Kerala High Court
Dr.Rajesh Komath vs University Of Calicut on 22 December, 2020
Bench: A.M.Shaffique, P Gopinath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 1ST POUSHA, 1942
WA.No.1227 OF 2020
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 18797/2015(Y) OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA DATED 3/2/2016
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
1 DR.RAJESH KOMATH
AGED 42 YEARS
S/O.KUNHIRAMAN, KANIVU, APRA-71, MEDICAL COLLEGE
P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 011.
2 ROSHNI PADMANABHAN
AGED 36 YEARS
W/O.RAJESH KOMATH, KANIVU, APRA-71, MEDICAL
COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 011.
3 DR.AHAMMED SHAREEF P.A.
AGED 35 YEARS
RESIDING AT VAZHANGAT HOUSE, KARIPPUR,
KUMMINIPARAMBA P.O., KONDOTTY VIA., MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT - 673 638.
BY ADVS.
SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.)
SMT.NISHA GEORGE
SRI.A.L.NAVANEETH KRISHNAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, THENJIPALAM,
MALAPPURAM - 673 001.
WA No.1227/2020 & conn.cases
-:2:-
2 THE REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT
THENJIPALAM, MALAPPURAM - 673001.
3 THE VICE CHANCELLOR
UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, THENJIPALAM,
MALAPPURAM - 673001.
4 DR.MANIKANDAN C.C.
AGED 38 YEARS, CHENNANGAD, CHENNAGAD P.O.,
PARUTHIPALLY VIA., PALAKKAD - 678 573.
5 DR.SAJNESH E.V.
MEETHELE KELOTH HOUSE, MELUR P.O.,
THALASSERY, KANNUR - 670661.
6 SHAHANA V.A.
VALIYAKATH HOUSE, ERANELLOOR P.O.,
KECHERY - 680 501, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
R1-3 BY ADV. SRI.P.C SASIDHARAN(B/O)
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-12-
2020, ALONG WITH WA.1228/2020, WA.1229/2020, WA.1230/2020,
THE COURT ON 22-12-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA No.1227/2020 & conn.cases
-:3:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 1ST POUSHA, 1942
WA.No.1228 OF 2020
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 18659/2015(F) OF HIGH COURT
OF KERALA DATED 3/2/2016
APPELLANT/NON PARTIES:
1 DR.RAJESH KOMATH
AGED 42 YEARS
S/O.KUNHIRAMAN, KANIVU, APRA-71, MEDICAL
COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695011.
2 ROSHNI PADMANABHAN
AGED 36 YEARS
W/O.RAJESH KOMATH, KANIVU, APRA-71, MEDICAL
COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 011.
3 DR.AHAMMED SHAREEF P.A.
AGED 35 YEARS
RESIDING AT VAZHANGAT HOUSE, KARIPPUR,
KUMMINIPARAMBA P.O., KONDOTTY VIA.,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 673 638.
BY ADVS.
SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.)
SMT.NISHA GEORGE
SRI.A.L.NAVANEETH KRISHNAN
WA No.1227/2020 & conn.cases
-:4:-
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS & WRIT PETITIONERS:
1 UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, THENJIPALAM,
MALAPPURAM - 673 635.
2 THE VICE CHANCELLOR
UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT,
THENJIPALAM, MALAPPURAM - 673 635.
3 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
4 SYAM RAJ S.S.
AGED 39 YEARS, ETTEL VILAKAM, MEPPUKADA,
MALAYANKEESU P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 571.
5 MELJO THOMAS
KARAKUNNEL, PAYYAMPALLI P.O., MUTTANKARA,
MANANTHAWADY, WAYANAD - 670 646.
6 MADHU E.S.
ERIPPASSERY HOUSE, PERVALLUR POST,
THRISSUR- 680 508, KERALA.
BY ADV. SRI.P.C SASIDHARAN(B/O)
BY ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY
R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.RAJI T. BHASKAR
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-12-
2020, ALONG WITH WA.1227/2020, WA.1229/2020, WA.1230/2020,
THE COURT ON 22-12-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA No.1227/2020 & conn.cases
-:5:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 1ST POUSHA, 1942
WA.No.1229 OF 2020
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 9785/2015(W) OF HIGH COURT
OF KERALA DATED 3/2/2016
APPELLANTS/NON-PARTIES:
1 DR.RAJESH KOMATH
AGED 42 YEARS
S/O. KUNHIRAMAN, KANIVU, APRA-71, MEDICAL
COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 011.
2 ROSHNI PADMANABHAN
AGED 36 YEARS
W/O. RAJESH KOMATH, KANIVU, APRA-71, MEDICAL
COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 011.
3 DR. AHAMMED SHAREEF P.A
AGED 35 YEARS
RESIDING AT VAZHANGAT HOUSE, KARIPPUR,
KUMMINIPARAMBA P.O., KONDOTTY VIA, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT-673 638.
BY ADVS.
SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.)
SMT.NISHA GEORGE
SRI.A.L.NAVANEETH KRISHNAN
WA No.1227/2020 & conn.cases
-:6:-
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS & WRIT PETITIONER:
1 UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, CALICUT
UNIVERSITY-673 635.
2 THE VICE CHANCELLOR
UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT-673 635.
3 THE REGISTRAR
CALICUT UNIVERSITY, KOZHIKODE-676 505.
4 DR.REENA GOERGE
AGED 44 YEARS
W/O. PETSON ANDREW, NIT CAMPUS,
KOZHIKODE-673 601.
R1-3 BY ADV. SRI.P.C SASIDHARAN(B/O)
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-12-
2020, ALONG WITH WA.1227/2020, WA.1228/2020, WA.1230/2020,
THE COURT ON 22-12-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA No.1227/2020 & conn.cases
-:7:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 1ST POUSHA, 1942
WA.No.1230 OF 2020
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 17961/2015(U) OF HIGH COURT
OF KERALA DATED 3/2/2016
APPELLANTS/NON-PARTIES:
1 DR.RAJESH KOMATH
AGED 42 YEARS
S/O.KUNHIRAMAN, KANIVU, APRA-71, MEDICAL
COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 011.
2 ROSHNI PADMANABHAN
AGED 36 YEARS
W/O.RAJESH KOMATH, KANIVU, APRA-71, MEDICAL
COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 011.
3 DR.AHAMMED SHAREEF P.A.
AGED 35 YEARS
RESIDING AT VAZHANGAT HOUSE, KARIPPUR,
KUMMINIPARAMBA P.O., KONDOTTY VIA., MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT - 673 638.
BY ADVS.
SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.)
SRI.A.L.NAVANEETH KRISHNAN
SMT.NISHA GEORGE
WA No.1227/2020 & conn.cases
-:8:-
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS AND WRIT PETITIONERS:
1 THE REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT
UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT P.O., THENJIPALAM,
MALAPPURAM - 676 505.
2 UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF
CALICUT P.O., THENJIPALAM,
MALAPPURAM (DT.) - 676 505.
3 JEBIN J.B.
AGED 30 YEARS, JEBEES MANZIL, KANJIRAMANTTOM,
PIN - 682 315, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
4 RAJESH NAVATH
NAVATH HOUSE, MANALITHARA,
PIN - 680 659, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
5 MAIBI STANLI C.
AKAM, VADAKUMPURAM P.O.,
PIN - 676 552, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
6 SURABHI M.S.
MALAYANKULATH HOUSE, PURANGU P.O.,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT -679 583.
R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN(B/O)
R3-6 BY ADV. SMT.K.V.BHADRA KUMARI
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-12-
2020, ALONG WITH WA.1227/2020, WA.1228/2020, WA.1229/2020,
THE COURT ON 22-12-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA No.1227/2020 & conn.cases
-:9:-
JUDGMENT
WA Nos.1227, 1228, 1229 & 1230/2020 Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2020 Shaffique, J.
These appeals are filed by third parties after seeking leave of this Court challenging judgment dated 3/2/2016 in WP(C) No. 18797/2015 and connected cases. The Calicut University Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred as the Act) and the Calicut University First Statutes, 1977 (hereinafter referred as the First Statutes) provided for reservation in appointments department-wise and separate roster was being maintained for the same. However, in 2014, by an amendment to Section 6(2) of the University Act, clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Rule 14, Rules 15, 16, 17 and 17A of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958 as amended from time to time was made applicable treating all departments as one unit. Consequent amendment was made in Statute 3 of Chapter 3 of the First Statutes, 1977, as well. The implication of the amendment was that the department-wise communal rotation has been taken away and communal rotation has to be WA No.1227/2020 & conn.cases -:10:- followed by treating all the departments as one unit. When notification was published by the University calling for applications by specifying the posts as available to each reservation category in different departments following communal rotation, this came to be challenged before this Court in the above writ petitions. Learned Single Judge having taken note of the amendment to the Act and having found that there is no conflict with the First Statutes observed that appointments have to be made prospectively following the roster as prescribed in the KS & SSR and treating all departments as one unit. It was observed that earmarking of reservation to a particular post would run contrary to the spirit and principle of reservation, since it would exclude eligible candidates entitled to reservation, but has the qualification for another post. It would also exclude open category candidates for applying to a particular post. In the light of the aforesaid finding, the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petitions, set aside the notifications and directed the University to issue fresh notification to make appointments in accordance with what has been declared in the judgment. WA No.1227/2020 & conn.cases -:11:-
2. While impugning the aforesaid judgment, two specific contentions are urged by the learned counsel for the appellant. One is that the University has not prepared a roster so far. When applications are invited for different posts, unless the candidates are in a position to take note of the fact whether a particular post is reserved or unreserved, it will render unnecessary hardship for a candidate. Further, even applying the roster, there are substantial backlog vacancies in each category and therefore if selection is not made taking into account the backlog vacancies specifying the reserved categories, those vacancies remains unfilled. It is submitted that the direction now issued by the learned Single Judge virtually causes substantial hardship to the candidates while applying for a particular post and also would amount to serious confusion. Further, the University has not finalised the roster points even now which they ought to have done even before the notification. Counsel also placed reliance on the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in R.K.Sabharwal and Others v. State of Punjab [(1995) 2 SCC 745]. This judgment is cited to explain the expression "posts" and "vacancies" often used in the executive instructions providing for WA No.1227/2020 & conn.cases -:12:- reservation. Apex Court held that the concept of vacancy has no relevance in operating the percentage of reservation. It is held that the percentage of reservation has to be worked out in relation to the number of posts which form the cadre strength.
3. Further reference is made to the judgment in Suresh Chandra Verma (Dr) v. Chancellor, Nagpur University [(1990) 4 SCC 55]. This is a case in which one of the questions considered by the Apex Court was whether the employment notice ought to indicate reservations post wise. That was a case in which University issued employment notice inviting applications for a total of 77 posts which included 13 posts of Professors, 29 posts of Readers and 35 posts of Lecturers in different subjects ranging from Economics, Politics and Sociology to Physics, Pharmacy and Geology. It was held at paragraphs 10 and 11 as under:-
"10. As regards the first question, we have narrated earlier the method which was adopted by the University for reserving the posts. It announced the posts categorywise as Professors, Readers and Lecturers in different subjects and made a blanket declaration that 6 of the posts of Professors, 12 of the posts of Readers and 16 of the posts of Lecturers would be reserved for backward castes. Neither the WA No.1227/2020 & conn.cases -:13:- University nor the candidates knew at that time as to for which of the subjects and in what number the said posts were reserved. The result was that the candidates belonging to the reserved category in particular, who wanted to apply for the reserved posts did not know for which of the posts they could apply and whether they could apply at all for the posts in the subjects in which they were qualified. That this could be the expected consequence of such an employment notice can legitimately be inferred and need not be and indeed cannot be, demonstrated by evidence of what actually happened, for there may be a number of candidates who on account of the said uncertainty might have refrained from applying for the posts as against those who applied to take a chance. What is further, the selection committees which were appointed to interview the candidates for the respective posts did not also know whether they were interviewing the candidates for reserved posts or not, and to assess merits of the candidates from the reserved category as such candidates. The contention advanced on behalf of the appellants that the selection committees even without knowing whether the posts concerned were reserved or not, had given weightage to the candidates from the reserved category and, therefore, it cannot be said that any injustice had resulted to them is without merit. In the first instance, the contention proceeds on the footing that all those belonging to the reserved category who wanted to apply for all the said posts had done so even without knowing that the concerned posts were reserved. Secondly, it also presumes that all eligible candidates from unreserved category had applied for the posts without knowing whether the posts were reserved or not. The possibility that many eligible WA No.1227/2020 & conn.cases -:14:- candidates belonging to both reserved and unreserved categories might not have taken the risk and chosen to gamble cannot be ruled out. This argument further ignores the fact that the suitability of a candidate from a reserved category to the particular post has to be adjudged by taking into consideration various factors and the desired result cannot be obtained by merely giving uniform weightage marks to the candidates concerned which was the only method followed by the selection committees while selecting the candidates. Further, there is nothing on record to show that this method of giving weightage to the candidate was not followed in respect of reserved category candidates even if they had not applied for the post in the reserved seats. What is more, there is also nothing on record to show whether any candidate belonging to the reserved category had applied for a particular post in a reserved seat, without the prior knowledge that the post was reserved. It is, therefore, difficult to understand as to how the selection committees proceeded to give weightage to the candidates without knowing whether they had applied for reserved or non-reserved seats. What is more objectionable in the procedure was that its Executive Council proceeded to classify the posts in different subjects between reserved and non-reserved posts after the lists of selected candidates were received from different selection committees. This method was open to an obvious objection since it gave a scope to eliminate unwanted selected candidates at that stage. Whether it occurred in the present case or not is immaterial for testing the validity and the propriety of the method followed by the University. As has been stated earlier, in fact, after the receipt of the list of selected WA No.1227/2020 & conn.cases -:15:- candidates not only the Executive Council constituted yet another committee to decide which of the subjectwise posts should be reserved or not but the Executive Council also decided that although candidates for 47 posts were selected only 30 of them should be appointed permanently. The latter included some backward class candidates for reserved posts so categorised later. But 17 of the posts were set apart although the candidates were selected for them, and they were so set apart for being filled in afresh by candidates belonging to the reserved category. Interestingly, however, the employment notice issued subsequently for these 17 posts mentioned reservations postwise (subjectwise).
11. The argument based on Section 57(4)(a) of the Act to support the procedure adopted by the University is, according to us, not well merited. The contention is that since Section 57(4)(a) requires the University to state in the advertisement only the total number of posts and the number of reserved posts and not postwise, i.e. subjectwise, the employment notice in question was not bad in law. According to us, the word "post" used in the context has a relation to the faculty, discipline, or the subject for which it is created. When, therefore, reservations are required to be made "in posts", the reservations have to be postwise, i.e. subjectwise. The mere announcement of the number of reserved posts is no better than inviting applications for posts without mentioning the subjects for which the posts are advertised. When, therefore, Section 57(4)(a) requires that the advertisement or the employment notice would indicate the number of reserved posts, if any, it implies that the employment notice cannot be vague and has to indicate the specific post, i.e. the subject in which the post is vacant WA No.1227/2020 & conn.cases -:16:- and for which the applications are invited from the candidates belonging to the reserved classes. A non- indication of the post in this manner itself defeats the purpose for which the applications are invited from the reserved category candidates and consequently negates the object of the reservation policy. That this is also the intention of the legislature is made clear by Section 57(4)(d) which requires the selection committees to interview and adjudge the merits of each candidate and recommend him or her for appointment to "the general posts" and "the reserved posts", if any, advertised. "
4. The above judgment was followed by the Apex Court in State of U.P. v. Dr.Dina Nath Shukla and Another [(1997) 9 SCC 662]. This judgment is cited only to emphasise the fact that while issuing any advertisement for direct recruitment to fill up any post or service in any grade or cadre in the University/Educational Institution, the institution should work out the posts beforehand and to make recruitment accordingly. In that case it was held by the Apex Court that the University is required to earmark the posts in the roster meant for General category or Dalits, Tribes or OBCs so that every qualified candidate would apply for and seek selection in accordance with law. The Apex Court was considering the clubbing of the posts under the U.P. Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, WA No.1227/2020 & conn.cases -:17:- Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994. That was a case in which an advertisement was issued by University of Allahabad inviting applications from all eligible persons for the posts of Professors, Readers and Lecturers including the posts reserved for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes. A clarification was issued by the Government on 19/4/1995 stating that for recruitment to the posts of Professors, Readers and Lecturers, University or College is treated as a unit and the recruitment will be made applying the rule of reservation for the ST's, SC's and OBC's in respect of all the posts. The High Court held that the said notification was bad. State of U.P. preferred an appeal and while disposing the appeal, the Apex Court held at paragraphs 9 and 13 as under:-
"9. Thus, it could be seen that even in the services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State including services and posts in all educational institutions, owned, controlled/maintained by the State or which receive grants-in-aid from the Government including a University established by or under the U.P. Act, the Act is applicable and when advertisement for direct recruitment to any of the posts or services in the University is issued, the rule of reservation should be applied for recruitment in each service, post, grade or cadre as per the percentage prescribed in sub-section (1) of Section 3 in WA No.1227/2020 & conn.cases -:18:- compliance with sub-sections (2) to (4) and (6) to (7); so also rule of rotation as per the roster adumbrated in sub-section (5) of Section 3 of the Act. Thereby, it would be clear that while issuing any advertisement for direct recruitment to fill up any post or service in any grade or cadre in the University/educational institution established under the U.P. Act, the University/educational institution should work out the posts beforehand and to make recruitment accordingly. It is seen that in the present case the advertisement specified various posts subject-wise and the vacancies were reserved for general candidates, Dalits, Tribes and OBCs. Of course, it is not clear whether it is as per roster. It is true, as contended by the learned Addl. Advocate General (sic) that if there is only one post in a cadre/faculty, be it a post of Professor, Reader or Lecturer, necessarily, all such single posts carrying the same scale of pay are required to be clubbed and the roster applied to such single post in terms of Section 3(5) of the Act. When such a fusion is and in fact should be worked out, and the roster is applied, necessarily advertisement should be issued inviting applications for recruitment to the posts. The University is required to earmark the posts in the roster meant for general category or Dalits, Tribes or OBCs so that every qualified candidate would apply for and seek selection in accordance with law. In this behalf, sub-section (6) of Section 3 amplifies the general law that the candidates who had applied for recruitment for the posts earmarked as per Section 3(1), if selected on merit in open competition with general candidates, then they shall not be adjusted against reserved vacancies. xxxxx"
"13. 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 WA No.1227/2020 & conn.cases -:19:- only be clear to the candidates who seek recruitment but also there would not be an overlapping in application of the rule of reservation to the service or posts 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 be 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 seek selection. As indicated earlier, if there is any single post of Professor, Reader or Lecturer in each faculty, discipline, speciality or super- speciality which cannot be reserved for reserved candidates, it should be clubbed, roster applied and be made available for the reserved candidates in terms of Section 3(5) of the Act. Even if there exists any isolated post, rule of rotation by application of roster should be adopted for appointment. For achieving the said object, the Vice-Chancellor, who is the responsible authority under Section 4 to enforce the Act, would ensure that single posts in each category are clubbed since admittedly all the posts in each of the categories of Professors, Readers or Lecturers carry the same scale of pay. Therefore, their fusion is constitutional and permissible. The Vice-Chancellor should apply the rule of rotation and the roster as envisaged under sub-section (5) of Section 3. The advertisements are required to be issued so that the reserved and the general candidates would apply for consideration of their claims for recruitment in accordance therewith. This interpretation would subserve and elongate constitutional objective and public policy of socio-economic justice serving adequacy of representation in a service or post, grade or cadre WA No.1227/2020 & conn.cases -:20:- as mandated and envisaged in Articles 335 and 16(4) read with Articles 14 and 16(1), Preamble, Article 38 and Article 46 of the Constitution and all other cognate provisions."
5. On the other hand, it was argued on behalf of the counsel appearing for the writ petitioners that there cannot be a reservation at the time of notification and reservation can be made only at the time of appointment. He specifically referred to Rule 14 of KS & SSR and also a judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Prasanna v. Kerala University [1998 (2) KLT 862]. Paragraph 8 is relevant, which reads as under:
"8. Rr. 14 to 17 of the K.S. & S.S.R. are meant to ensure a fair representation in service to members of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes. R. 14(b) says that appointment of members belonging to SC, ST and OBC under merit quota will not affect their claim under reserved quota. R. 14(c) says that appointment under the rule shall be made in the order of rotation in every cycle of 20 vacancies. It is also provided in R. 15(a) that if a suitable candidate is not available for selection from any particular community or group of communities, the said community or group shall be passed over and the post shall be filled up by a suitable candidate from the community or group of communities immediately next to the passed over community or group in the order of rotation. However, in the case of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes special recruitment could be made under R. 17A of the KS & SSR. There is no such provision in the University Act or in the KS & SSR for special recruitment for WA No.1227/2020 & conn.cases -:21:- members of Other Backward Classes".
6. Yet another judgment of the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 33574/2018 (Dr.Bindu K.Jose v. Kerala State Council for Science Technology and Environment) decided on 20/12/2018 is also relied upon. Paragraph 2 reads as under:-
"2. Petitioner points out that there cannot be a reservation at the time of notification itself and that can only be made at the time of appointment. As a result of this notification, no candidate other than one belonging to Muslim community will be able to submit application. As far as, the principles of reservation in KS&SSR is concerned, reservation is envisaged at the time of appointment. Therefore, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner the notification runs contrary to the spirit and principle of reservation. This Court has already considered a similar issue in Reena George v. University of Calicut [2016 (1) KLT 749] while considering a similar notification issued by the University of Calicut when it was held that such notification earmarking the vacancy for a particular community cannot be made, as the principles of reservation is envisaged to be invoked and applied at the time of appointment, as it would exclude eligible candidates entitled to reservation despite the qualification for another post. It was also found that it would also exclude the open category candidates from applying for a particular post. At the time of appointment candidates are entitled to be granted reservation in accordance with the rules."
WA No.1227/2020 & conn.cases -:22:-
7. Learned counsel appearing for the University submitted that the University had issued notification based on the judgment of the learned Single Judge. It is pointed out that in certain other Universities, the posts for each category are specifically mentioned. He also placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in University of Cochin v. Dr.Raman Nair [(1975) 3 SCC 628]. Paragraphs 5, 12 and 13 are relevant, which reads as under:
"5. Section 6(2) lays down the mandatory duty upon the University to observe clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Rule 14, as well as Rules 15, 16 and 17 of the rules set out above. But, it does not indicate the manner in which the classification of members of a service under the University has to be made for the purposes of applying these rules. In as-much as every statutory power has to be exercised reasonably, we can say that the classification has to be reasonable. Thus, the University may treat all the teaching posts as belonging to one class for the application of the rules. On the other hand, it may treat only posts of Readers in all subjects or in a particular subject as a category by itself for the application of these rules. It cannot exempt any class or category, such as Professors, from the operation of the rules altogether. Only if it so classifies all posts in a service under the University as to make its classification prima facie unreasonable, could the validity of the classification made by it be assailed. The power is presumed to be exercised WA No.1227/2020 & conn.cases -:23:- reasonably on the strength of facts and circumstances relevant for purposes intended to be achieved by the classification. These purposes have also to pass the test of legality and constitutionality."
"12. If the post of Reader in the Department of Hindi was the first to arise in service under the University, as appears to be the position from Ex. P3, an application of the rotation principle would compel the first appointment to take place on the basis of an open competition. That principle could certainly not be modified by the University by taking shelter behind the words mutatis mutandis. It has been stated by the learned Counsel for the University that the validity of the impugned resolution may be doubtful so far as the withdrawal of the post of Professor from the application of the above-mentioned rules is concerned, but, learned Counsel submitted, we need not decide that question as we are not concerned here with an appointment to the post of a Professor. If, however, the Professors and Lecturers and Readers were all to fall in one class it may become necessary to consider this question also. Moreover, as indicated below, the two parts of the resolution do not seem to be separable. It is true that Section 6, sub-section (2) lodges in the University a power to determine what should constitute a class or category of service under the University. No rigid formula to fit all circumstances can be laid down and the authority concerned must be left to define, subject to constitutional limitations, what should be a class or category. But, this power would not, in our opinion, enable the University to dispense with the application of the rotation principle itself to any particular class or category of service under the University as appears to have been the real object WA No.1227/2020 & conn.cases -:24:- of the resolution of July 17, 1972 with regard to Professors.
13. The word "service" does seem to us to denote, as the High Court held, various classes or categories of posts within it. It is obviously the widest class. A classification which puts the whole teaching staff in one class for purposes of applying the rule would seem unassailable. But, one which puts all classes and categories of service from the peons to Professors altogether may, by destroying the distinction between classes and categories of service seems to run counter to the words used in Section 6(2). As that question is not before us, we refrain from deciding it. This provision appears to us to be intended to ensure that, whatever may be the kind of post to be held by a person in a service "under the University", principles laid down in Rules 14, 15, 16 and 17 must apply in making appointments to it. We are not called upon to decide here what is meant by a service "under the University" as it is admitted by both sides that this description applies to the post of a Reader. Nor have we to determine here the reasonableness of a classification which may put the teaching and non-teaching staff in one class or category."
8. Jose v. Cochin University [1993 (2) KLT 347] is also relied upon. Paragraphs 11 and 11A are relevant, which reads as under:-
"11. The classification of the post as obtained under sub- section (11) of S.31 of the 1986 Act is in accordance with the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in the judgment in the above case. When the 1986 Statute was enacted the legislature had the benefit of the view WA No.1227/2020 & conn.cases -:25:- expressed by the Supreme Court in the above decision where the Supreme Court noted the object of the provisions contained under sub-section (2) of S.6, as follows:-
"Sub-section (2) of S.6 is meant to ensure equality of treatment between citizens as members of groups,and, in particular, to enable 'backward' classes to secure appointments so as to remove the gap between the 'advanced' and the 'backward'. In doing so, it may appear that the principle of equality of opportunity on the basis of individual merit is being modified. Even if that be the result, the wider object is to promote equality between groups of citizens."
In order to achieve the above purpose the Supreme Court found that treating post of Readers in all subjects as a single category for the application of the rules of reservation is justified. It is in the light of the above principle laid down by the Supreme Court the challenge against sub-section (11) of S.31 and Ext.Pl notification on the ground that it has classified Readers of all departments into one unit and lecturers of all departments into one category has to be examined.
11A. It was contended on behalf of the University that the posts of Lecturers or Readers or Professors of all departments are treated as one class of Lecturer or Reader or Professor in order to effectively implement the mandate under Art.46 of the Constitution and of the provisions in S.7(2) of the Act. To bring about equality among all sections of the public, it was necessary to classify the posts in the above manner and implement the rules for reservation in favour of the members of WA No.1227/2020 & conn.cases -:26:- Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe and Backward Classes. If the posts are not classified as directed under sub-section (11) of S.31, it will not be possible to apply the rules of reservation as provided under R.14 to 17A of K.S. & S.S.R. It was further submitted that the petitioners cannot be heard to challenge the classification directed under S.7(2) of the Act, as such a classification has been approved by the Supreme Court in Cochin University's case."
9. The factual aspects involved in the case would disclose that the Calicut University Act, 1975 and the Calicut University First Statutes 1977 provided for reservation in appointments department-wise and the roster was being maintained in terms of Rules 14 to 17 of KS & SSR on department-wise basis. S.6(2) of the Act was amended inter alia stating that "in making appointments to the teaching and non- teaching posts, the University shall mutatis mutandis observe the provisions of Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Rule 14 and the provisions of Rules 15, 16, 17 and 17A of the KS & SSR, 1958, as amended from time to time, and communal rotation shall be followed category-wise treating all the departments as one unit". Consequential amendment was incorporated in Statute 3 of Chapter 3 of the Calicut University First Statutes, 1977. As per WA No.1227/2020 & conn.cases -:27:- Statute 9 of Chapter 3 of the First Statutes, the amendments made to the Kerala Service Rules, the KS & SSR and the Kerala Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1960, as amended from time to time was made applicable to the First Statutes. The contention urged by the petitioners was that if the principle of reservation is incorporated in the notice inviting applications, it would go against the principle of reservation. The appointments could be made as per roster only at the time of making the appointments and not earlier. Learned Single Judge held that in so far as there is no conflict between the provisions of the Act and the First Statues, reservation has to be made to the appointments prospectively following the roster as prescribed in KS & SSR and treating all departments as one unit. Learned Single Judge observed that earmarking of reservation to particular posts would run contrary to the spirit and principle of reservation since it would exclude eligible candidates entitled to reservation, but has qualification for another post. It would also exclude the open category candidates from applying for the particular posts. Hence it was found that reservation has to be applied at the time of appointment and the candidates who are WA No.1227/2020 & conn.cases -:28:- entitled to be granted reservation in accordance with KS & SSR have to be placed as per roster as mandated in KS & SSR. Learned Single Judge also took note of the submission of the counsel for the University that a list is prepared based on the date of occurrence of vacancy and the same would be applied when appointments are made. However, the learned Single Judge did not issue any directions observing that it was for the University to apply the principles of reservation in accordance with the statutory provisions.
10. There is no dispute about the fact that on account of an amendment made to Section 6 of the Calicut University Act, 1975, all appointments are to be made observing the provisions of clauses (a), (b) and (c), Rule 14 and the provisions of Rules, 15, 16 and 17 and 17A of KS & SSR. By Annexure A4 dated 31/12/2019, online applications were invited from eligible candidates for appointment to permanent posts of Assistant Professors in the University Departments. The total number of vacancies are 63 in different subjects. Annexure A5 is the application for appointment to the post of 29 Associate Professors in different subjects and Annexure A6 for appointment to the post WA No.1227/2020 & conn.cases -:29:- of Professors in 24 vacancies. It was inter alia stated that as per the judgment in WP(C) No. 9785/2015 and connected cases, the reservation would be applied only at the time of appointment. It is settled law that any member of reserved category can compete for a seat reserved for open category. Therefore, candidates who apply for reserved seats can also compete for unreserved seats in which event, classification of a particular post which falls under unreserved category may not be required. But in respect of Other Backward Classes (OBC), it is subdivided into several sub categories and the appointments are made based on a roster prepared on rotation basis. Similarly, out of the 20 vacancies in every cycle, 2 vacancies are set apart for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The contention urged on behalf of the writ petitioners is that the principle of reservation can be applied only at the time of appointment and therefore, there is no necessity for classifying whether a post is reserved for Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe or OBC coming under different classifications in the notice inviting applications. That apart, based on Rule 15(a) of KS & SSR, it is contended that if for any reason, a suitable candidate is not available for selection from any particular WA No.1227/2020 & conn.cases -:30:- community or group of communities, such vacancies shall be kept unfilled and notified separately for that community or group of communities for that selection year and shall be filled up by direct recruitment exclusively from among that community. However, if after re-notification for not less than two times, no suitable candidate is available for selection from the said community or group of communities, the selection shall be made from available Other Backward Classes candidates and in the absence of Other Backward Classes candidates, selection shall be made from available Scheduled Castes candidates and in their absence, selection shall be made from available Scheduled Tribes Candidates. The available candidates have been interpreted by a Division Bench of this Court in Kerala Public Service Commission v. Soumya C.A. and Others (2020 (1) KLT 134) as the candidates available from the ranked list of candidates as per the original notification. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for writ petitioners is that if a particular post is classified as that of OBC for a particular community, the Rule expects all other Backward Classes and even SC/ST candidates to apply for the said post as in the absence of a candidate in that particular WA No.1227/2020 & conn.cases -:31:- community, even after several re-notifications, the University will have to go back to the original list to appoint a person from the said list from among the candidates coming from Other Backward Classes candidates or SC/ST candidates, as the case may be.
11. Of course, there is some justification on the part of the appellants to contend that in the peculiar situation where appointments are made in different streams of subjects, unless the candidate know as to whether it is in the Open Category or a particular classification of Other Backward Classes or SC/ST, there is no necessity for all the candidates to apply for the post. But as already stated, candidates having reservation can also compete against posts which are in unreserved category. Their appointments depend upon the merit of the respective candidates. Therefore, such a situation does not arise. But in respect of reserved categories, especially OBC and SC/ST, if it is limited to a particular class of candidate coming under OBC, if such a candidate is not available, and even after re-notification not less than two times, the appointing authority will have to go back to the original rank list to find out the next candidate available under OBC or SC/ST, as the case may be, for making WA No.1227/2020 & conn.cases -:32:- appointments. In such an event, if the candidates confine themselves to the notified class in each post, they may not get the advantage of Rule 15(a) of KS &SR.
12. Having regard to the aforesaid factual situation, we do not think that the learned Single Judge had committed any error in arriving at the aforestated conclusion. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, especially the judgment in Suresh Chandra Verma (supra), cannot be applied to the facts of the present case especially in the light of the specific rules governing the reservation policy. Of course, in certain Universities, the principle now mooted by the appellants are being followed, but, ultimately when the application of Rule 15(a) of KS & SSR comes into operation, the candidates may lose the benefit of being considered for appointment.
13. With reference to the contention urged regarding backlog vacancies, no such consideration had been made by the learned Single Judge and therefore, we do not think that we should go into such issues in the present lis. WA No.1227/2020 & conn.cases -:33:- In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any ground to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Appeals are, hence, dismissed.
Sd/-
A.M.SHAFFIQUE JUDGE Sd/-
GOPINATH P.
Rp JUDGE
WA No.1227/2020 & conn.cases
-:34:-
APPENDIX OF WA 1227/2020
APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE RTI REPLY BEARING
NO.65749/GA-II-C1/2013/CU DATED
29/06/2020 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY.
ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE RTI REPLY BEARING
NO.18999/GA-II-C1/2013/CU(1) DATED
02/07/2020 ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC
INFORMATION OFFICER OF THE UNIVERSITY.
ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF
THE FILE NOTE.
ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION BEARING
FILE NO.GA-II/C1/156687/2019/ADMN DATED 31/12/2019 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY.
ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION BEARING FILE NO.GAII-C1/162156/2019/ADMN DATED 31/12/2019 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY.
ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION BEARING FILE NO.GA-II/C1/104750/2019/ADMN DATED 31/12/2019 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY.
ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.F.1- 33/2008(SCT) DATED 31/01/2017 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION.
ANNEXURE A8 TRUE COPY OF THE GUIDELINES ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION DATED NIL.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 26.03.2015.
WA No.1227/2020 & conn.cases -:35:- APPENDIX OF WA 1228/2020 APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE RTI REPLY BEARING NO.65749/GA-II-C1/2013/CU DATED 29/06/2020 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY.
ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE RTI REPLY BEARING NO.18999/GA-II-C1/2013/CU(1) DATED 02/07/2020 ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER OF THE UNIVERSITY.
ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE FILE NOTE.
ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION BEARING FILE NO.GA-II/C1/156687/2019/ADMN DATED 31/12/2019 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY.
ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION BEARING FILE NO.GAII-C1/162156/2019/ADMN DATED 31/12/2019 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY.
ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION BEARING FILE NO.GA-II/C1/104750/2019/ADMN DATED 31/12/2019 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY.
ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.F.1- 33/2008(SCT) DATED 31/01/2017 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION.
ANNEXURE A8 TRUE COPY OF THE GUIDELINES ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION DATED NIL.
ANNEXURE A9 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.9833/GA-II-
C-SO/2013/CU(I) DATED 22.04.2014 ISSUED BY THE CALICUT UNIVERSITY.
WA No.1227/2020 & conn.cases -:36:- ANNEXURE A10 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.10194/SDE-C-ASST-2/2014/CU DATED 18.09.2017 ISSUED BY THE CALICUT UNIVERSITY.
ANNEXURE A11 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.AD.D2/136/NOTIF/2018 DATED 30.09.2020 ISSUED BY CUSAT.
ANNEXURE A11(a) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.KVASU/GA/A6/11726/2020 DATED 08.07.2020 ISSUED BY THE KERALA VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES UNIVERSITY.
ANNEXURE A11(b) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.AD.H/30652/2017/1 DATED 27.11.2017 ISSUED BY THE KERALA UNIVERSITY.
ANNEXURE A11(c) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.ACAD.B1/2252/2020(2) DATED 29.06.2020 ISSUED BY THE KANNUR UNIVERSITY.
ANNEXURE A11(d) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.AD.A II(1)/5038/2017/ADMN(4) DATED 28.04.2018 ISSUED BY MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY.
ANNEXURE A11(e) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.GA5/9055/2016 DATED 13.06.2017 ISSUED BY THE KERALA UNIVERSITY OF FISHERIES.
ANNEXURE A12 TRUE COPY OF THE SHORT LIST PREPARED BY THE RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY TO THE POST OF ASSISTANT PROFESSOR IN DEPARTMENT OF ARABIC DATED 28.09.2020.
ANNEXURE A12(a) TRUE COPY OF THE SHORT LIST PREPARED BY THE RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY TO THE POST OF ASSISTANT PROFESSOR IN DEPARTMENT OF COMPARATIVE LITERATURE DATED 06.10.2020. WA No.1227/2020 & conn.cases -:37:- ANNEXURE A12(b) TRUE COPY OF THE SHORT LIST PREPARED BY THE RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY TO THE POST OF ASSISTANT PROFESSOR IN DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY DATED 06.10.2020.
ANNEXURE A12(c) TRUE COPY OF THE SHORT LIST PREPARED BY THE RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY TO THE POST OF ASSISTANT PROFESSOR IN DEPARTMENT OF HINDI DATED 06.10.2020.
ANNEXURE A12(d) TRUE COPY OF THE SHORT LIST PREPARED BY THE RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY TO THE POST OF ASSISTANT PROFESSOR IN DEPARTMENT OF RUSSIAN DATED 06.10.2020.
ANNEXURE A12(e) TRUE COPY OF THE SHORT LIST PREPARED BY THE RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY TO THE POST OF ASSISTANT PROFESSOR IN DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH DATED 06.10.2020.
ANNEXURE A13 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.AD.D/686/SSUS/2019(1) DATED 31.08.2019 ISSUED BY THE SREE SANKARACHARYA SANSKRIT UNIVERSITY.
ANNEXURE A14 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.AD.D2/136/NOTIF/2018(1) DATED 22.10.2019 ISSUED BY THE COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY.
ANNEXURE A15 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM NO.36011/6/2010- ESTT.(RES) DATED 25.06.2010 ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PERSONAL AND TRAINING.
ANNEXURE A16 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERVIEW CARD BEARING NO.157279/AD-REC-ASST-2/2020/ADMN ISSUED TO A CANDIDATE DATED 17.11.2020.
WA No.1227/2020 & conn.cases -:38:- RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES DATED 26.03.2015.
WA No.1227/2020 & conn.cases -:39:- APPENDIX OF WA 1229/2020 APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE RTI REPLY BEARING NO.65749/GA-II-C1/2013/CU DATED 29.6.2020 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY.
ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE RTI REPLY BEARING NO.18999/GA-II-C1/2013/CU(1) DATED 2.7.2020 ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER OF THE UNIVERSITY.
ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE FILE NOTE.
ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION BEARING FILED
NO.GA-II/C1/156687/2019/ADMN DATED
31.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY.
ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION BEARING FILED
NO.GAII-C1/162156/2019/ADMN DATED
31.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY.
ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION BEARING FILE
NO.GA-II/C1/104750/2019/ADMN DATED
31.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY.
ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.F.1-33/2008(SCT)
DATED 31.1.2017 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY
GRANTS COMMISSION.
ANNEXURE A8 TRUE COPY OF THE GUIDELINES ISSUED BY THE
UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION DATED NIL.
WA No.1227/2020 & conn.cases
-:40:-
APPENDIX OF WA 1230/2020
APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE RTI REPLY BEARING
NO.65749/GA-II-C1/2013/CU DATED 29.6.2020 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY.
ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE RTI REPLY BEARING NO.18999/GA-II-C1/2013/CU(1) DATED 2.7.2020 ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER OF THE UNIVERSITY.
ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE FILE NOTE.
ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION BEARING FILED
NO.GA-II/C1/156687/2019/ADMN DATED
31.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY.
ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION BEARING FILED
NO.GAII-C1/162156/2019/ADMN DATED
31.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY.
ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION BEARING FILE
NO.GA-II/C1/104750/2019/ADMN DATED
31.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY.
ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.F.1-33/2008(SCT)
DATED 31.1.2017 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY
GRANTS COMMISSION.
ANNEXURE A8 TRUE COPY OF THE GUIDELINES ISSUED BY THE
UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION DATED NIL.