule 22(C) of A.P. Subordinate Rules. As per the said GOs. the subjects have been arranged into two groups viz., Arts and Science groups. The subjects in each group have been arranged in alphabetical order. The backlog vacancies are ordered to be filled up with preference to unrepresented and under-represented subjects by arranging them in alphabetical order only and the future vacancies are being filled by grouping the subjects in arranging them in alphabetical order. The learned Counsel further submits that rule of reservation and fixation of roster points commenced since 1985 and from 1985 to 1997 the roster points in each group were filled as follows :
(i) Group-I Arts (Lecturers) roster points 1 - 65 were filled up.
(ii) Group-I Arts (Readers) roster points 1-43 were filled up.
(iii) Group-II Sciences (Lecturers) roster points 1-60 were filled up.
(iv) Group-II Sciences (Readers) roster points 1 - 34 were filled up.
The four backlog vacancies in Group-I Arts (Lecturers) category have been fixed for the roster points 33, 42, 58 for ST and roster point 62 has been fixed for SC. Likewise the backlog vacancies in the other groups for Lecturers and Readers have also been fixed in the other roster points giving preferences to unrepresented and underrepresented subjects. There are no procedural irregularities in issuing the impugned notification. The approval of the Commissioner of Social Welfare has been obtained for filling up the backlog vacancies for SCs and STs. The University issued the notification following the rule of reservation as per G.O. Ms. No.420 and in the notification it is clearly mentioned subject-wise reservation.
7. Article 38 of the Constitution of India envisages that the State shall strive to promote welfare of the people by securing and protecting, as effectively as it may, a social order in which justice social, economic and political, shall inform all the institutions of the national life; and in particular strive to minimise the inequalities in income and endeavour to eliminate inequalities in status, facilities and opportunities, not only amongst individual but also amongst groups of people residing in different areas or engaged in different occasions. Article 46 of the Constitution enjoins that educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of the people, and, in particular, of the SCs and STs shall be promoted by the State and they shall be protected from social injustice and all forms of exploitation. Article 335 of the Constitution mandates the State that in the field of competition, the claims of the members of the SCs and STs shall be taken into consideration, consistently with the maintenance of efficiency of administration, in the making of appointments to services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State. These Articles empower the State to make protective discrimination in favour of the disadvantaged, in particular, the members of the SCs and STs in the matter of appointments to the public posts, the object thereby being to provide socio-economic equality for the said sections in the Society. Protective discrimination has been upheld by the Apex Court and other High Courts. It connotes mitigating absolute equality to achieve equality in favour of the disadvantaged segments of the Society. It is in consonance with the provisions of the Constitution of India. Recruitment to a post or an office under the State is governed by the Constitution, law and the rules made under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution or administrative instructions in the absence of statutory rules. For implementing the said provisions of the Constitution, the Government of Andhra Pradesh (1st respondent herein) as above stated issued G.O. Ms. No.927 (Education), dated 20-11-1982, G.O. Ms. No.995, dated 16-12-1982 and G.O. Ms. No.420, dated 10-11-1995 providing for rule of reservation in recruitment to teaching staff in the Universities.
8. The question that falls for our consideration in these writ petitions is "whether the grouping of the departments/ subjects into group-I (Arts) and group-II (Sciences) in the impugned notification and following the alphabetical order within the group for the purpose of implementing the policy of reservation is void or unconstitutional".
9. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, in support of their contention, relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Suresh Chandra Varma v. Chancellor, Nagpur University, , Dr. Chakradhar Paswan v. State of Bihar and others, AIR 1998 SC 959 = 1998 LAB IC 619, Slate of Uttar Pradesh v. Dr. Deena Nath Shukla and another, 1997 (1) SLR 715, and the Full Bench decision of Karnataka High Court in Dr. Rajkumar and others v. Gulbarga University and others, (FB). In the case of ( supra), the employment notice was issued by Nagpur University inviting applications for 77 teaching posts which included the posts of Professors, Readers and Lecturers in different subjects ranging from Economics, Politics and Sociology to Physics, Pharmacy and Geology. The said notice mentioned total number of reservations Category-wise i.e., separately for Professors, Readers and Lecturers but not subject-wise. Thus, for the 13 posts of Professors in different faculties it merely stated that two were reserved for SCs, 2 for STs and 1 for VJ/NT and similarly for the 29 posts of readers, and 35 posts of lecturers, different number of posts were reserved for SCs and STs and VJ/NT. A number of applications were received from candidates belonging to both reserved and non-reserved castes for all the three categories of posts i.e., Professors, Readers and Lecturers. The Selection Committees recommended 47 candidates giving some weightage to candidates belonging to the reserved castes. The Executive Council of the University constituted a sub-committee to decide which post should be reserved for the reserved caste and after receiving its recommendations the Executive Council decided to keep apart 17 posts for reserved candidates. One of the questions raised before the Supreme Court was whether the said employment notice of Nagpur University ought to have indicated reservations post-wise. The Supreme Court held that the said employment notice was bad in law since it had failed to notify the reservations of the posts and subject-wise and had mentioned only the total number of reserved posts without indicating a particular post so reserved subject-wise.
10. In the case of Chakradhar (supra) the question that arose before the Supreme Court was whether the four posts in the directorate of indigenous medicines i.e., the post of Director and three posts of Deputy Director (Homeopathy) Deputy Director (Ayurvedic) and Deputy Director (Unani) - all class I posts - should be grouped together for the purpose of implementing the policy of reservation according to the fifty point roster. As regards the post of Director of Indigenous medicine which was a higher post and carried higher salary than that of Deputy Directors, the Supreme Court held that the post of Director could not be equated in terms with the Deputy Director and therefore cannot be grouped along with the Deputy Director. As regards the question whether the three posts of Deputy Directors in three specialisations i.e., Homeopathic, Ayurvedic and Unani, could be clubbed together the Supreme Court held as follows:
"The three posts of Deputy Directors of Homeopathic, Unani and Ayurvedic are distinct and separate as they pertain to different disciplines and each one is isolated post by itself carried in the same cadre --Government of India instructions clearly show that there can be no grouping of one or more isolated posts for the purpose of reservation. To illustrate, Professors in medical colleges are paid on the same grade or scale of pay, but the posts of Professor of Cardiology, Surgery, Professor of Gyneocology pertain to particular disciplines and therefore each is an isolated post."
In that view of the matter the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Patna High Court holding that reservation to the only post of Director tantamounts to hundred percent reservation and that the two posts of Deputy Directors could not be linked together for the purpose of reservations.
11. The case in Stale of U.P. v. Dr. Deena Nath Shukla (supra) arose against the advertisement issued by the University of Allahabad inviting applications from all eligible persons for the posts of Professors, Readers and Lecturers including the posts reserved for SCs, STs and other Backward Classes reserved under Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for SCs and STs) Act, 1984, Supreme Court held in that case, in para 14, thus :
"Thus, it could be seen that if the subject-wise recruitment is adopted in each service or post in each cadre in each faculty, discipline, speciality or super speciality, it would not only be clear to the candidates who seek recruitment but also there would not be any overlapping in application of the rule of reservation to a service or post as specified and made applicable by Section 3 of the Act. On the other hand if the total posts are advertised without subject-wise specifications, in every faculty, discipline speciality or super-speciality, it would be difficult for the candidates to know as to which of the posts are available either to the general or reserved candidates or whether or not they fulfil or qualify the requirements so as to apply for a particular post and seeks selection."
12. In Dr. Raj Kumar's case (supra) Full Bench of Karnataka High Court held in para 32 as follows :
"The next question for consideration is about the method which should be adopted in providing reservations for the cadres of Professors, Readers and Lecturers for, though these posts are in different subjects, they carry same designation and pay scale. Therefore, the question is as to whether reservation is to be worked out in respect of such cadres separately. This question is also no longer res Integra. This Court in the case of Dr. Krishna v. State of Karnataka, ILR 1986 (1) Kant. 255, has held that in the case of teaching cadres though the designation and cadres of the posts of lecturers in different subjects are one and the same, having regard to the fact that the posts of readers, lecturers in each of the subjects is distinct and separate, each subject has to be treated as independent unit for the purpose of recruitment and reservation. The said view stands confirmed by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Chakradhar, . In view of this position of law the only reasonable method of giving effect to the reservation in the cadre in which the number of posts available is smaller is by way of providing a reasonable roster."
13. The learned Counsel for the petitioners also relied on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in WP No. 10953 of 1994 (1995 (1) AWR 277) wherein it is held:
"that the employment notice issued without notifying their reservations of the posts subject-wise is bad."
14. As seen from all these decisions the ratio-decidendi in these decisions is that the employment notification should be made notifying the reservation of the posts subject-wise. It is based on the reasoning that if the reservations of the posts subject-wise are not notified, the candidates belonging to the reserved categories would not know for which of the posts they could apply and the Selection Committee would not know whether they were interviewing the candidates for reserved posts or not and it would give scope to the Executive Council to eliminate unwanted selected candidates after the list of the selected candidates were received from the Selection Committees which would lead to arbitrariness and invidious discrimination. It is nowhere held in these decisions that grouping of the subjects for the purpose of reservation and applying the hundred point roster by the rotational system is bad- The learned Counsel for the petitioner relying on the decision of Chakradhar, (supra) vehemently contends that it has been held in that decision that there can be no grouping of one or more isolated posts for the purpose of reservation. But, in para 8 of the judgment their Lordships of the Supreme Court refrained from expressing any opinion with regard to grouping of subjects for the purpose of reservation. It is observed thus; "it is a moot point whether the isolated posts like those of the Deputy Directors can be subjected to the fifty point roster by the rotational system. We refrain from expressing any opinion on this aspect as it does not arise in the present case. Assuming that the fifty point roster applies, admittedly the first vacancy in the cadre of Deputy Directors was that of the Deputy Director (Homeopathic) and it has to be treated as unreserved, the second reserved and the third unreserved. The first vacancy of Deputy Director (Homeopathic) in the cadre being treated as unreserved according to the roster, had to be thrown open to all. A candidate belonging to the SC had therefore to compete with others." Thus, this decision is not an authority on the point that grouping of the subjects for the purpose of reservation maintaining hundred points roster by rotation is bad. Further that case related to the reservation of three posts of Deputy Directors belonging to three distinct and different disciplines and each one of it was an isolated post by itself. As they happened to be isolated posts in each of the different disciplines, the Apex Court held that there can be no grouping of one or more isolated posts for the purpose of reservation. There is also a reference in that decision to the instructions of Government of India to the effect that there can be no grouping of one or more isolated posts for purpose of reservation. In the case on hand there are directions from the State Government issued in GOs. from time to time that while filling up the posts to the teaching staff in the Universities group-wise reservation should be followed.
15. In the instant case, the rule of reservation on group-wise basis is being followed for filling up the posts of Lecturers and Readers. Hundred point roster system by rotation as contained in Rule 22 of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules is being maintained as per the directions of the State Government issued from time to time. The posts of Lecturers and Readers, though they belong to different disciplines, are not isolated posts. The vacancies have been notified subject-wise and the reservations for the said posts have also been notified as per hundred point rotational system which is being followed by the S.K. University since its inception. The impugned notification also is in conformity with the dicta as laid down in the authorities cited above by specifying the reservations subject-wise. The grouping of subjects for the purpose of recruitment in order to give effect to reservation worked out cannot be said to be contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court as contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners.
16. The contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that group-wise reservation leaves lot of discretion to the Management giving rise to manipulations in fixing up roster points of their choice and also create situations where there is either hundred percent reservation or no reservation in the particular subject. Some illustrations are given to substantiate his contention. The guidelines contained in G.O. Ms. No.420, if followed effectively, can prevent the possible misuse or abuse of the discretion by the Management. Under this G.O. for the purpose of observance of rule of reservation, subjects have to be grouped together as per the directions in G.O. Ms. No.995 mat the Departments/Subjects in each group shall be arranged in alphabetical order for the purpose of roster points, that the backlog vacancies shall be filled giving preference to unrepresented and under-
represented Departments/Subjects by arranging them in alphabetical order and that the future vacancies shall be filled by grouping the subjects in arranging them in alphabetical order. Thus, if these instructions are followed strictly, we are of the opinion that there will be little scope for manipulations while fixing the roster points in each Department/Subject. The apprehension that there is scope for the persons at the helm of affairs in the University to meddle with the roster points is not a ground to hold that the practice of group-wise reservation itself is bad.
17. The contention of the petitioners' Counsel that if the reservation is department-wise or faculty-wise, it would ensure better adherence to the reservation police (sic policy) and it will not give rise to inequities and anomalies pointed out by him, perhaps represents a particular view point that could be taken in the matter. At the same time, as pointed out by the learned Counsel for the University and the impleaded parties, very often the reservation subject-wise may deny the opportunities to the candidates from socially backward classes, especially where there is a single post or few posts. It is pointed out that in very many faculties, the posts or vacancies to be filled at any given point of time, will be very limited and if the subject-wise or faculty-wise reservation is given effect to, the candidates of SC, ST and BC categories may not benefit at all. Many of the back-log vacancies will remain unfilled. We are unable to say, on the material placed before us, that the group-wise reservation is per se illegal or arbitrary or defeats the objective sought to be achieved. The advantages and disadvantages may be there in either of the systems and in the light of experience gained, time may arise when the group-wise reservations may have to be given a go-bye. Suffice it to state that at this point of time, we are not in a position to find fault with the existing system of group-wise reservation on the ground that it violates any constitutional provisions or defeats the very objective behind the reservation, thereby denying the equality of opportunity to the candidates from reserved categories. The safeguards provided in G.O. Ms. No.420, dated 18-11-1995 which we have adverted to supra, will go a long way in rectifying the inequity or anomaly.
18. The Standing Counsel for S.K. University has produced a copy of the proceedings in RC No.R2/10461/96, dated 4-3-1997 issued by the Commissioner of Social Welfare, Hyderabad, giving clearance for issuing the impugned notification with respect to backlog and future vacancies for teaching posts in respect of group 1 and group 2 -Readers and Lecturers. The learned Standing Counsel also produced the clearance certificate in RC No.2128/TR1/TWD/J4, dated 17-2-1997 issued by the Director of Tribal Cultural Research and Training Institute, Hyderabad, giving clearance and according permission for filling up the backlog vacancies reserved for Scheduled Tribes as per roster points. These two documents negative the contention of the learned Counsel for the writ petitioners that clearance for filling up the backlog vacancies and future vacancies for SCs and STs was no obtained from the Commissioner of Social Welfare before issuing the impugned notification.
19. The learned Counsel for the petitioners also pointed out certain irregularities in fixing the roster points for filling up the vacancies in the Departments of Bio-Chemistry, Chemistry, Telugu and Business Managements. It is his contention that the post of Reader in Bio-Chemistry was shown in the earlier notifications as reserved for SC/ ST but the same, in the present impugned notification, is shown as reserved for OC and it has been done with a mala fide intention for accommodating the wife of a Member of the Executive Committee of the University. It is also contended that there arc no candidates from reserved classes in the Department of Chemistry from its inception and there is only one candidate belonging to SC in the Post-
Graduate Centre at Kurnool and that in the present notification, with a view to appoint one Sudhakar Babu, the post in Chemistry has been reserved for OC instead of for SC even though the said Department of Chemistry is unrepresented. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that in the Department of Electronics, there is hundred percent reservation as the two Lecturer vacancies in that Department have been reserved for SC/ST (women) even though there are other unrepresented Departments and it has been done with a mala fide intention to accommodate the candidates of the persons who are at the helm of affairs in the University. We do not find sufficient material to accept this contention, though the anamolies pointed out by the learned Counsel give rise to some doubts.
20. The learned Counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the Management of the University has changed the names of the Telugu Department and the Department of Management Studies as Andhra Bharathi and Business Management respectively with a view to fixing up the roster points for the purpose of reservation to their candidates. This point is particularly stressed by Mr. Haragopal in WP No.34595 of 1997. Moreover, the petitioner in WP No.34595 of 1997 appeared for selection without demur. The learned Standing Counsel for the University submitted that the name of the Telugu Department was changed as 'Andhra Bharathi' as early as in 1985 itself and the name of the Department of Management Studies was changed as 'Business Management' in the year 1982 and it has been referred to in G.O. Ms. No.995, dated 16-12-1982, but it was not given effect to earlier. We do not see any conscious or deliberate design in changing the nomenclature of faculties. We cannot therefore accept the above contention.
21. The learned Counsel for the petitioners also pointed out that the hundred point roster as maintained by the University is not in conformity with the roster points indicated in Rule 22-C of the Rules and the Management has changed the roster points to accommodate the candidates and on account of it the reserved classes have been deprived of the posts for which they are entitled and the Management of the University has been filling up the said posts with their own candidates. Admittedly, the University is maintaining hundred point roster for the purpose of reservation. If there is any deviation in the roster points as alleged by the petitioners, certainly prejudice would be caused to the reserved classes. But, in our opinion, it is a matter to be enquired into in depth by an independent agency to be appointed by the State Government. As far as these writs are concerned, we are not inclined to probe into that question in the absence of pleadings and details and demonstration of actual prejudice to the petitioners.
22. It is next contended in Writ Petition No.27505 of 1997 that the outside expert in the Selection Committee was not chosen out of the Professors recommended by the Board of Studies and the expert was nominated by the Vice-Chancellor himself quite contrary to Section 43(1)(ii) of the A.P. Universities Act and therefore, the selection is vitiated. The learned Counsel for the University has placed before us a panel of names furnished by the Heads of Departments of Telugu and some other subjects from which it is apparent that the panel has been prepared at a meeting of Board of Studies. It is not necessary that for each selection, there should be a fresh panel.
23. Another contention advanced on behalf of second petitioner in the said writ petition who applied for the post of Professor of Telugu and who declined to appear for the interview is that the reservation for women has not been followed in regard to Professors' posts, though the Government Orders adopted by the University make it obligatory to do so.
Prima facie, there seems to be a violation in this regard. But we arc not inclined to interfere for the reason that the petitioner failed to appear for the interview on an untenable ground that outside expert was not properly nominated. It would have been a different matter if the petitioner got selected after going through the selection process. She would then have had a legitimate claim to press for providing reservation if it is otherwise available for the post in question. Moreover, even if the rule of reservation for women had been applied, the post of Professor of Telugu would not have been within the slot of women reservation. Therefore, no prejudice is caused to the second petitioner.
24. Before parting with the case, we would like to express our feeling that the irregularities pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioners with regard to fixing up the roster points, that there has been deviation in the hundred point roster maintained by the University for the purpose of reservation, that there has been no representation of SCs/STs from the beginning in the Department of Chemistry etc. can be examined by an independent agency to be appointed by the State Government. We are sure that even without such probe by an independent agency, the University authorities will objectively take stock of the factual position in the light of criticism levelled in these writ petitions and take necessary remedial measures before the next selection to rectify the anomalies or disparities to the extent possible.
25. In the light of above discussion, the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs.