1996 (12) TMI 396 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of the UP Public Services (Reservation of Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Act, 1994.
2. Validity of the Chancellor's direction to appoint respondents.
3. Right to appointment from the selection process initiated prior to the Act.
4. Retrospective application of the Act.
5. Issuance of mandamus in violation of the law.

Summary:

1. Applicability of the UP Public Services (Reservation of Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Act, 1994:
The Act came into force on March 22, 1994, with retrospective effect from December 11, 1993. Section 2(c) defines "public services and posts" to include educational institutions owned or controlled by the State Government. Section 3 mandates reservation percentages for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes. Section 4 entrusts the Vice-Chancellor with the responsibility of implementing the Act in the university. Section 6 empowers the Government to enforce compliance with the Act.

2. Validity of the Chancellor's direction to appoint respondents:
The Chancellor directed the Vice-Chancellor to appoint the respondents as Readers in Chemistry. However, the Vice-Chancellor sought guidance on implementing this direction in light of the Act. The Governor, exercising powers u/s 6 of the Act, cancelled appointments made in violation of the Act. The Supreme Court held that the Chancellor's direction was in violation of the Act since the selection process was initiated after the Act came into force.

3. Right to appointment from the selection process initiated prior to the Act:
The Court clarified that the initiation of the selection process is defined in Section 15(1) of the Act. For the selection process to be considered initiated, the written test or interview must have started before the Act came into force. In this case, the selection process for the posts of Readers in Chemistry started after December 11, 1993, and thus, the provisions of the Act applied. The respondents did not acquire any vested right to appointment from the selection process initiated after the Act's commencement.

4. Retrospective application of the Act:
The Court upheld the retrospective application of the Act to existing vacancies as of December 11, 1993. It emphasized that the legislature is competent to make laws with retrospective effect. The selection process initiated after the Act's commencement must comply with the Act's provisions, including the reservation requirements u/s 3(1).

5. Issuance of mandamus in violation of the law:
The Court held that a mandamus cannot be issued to violate the law. The High Court's direction to appoint the respondents as per the Chancellor's order was in violation of the Act. The Vice-Chancellor's actions in implementing the Act were justified, and the strictures against the appellants by the High Court were unwarranted.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's judgment and orders, and dismissed the writ petition. The direction issued by the Chancellor was found to be in contravention of the Act, and the mandamus issued by the High Court was deemed illegal.