2009 (4) TMI 1068 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

1. The core legal issues considered in the judgment include:

(i) Whether 467 vacancies, which arose due to retirement, resignation, and death up to 30.6.2003, could be reserved for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes along with 371 carry-forward vacancies in advertisement No. 37 of 2003.

(ii) Whether the 467 vacancies were rightly reserved without being earlier advertised or offered to General Category candidates.

(iii) What constitutes a unit for applying the Rules of Reservation according to the 1994 Act and the roster framed thereunder?

(iv) Whether reservation should be applied by consolidating all vacancies of Lecturers in different degree/postgraduate colleges.

(v) Whether in case each college is treated as a separate unit, the reservation should be applied by clubbing all sanctioned posts of Lecturers in a college or subject-wise.

(vi) Whether advertisement No. 37 is in accordance with the 1994 Act and whether the number of carry-forward vacancies, i.e., 371, has been correctly determined.

(vii) What is the minimum number of posts in a cadre for the applicability of the roster issued under Sub-section (5) of Section 3 of the 1994 Act?

2. Issue-wise detailed analysis:

(i) & (ii) The Court found that the 467 vacancies, which arose due to retirement, resignation, and death, were not backlog vacancies and could not be reserved solely for reserved category candidates without being previously advertised. The Court held that the State's action in clubbing these vacancies with carry-forward vacancies violated Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India.

(iii) & (iv) The Court concluded that the unit for applying the Rules of Reservation should be college-wise and subject-wise, rather than consolidating all vacancies across different colleges. The Court emphasized that each subject in a college should be treated as a separate unit for applying reservation.

(v) The Court rejected the argument that all posts in a college could be clubbed together for applying reservation. It held that reservation and roster should be applied subject-wise in a college.

(vi) The Court found that advertisement No. 37 was not in accordance with the 1994 Act as it included 467 vacancies that were not backlog vacancies. The Court directed the Director of Higher Education to re-determine the number of vacancies against which the select list should be issued by applying reservation and roster subject-wise and college-wise.

(vii) The Court determined that for applying the roster, there should be at least five posts in a cadre. In a cadre with three or fewer posts, no post can be reserved for any category. In a cadre with four posts, one post can be reserved for Other Backward Classes, and in a cadre with five posts, one post can be reserved for Scheduled Castes and one for Other Backward Classes.

3. Significant holdings:

The Court held that the advertisement No. 37 was impermissible insofar as it included 467 vacancies that were not backlog vacancies. The Court directed that the selection process for 371 carry-forward vacancies should be taken to its logical end, subject to re-determination of reserved vacancies by applying reservation and roster subject-wise and college-wise. The Court also quashed the Government order dated 3.7.2002, which directed computation of reservation based on entire cadre strength instead of vacancies.

The Court emphasized the principle that reservation should be applied subject-wise in a college, and not by consolidating vacancies across different colleges. The Court reiterated the necessity of adhering to the percentage of reservation as prescribed under Section 3(1) of the 1994 Act and held that the roster should be applied in a manner that does not exceed the prescribed percentage of reservation.