http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

PETITIONER: STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: DR. DINA NATH SHUKLA & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       31/01/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted. We have heard the counsel on both sides.      This appeal  by special  leave arises from the judgment of the  Allahabad High  Court, made  on 3.5.1996 in CMWP No. 12592 of  1995. The legislature of Uttar Pradesh enacted the Uttar Pradesh  Public Services  (Reservation  for  Scheduled Casts, Scheduled  Tribes and  other Backward  Classes)  Act, 1994 (for short, the ‘Act’). Advertisement was issued by the University  of   Allahabad  on  January  30,  1995  inviting applications  from   all  eligible   persons  for  posts  of Professors,  Readers   and  Lecturers  including  the  posts reserved for  Scheduled Castes  (for short,  the  ‘Dalits’), Scheduled  Tribes   (for  short,  the  ‘Tribes’)  and  Other Backward Classes  (for short,  the ‘OBCs’).  A clarification was issued  by the Government on April 19, 1995 stating that for recruitment  to the  posts of  Professors,  Readers  and Lecturers, University  or College  is treated  as a unit and the  recruitment   would  be   made  applying  the  rule  of reservation for  the Dalits,  Tribes and  OBCs in respect of all the  posts. That  came to  be  questioned  in  the  writ petition.  The   Division  Bench  has  held  that  the  said notification was  bad in  law. Thus,  this appeal by special leave.      Shri Rakesh  Dwivedi,  learned  Advocate  General,  has contended that  the view of the High Court is not correct in law. As  most of  the subjects  there are  single  posts  of Professors, Readers  or Lecturers  in the University/College and if  recruitment is made to each single post, there would be total  prohibition on  application of rule of reservation for the  Dalits, Tribes  and  OBCs,  therefore,  for  making appointment by direct recruitment to the posts/services, the instructions came  to be  issued. The Government, therefore, had clarified that entire University/College should be taken as a  unit for  the purpose  of recruitment  to the posts of Professors, Readers  and Lecturers  and the  posts should be fused as  three separate  categories for  application of the rule  of   reservation.  The  clarification  issued  by  the Government is,  therefore, consistent with the provisions of the Act.  He  in  particular,  makes  reference  to  Section 2(c)(iv) read with Section 3(5) of the Act.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

    Shri P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents,  on   the  other   hand,  contended   that  the advertisement was  issued for subjectwise recruitment in the University and applying the rule of reservation the subjects in which  the posts would be reserved for Dalits, Tribes and OBCs were  specified. The  Government instructions,  on  the other hand,  would create ambiguity as to which of the posts are to  be reserved  for Dalits,  Tribes, OBCs and which are meant for general candidates. If the subjectwise reservation is provided  for,  everyone  would  know  which  vacancy  is available to  the general candidate or to Dalits, Tribes and OBCs. If there is only one post available for recruitment in a given  faculty/cadre, then rule of rotation as provided in Section 3(5)  of the  Act would  be applied  so that rule of reservation would  be effectuated,  properly implemented and what is  more, candidates  would be in a position to know to which post  he/she would  be entitled  to apply for and seek recruitment in accordance with the qualifications prescribed for and possessed by the respective candidates.      We think that the stand taken and the contention raised by Shri  P.P. Rao,  learned senior  counsel, is  correct and merits acceptance.  It is  seen that Section 2(c) of the Act defines "Public  Services and  Posts"  to  mean  service  in connection with  the  affairs  of  the  State  and  includes services and  posts in any educational institution owned and controlled by  the State Government or which receives grant- in-aid from  the State  Government, including  a  University established by  or under  a Uttar  Pradesh  Act,  except  in educational  institution  established  and  administered  by minorities referred  to in  clause (1)  of Article 30 of the Constitution. Section  3 postulates  application of the rule of reservation and reads thus:      "3.  Reservation   in   favour   of      Scheduled Castes,  Scheduled Tribes      and other  Backward Classes.  - (1)      In public services and posts, there      shall be  reserved at  the state of      direct recruitment,  the  following      percentages of  vacancies to  which      recruitment  are   to  be  made  in      accordance with the roster referred      to in  sub-section (5) in favour of      persons  belonging   to   Scheduled      Castes, Scheduled  Tribes and other      backward classes of citizens -      (a) in the case of  Twenty one per      Scheduled Castes    cent;      (b) in the case of  Two per cent;      Scheduled Tribes      (c) in case of other     twenty      eeven Backward classes   per   cent      of citizens      Provided that the reservation under      clause (c)  shall not  apply to the      category of  other backward classes      of citizens  specified in  Schedule      II.      (5) The State Government shall, for      applying the reservation under sub-      section (1),  by a  notified order,      issue  a   roster  which  shall  be      continuously  applied  till  it  is      exhausted."      Rest of the sub-sections of Section 3 are not relevant; hence omitted.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

    Article 46 of the Constitution enjoins that educational and economic interest of the Dalits, Tribes and Other weaker sections shall be promoted by the State with special care of the Dalits  and Tribes.  They shall be protected from social injustice  and   all  forms   of  exploitation.  Article  38 envisages that  the State shall strive to promote welfare of the people  by securing and protecting, as effectively as it may, a  social order  in which justice, social, economic and political, shall inform all the institutions of the national life; in  particular, to  minimise the  equalities in income and  endeavour   to  eliminate   inequalities   in   status, facilities and  opportunities, not  only amongst individuals but also  amongst groups  of people  residing  in  different areas or engaged in different vocations. The Preamble of the Constitution which  decries source  of power  from  "We  the people of  India", i.e.  Bharat,  envisions  an  egalitarian social order  to integrate  all the  people with equality of status, dignity  of person and fraternity as a united Bharat and  providing  them  socio-economic  justice,  equality  of opportunity and  status and  dignity of  person. It  is well settled  legal   position  that  Preamble  is  part  of  the Constitution and is the basic structure of the Constitution. Every  citizen   is  born   equal  but   gets  chained  with impregnable  walls   of  social,   sectional  and  religious barriers and is made victim of discrimination and denuded of human rights.  Articles  14,  15(1)  and  16(1)  banish  all barriers of  discrimination on  grounds of  religion,  race, sex, sect, caste, place of birth or any of them.      When there  is clash  of interests and competing claims there is  crave for  equality  of  opportunity  amongst  the people and  for emanicipation  from the  pangs  of  absolute prohibition, Articles  15(2) to  (4), 16(4) & 4(a) read with the Directive  Principles, pored  forth practical content of equality  in   opportunity  resulting  through  distributive justice in  favour of  unequals to  hold an  office or  post under the State in the democratic governance. These Articles give power  to the  State to make positive discrimination in favour of  the disadvantaged,  in particular  the Dalits and Tribes. Socio  economic empowerment  secures them dignity of person and  equality of  status. Appointment to an office or post gives  opportunity  to  have  equality  of  status  and dignity of  person. The  object thereby is to provide socio- economic equality.  Social equality  gets  realised  through facilities and  opportunities given  to them  to  live  with dignity and  equal status  in the society. Economic equality also  gives  socio-economic  empowerment  as  a  measure  to improve excellence  in every  walk of  life. Article  51A(h) enjoins on  every  citizen  to  develop  scientific  temper, humanisms and  the spirit of inquiry and reform, and charges the  citizens   to  promote   harmony,  spirit   of   common brotherhood transcending all social, religious, regional and linguistic barriers;  Article 51A(j) enjoins the citizens to strive towards  excellence in  all spheres of individual and collective activity  so that  the nation constantly rises to higher level of endeavour and achievement. Equal opportunity of appointment  to a  post or  office is  available  to  all citizens and legitimately and constitutionally entitles them to consider  their claims  for employment/appointment  to an office  or   post.  There  are  many  aspirants  for  a  few posts/offices which generates spirit of competition. Article 335 mandates the State that in the field of competition, the claims  of  the  Dalits  and  Tribes  shall  be  taken  into consideration   consistently   with   the   maintenance   of efficiency of  administration, in the making of appointments to services  and posts in connection with the affairs of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

Union or of a State.      Thus Article 335 read with Articles 46, 38 and 16 would give the socio-economic empowerment to the Dalits and Tribes and rule  of reservation  in the  matter of appointment to a service  or   post  under   the  State   is  part   of   the constitutional scheme as a positive facility and opportunity available to  them and  where it  is extended to OBCs., they too get  opportunity to  strive to  improve excellence  in a service or  a post in which he or she gets appointment. In a democracy governed  by rule  of law,  every segment  of  the society is  entitled to  a share  in the  governance of  the country. Permanent  bureaucracy is a facet of our democratic governance  and   integral  scheme   of  the   Constitution. Recruitment to  a post  or an  office  under  the  State  is governed by  the Constitution,  law and the rules made under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution or administrative instructions in  the absence  of statutory rules. Protective discrimination has  been upheld  by this  Court. It connotes mitigating absolute  equality to  achieve equality in favour of the  disadvantaged segments of the society. The Act gives practical content to implement the constitutional mandate of equality of opportunity and status to the Dalits, Tribes and OBCs, in  the matter of appointment to a public service or a post under  the State  of U.P. including an appointment in a university or  educational institution.  In R.K. Sabharwal & Ors. vs.  The State  of Punjab  & Ors. [(1995) 2 SCC 745], a Constitution Bench  of this  Court had  considered and  held reservation in  promotion as  per the  roster as  valid  and consistent with  Articles 16(1)  and 14 of the Constitution. It was  also held  that the promotion in accordance with the roster is  valid. The  reserved candidates promoted on merit should not  be put  in the  roster reserved  for them but be treated as  general  candidates.  Only  candidates  selected under the  reserved quota  should be  appointed as  per  the roster  point  to  the  post  ear-marked  for  the  reserved candidates. In  Union of India & Anr. vs. Madhav s/o Gajanan Chaubal &  Anr. [JT  1996 (9)  that the reservation could be provided even  to the  isolated post on the basis of rule of rotation. Extension  of reservation  in such  cases  is  not unconstitutional. On  the other  hand, such  scheme provided for and  facilitate the  Dalits and  Tribes being considered for promotion  to hold  single post consistent with equality of opportunity  on par  with others.  Therefore, it was held that the rule of rotation and the roster point in filling up the vacancy  that has arisen in the single post sought to be filled up  with the reserved candidates, is not violative of Article 16(1) or 14 of the Constitution.      Thus, it  could be  seen that  even in  the service 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 grant- 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  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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

out  the   posts  before   hand  and   to  make  recruitment accordingly. It  is  seen  that  in  the  present  case  the advertisement specified  various posts  subjectwise 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 Advocate General 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 roster is applied, necessarily  advertisement   should   be   issued   inviting applications for recruitment to the posts. The University is required to  ear-mark 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,  Sub-section (6)  of Section  3 reads as under:      "If a  persons belonging  to any of      the categories  mentioned  in  sub-      section (1)  gets selected  on  the      basis   of   merit   in   an   open      competition      with       general      candidates,   he   shall   not   be      adjusted  against   the   vacancies      reserved for  such  category  under      sub-section (1)."      In a  case where there are more than one post available in the  same faculty  in the  cadre of  Professor, Reader or Lecturer, as the case may be, necessarily and per force, the advertisement  should  also  be  made  subjectwise  applying Section 3(1)  & (5) of the Act. On selection, the candidates appointed should  be fitted in that behalf as per the roster maintained by  the University/educational institution. Thus, all eligible  candidates, be they general or reserved, would get equal  opportunity to  apply for  and seek selection and recruitment  in  accordance  with  law  and  the  Rules.  In adjudging the  constitutionality of  the scheme  or rule  of reservation, what  is required to be kept at the back of the mind is  the equality  and adequacy of representation as per the  percentage   prescribed  by   the  rules/administrative instructions.  The   enforcement  of  the  Act  hinges  upon logistic interpretation  and not  on legalistic orientation; pragmatic and  not pedantic  approach so that all candidates get equality  of opportunity to hold an office or post under the State.  Care should  also be  taken to ensure that equal opportunity for  selection and  appointment is  available to all candidates  in all faculties, discipline, speciality and super-speciality and  in each  cadre/grade/service  so  that equality is spread out and no one category gains monopoly or is pushed into one category, grade or service.      In Dr.  Suresh Chandra Verma & Ors. vs. The Chancellor, Nagpur University & Ors. [(1990) 4 SCC 55] instead of making subjectwise recruitment,  an  advertisement  in  respect  of total of 77 posts including 13 posts of Professors, 29 posts of Readers  and  35  posts  of  Lecturers  were  issued  and recruitment was  sought to  be made. When it was questioned, this Court tested the principle on the anvil of equality and fairness of procedure posing the question thus:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

    "Is  non-reserving   the  posts  of      University teachers  subjectwise in      the employment  notice a  breach of      letter and  spirit  of  reservation      policy contained  in  Section  77-C      read with Section 57 of the Act?"      This Court had laid down in paras 10 to 12 thus:      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   casts.      Neither  the   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 to  take a  chance.  What  is      further, the  selection  committees      which were  appointed to  interview      that 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      committee even  without knowing  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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

    eligible candidates from unreserved      category had  applied for the posts      without knowing  whether the  posts      were   reserved    or   not.    The      possibility  that   many   eligible      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 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

    posts were  selected only 30 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    tot    he      reserved  category.  Interestingly,      however,  the   employment   notice      issued subsequently for these posts      mentioned   reservations   postwise      (subjectwise).      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  and for  which      the applications  are invited  from      the  candidates  belonging  to  the      reserved class. 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.      A support  was also  sought  to  be      derived by  the appellants to their      contention  from   the  policy   of      reservation   as    enunciated   in      Government Resolution  dated  March      30, 1981  wherein instructions  are      issued in the matter in exercise of      the   power    conferred   on   the      Government under  Section 77 (c) of      the Act."      The  instructions   issued  by   the  Government   were extracted  and  to  avoid  confusion  in  understanding  the provisions of  the Act,  the instructions were explained and stated thus:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

    "....similarly, at  any given  time      of  recruitment   to  the  teaching      posts, only  the  total  number  of      reserved vacancies and the sections      from which they are to be filled in      should be  determined. It  would be      enough if  the required  percentage      is fulfilled  as a  whole  and  not      with reference  to  any  particular      post.  IF  the  reserved  vacancies      cannot  be  filled,  then  so  many      posts as  cannot be  filled in, may      be kept  vacant for  six months and      should be  again advertised thrice.      If, even  after re-advertising  the      posts   three    times,    suitable      candidates   belonging    to    the      reserved  category  do  not  become      available, they may be filled in by      candidates belonging  to  the  open      category."      This Court had further held thus:      "It is  common knowledge  that  the      vacancies  in  posts  in  different      subjects occur  from time  to  time      according to  the exigencies of the      circumstances   and    they   arise      unequally in different posts. There      may not be vacancies in one or some      posts whereas  there may be a large      number of vacancies in other posts.      In such  circumstances, it  is  not      possible to comply with the minimum      reservation percentage of 34 vis-a-      vis  each  post.  It  is  for  this      reason that  the resolution  states      that although minimum percentage of      reserved posts may not be filled in      one  or  some  posts,  it  will  be      enough if in that year it is filled      in taking  into  consideration  the      total number of appointments in all      the posts.  This, however, does not      absolve  the  appointing  authority      from  advertising  in  advance  the      vacancies  in  each  post  and  the      number of  posts in  such vacancies      meant for  the  reserved  category,      and inviting  applications from the      candidates   belonging    to    the      reserved and  unreserved categories      with  a  clear  statement  in  that      behalf.  In   fact,   the   overall      minimum percentage  has to  be kept      in   mind,   as   stated   in   the      resolution, at  the time of issuing      the  employment   notice   or   the      advertisement as the case may be.      What is  material from our point of      view in  this case  is to point out      that even  the Karnataka Full Bench      has taken  the view  that generally      reservation has to be cadrewise and      subjectwise. It  was also a case of      the filling  in of the vacancies in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10  

    teaching posts in a University."      Thus,  it   could  be  seen  that  if  the  subjectwise recruitment is adopted in each service or post in each cadre in each faculty, discipline, speciality or super-speciality, it would  not only  be clear  to  the  candidates  who  seek recruitment but  also there  would not be an over-lapping 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  subjectwise   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 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  of  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 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.      This ratio is consistent with the law laid down by this Court in Madhav’s  case as elaborated earlier.      The law  is declared  accordingly. The  Vice-Chancellor would work  out the  details, make  fresh advertisement  and have  the   selection  done   in  accordance  with  law  and appointments made  accordingly. The directions issued by the High Court are modified accordingly.      The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.