2018 (10) TMI 2048 - HC - Indian Laws

Applicability of rules of reservations under the U.P. Act No. 4 of 1994 for appointment on the post of lecturers by direct recruitment in the aided postgraduate and undergraduate colleges in the State of UP affiliated to the State Universities by clubbing all the vacancies as provided under Section 12 (3) of the UP Higher Eduction Service Commission Act 1980 subject-wise - minimum posts in the cadre for applying the rules of reservations - filling up of vacancies - meaning of the words unfilled vacancies in Section 3(2) of UP Act No. 4 of 1994 - Dr. Vishwajeet Singh s case 2009 (4) TMI 1068 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT and the Full Bench decision in Heera Lal s case 2010 (7) TMI 1236 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT have been correctly decided or not? - Applicability of doctrine of merger. Whether this Full Bench can proceed further on merits and rule upon the correctness of Dr. Vishwajeet Singh even though the appeal preferred against it has come to be dismissed by the Supreme Court? HELD THAT - In the present case the issue essentially is not whether the order dated 19.01.2017 constitutes a precedent but whether the decision in Dr. Vishwajeet Singh stood merged in the said order. The consequential issue which resultantly springs up is whether if our answer on the question of merger be in the affirmative whether it would be open for this Full Bench to reconsider or review the correctness of Dr. Vishwajeet Singh. We have already held that there clearly was a merger of the said decision in the order of the Supreme Court. The order of the Supreme Court came to be made after grant of leave. The Supreme Court in unequivocal terms agreed with the view taken by this Court in Dr. Vishwajeet Singh and affirmed the decision. In light of the unambiguous terms of the order dated 19.01.2017 we find ourselves unable to be persuaded to hold that there was no affirmation of the said decision. The mere fact that no elaborate reasons were recorded while dismissing the Civil Appeals also does not convince us to opine that this Court would have the authority to review the correctness of Dr. Vishwajeet Singh. The unambiguous express approval in the order of 19.01.2017 clearly forecloses all debate and quells all doubts on the question raised. The present reference and whether this Full Bench should examine the correctness of Dr. Vishwajeet Singh can be examined from another angle also. If one were to pose the question whether the reference could have been made if the order of the Supreme Court dated 19.01.2017 had been in existence and placed before the Division Bench the answer would clearly be in the negative. Once the decision in Dr. Vishwajeet Singh stood specifically approved/affirmed by the Supreme Court and consequently merged in the said order the question of doubting its correctness or dissenting from the same would not arise. The terms of the order dated 19.01.2017 clearly establish that the said decision and the view taken by the Division Bench therein was specifically approved. The said decision consequently merged in the order of the Supreme Court. The order of the Supreme Court came to be rendered after grant of leave. Once the decision of this Court stood merged in the order of the Supreme Court it would not be legally permissible for this Full Bench to consider the correctness or otherwise of Dr. Vishwajeet Singh. This Court is bound by the said order of the Supreme Court irrespective of the absence of a speech or recordal of elaborate reasons on the legal issues which arose therein. The issue essentially is not one of the Court being faced with a precedent but primarily of merger. Conclusion - This Full Bench is clearly bound in law by the decision of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6385-6386 of 2010 decided on 19.01.2017. The Reference is consequently turned down. The matters shall in consequence be placed before the appropriate Court for disposal of the writ petition and connected matters in accordance with law.

Summary

The Court was tasked with addressing several complex legal issues concerning the applicability of reservation rules under the U.P. Act No. 4 of 1994 to the appointment of lecturers in aided postgraduate and undergraduate colleges affiliated with State Universities in Uttar Pradesh. The issues were initially raised due to disagreements with previous judgments in Dr. Vishwajeet Singh and Heera Lal cases. The core questions revolved around whether vacancies should be clubbed subject-wise or college-wise for reservation purposes, the minimum number of posts required in a cadre for applying reservation rules, and the treatment of unfilled vacancies.

The Court's analysis began with examining the legal framework provided by the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980, and the U.P. Public Services (Reservation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994. The provisions of these statutes were critical in determining how reservations should be applied, whether subject-wise or college-wise, and the implications for vacancies that had not been previously advertised.

The Court noted that the Division Bench in Dr. Vishwajeet Singh had held that vacancies which had never been advertised could not be clubbed with carry-forward vacancies reserved for certain categories. It was determined that these vacancies should be open to both reserved and general category candidates. Additionally, it was held that the reservation and roster as per the 1994 Act had to be applied subject-wise, treating the college as a 'unit'. The Division Bench also concluded that in a cadre of three or fewer posts, no reservation could be provisioned, while in a cadre with at least five posts, specific reservations could be applied.

In subsequent proceedings, a learned Single Judge identified a conflict with another Division Bench's decision in Mahendra Kumar Gond, which had not aligned with the principles established in Dr. Vishwajeet Singh. This conflict was referred to a Full Bench, which ultimately upheld the view in Dr. Vishwajeet Singh, disapproving the judgment in Mahendra Kumar Gond.

In Dr. Archna Mishra, the Division Bench questioned the correctness of the decision in Dr. Vishwajeet Singh, arguing that it had not thoroughly examined the scheme of the 1980 Act. The Division Bench suggested that all teachers in aided colleges constituted a single homogeneous cadre, and thus, the decision to treat a college as a 'unit' was incorrect. Additionally, it disagreed with the ruling in Heera Lal regarding the application of reservation rules to cadres with fewer than five posts.

The Supreme Court's dismissal of the Civil Appeals against Dr. Vishwajeet Singh's decision was pivotal. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's judgment, indicating agreement with its views. This affirmation raised the question of whether the Full Bench could still address the reference on merits, given the Supreme Court's order.

The Court examined the doctrine of merger, which suggests that once a superior court affirms a decision, the lower court's decision merges into that of the superior court. This principle was discussed in light of precedents such as Kunhayammed and S. Shanmugavel Nadar. The Court concluded that the Supreme Court's order, which granted leave and affirmed the High Court's decision, resulted in the merger of the High Court's decision into the Supreme Court's order.

Ultimately, the Court determined that it was bound by the Supreme Court's order and could not revisit the correctness of Dr. Vishwajeet Singh. The Full Bench acknowledged that the Supreme Court's affirmation, despite the absence of detailed reasoning, constituted an express approval of the High Court's decision. Consequently, the reference was turned down, and the matters were directed to be placed before the appropriate Court for further proceedings in accordance with the law.