Kerala High Court
Sangeetha C vs Kerala Agricultural University on 28 January, 2015
Bench: Antony Dominic, P.V.Asha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC
&
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA
FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAYOF JULY2016/7TH SRAVANA, 1938
W.A.No. 806 of 2015 IN WP(C).22005/2014
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 22005/2014 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 28-01-2015
APPELLANT/APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
SANGEETHA C
W/O.BIJU K ,'KARTHIKA',KARIMBAM POST,
TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR 670 142
BY ADV.SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1. KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY
REP BY THE REGISTRAR, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY,
MAIN CAMPUS, VELLANIKKARA, THRISSUR-680 656
2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR
KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY,MAIN CAMPUS,
VELLANIKKARA, THRISSUR-680 656
R BY SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA,SC,KERALA AGRICULTURA
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29-07-2016, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ANTONY DOMINIC & P.V.ASHA, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Writ Appeal No.806 of 2015
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 29th day of July,2016
JUDGMENT
Asha, J.
Appellant is the writ petitioner. He submitted an application pursuant to Ext.P1 notification issued by the Kerala Agricultural University for selection and appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in Mathematics. In Ext.P1 notification, two vacancies were notified for appointment by general recruitment. A rank list was published on 16.5.2013, in which she was rank No.3. Rank Nos.1 and 2 were appointed. Out of this, rank No.1 did not join duty and the second rank holder even though joined duty, resigned on 6.8.2014 as evident from Ext.P3. The rank list was valid till 15.5.2015. Petitioner approached this court claiming appointment as against one of these vacancies saying that the University was not taking steps to appoint her despite the fact that she was the next candidate available.
W.A.No.806 of 15 : 2 :
2. In the writ petition, the University filed a counter affidavit saying that the rotation started from the second turn and the first appointment from the ranked list was to be made against Ezhava turn. Since there was no candidate belonging to the Ezhava community, in the rank list, the vacancy was set apart exclusively for that community as NCA vacancy to be notified later. As against the second vacancy, rank no.1 was appointed against Open Competition (OC) turn. Since he did not join duty, rank no.2, was appointed against that vacancy. On his resignation that vacancy was to be filled up by a candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste community i.e against the 4th turn and since no such candidate is available in the rank list it is to be notified as NCA vacancy. Accordingly, it was stated that the appellant, who is an Open Competition (OC) candidate, cannot be given appointment, against that vacancy. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition W.A.No.806 of 15 : 3 : seeing that vacancy was not available for OC (open competition) candidates.
3. We heard the learned Counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the University and considered their contentions.
4. The writ appeal is filed contending that the first candidate appointed as Assistant Professor in Mathematics was by category change and not from any ranked list and, therefore, the ranked list should have been operated from the first turn which is available for the open competition turn. Therefore when that candidate did not join duty, that vacancy should have been filled up appointing rank no.2 and when he joined duty and resigned, that vacancy should have been filled up by appointing the appellant, rank no.3. It is the case of the appellant that one of the vacancies should have been filled up by appointing her.
W.A.No.806 of 15 : 4 :
5. Yet another contention raised by the appellant is that the vacancy notified was for general recruitment and, therefore, the open competition (OC) candidates alone could be appointed. But merely on account of the fact that the notification was for the general recruitment, that does not mean that only candidates belonging to open competition turn could be appointed to the vacancies notified. The appointments to the University are to be made following the principles of rotation and reservation as envisaged in Rule 14 to 17 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958, in accordance with the 100 point roster. Ext.P1 notification does not specify that appointments are to be made from any particular community or by special recruitment. Therefore, general recruitment can only mean that appointments are to be made from candidates belonging to all communities in W.A.No.806 of 15 : 5 :
tune with the reservation principles i.e. by appointing candidates in Open Competition turn as well as communal reservation turns.
6. Even though appellant has pointed out that the first appointment of Assistant Professor in Mathematics was made by category change, the appellant could not substantiate that claim producing any of the details of that appointment or even the date of appointment. There was no such claim also in the writ petition.
7. We find that the learned Single Judge has considered the issues raised by the appellant in its correct perspective.
Under the above circumstances, we do not find any merit in the writ appeal and hence it is dismissed.
Sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE Sd/-
P.V.ASHA JUDGE jes