http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: UNIVERSITY OF COCHIN, REP. BY ITSREGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF CO

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: N.S. KANJOONJAMMA & ORS.UNIVERSITY OF COCHIN & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       20/03/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                             WITH                CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2224 OF 1985                          O R D E R      The appeals by special leave arise from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Kerala High court made on February 13,  1985   in  op   no.  5366/1982.  The  contesting  first respondent a  section officer  in the University appointed a section  officer  in  the  university  appointed  by  direct recruitment challenged  the   promotion of  v. vasudevan  as deputy Registrar  and P.K. Sudhakaran as assistant registrar of the  Cochin university.  The facts are that the syndicate in its Resolution dated December 3, 1980 adopted Rules 14 to 17-a of the Kerala state and subordinate services Rules (for short the  Rules )  so as to be applicable to the university in the  matter of  recruitment. The syndicate in its meeting dated January  20, 1981  resolved that non-teaching posts in the university  in class  I class  iii and class IV would be made available for application of rule of reservation in the matter of  promotion to  the scheduled  castes and scheduled tribes. In  resolution dated  March 7,  1981  the  syndicate further resolved  that special  recruitment  to  six  vacant posts be  advertised for recruitment of the scheduled castes and scheduled  tribes declaring  them to  reserved posts  be advertised for  recruitment  of  the  scheduled  castes  and scheduled  tribes  declaring  them  to  reserved  posts.  by further Resolution  dated October  1, 1981  it  resolved  to recommend constitution  of  staff  selection  committee  for recruitment of  those candidates.  By a  further  Resolution dated June  4,  1982  the  syndicate  authorised  the  vice- Chancellor to  constitute the  selection committee  to  make selection. accordingly  the  Vice-Chancellor  constituted  a selection  committee.   the  advertisement   was  made   for recruitment to  fill up the said six posts the respondents 3 and 4 candidates above- named and the first respondent along with others  applied for the said posts and were interviewed by the  selection committee on July 17,1982. It selected and the appointment  of respondents  3 and  4 came to be made on July 20  1982. Accordingly  the syndicate  approved  of  the selection by  its proceedings of the even date and appointed respondents 3  and  4  as  Deputy  Registrar  and  Assistant

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

Registrar respectively.      The first  respondent  as  stated  earlier  filed  writ petition in  the High  court questioning  the correctness of the appointment  of Respondents  3 and  4 on the ground that when selection  was made  there  was  on  rule  for  special recruitment of  the reserved  candidates. The  Rule have not been  specifically   applied  for  special  recruitment  and therefore the  selection and  appointment or the respondents is not  in accordance  with law.  The Ruse is when inservice candidates were  available direct  recruitment could  not be resorted to. that these appeals by special leave.      The only  question that  arises  for  consideration  is whether the  view taken by the high court is correct in law? Rules 14  to 17Ae of the Rules relates to the reservation of the scheduled  castes and scheduled tribes and the method of recruitment has been provided therein and Rule 17-a reads as under;      "Special recruitment from among the      scheduled  castes   and   scheduled      tribes-      Notwithstanding anything  contained      in these  rules or  in the  special      rules  the   state  Government  may      reserve a specified number or posts      in any service class category to be      filled   by    direct   recruitment      exclusively from  among the members      of   the   scheduled   castes   and      scheduled Tribes.      This rule  shall be  deemed to have      come into  force with  effect  from      November 25, 1959."      It is  not in  dispute that  Rules 14  to  17-A  having specifically been  adopted by  the aforesaid  Resolutions of the syndicate  and approved  by the  university the power of the university  to adopt  the Rules has not been challenged. The aforesaid  Resolutions of  indicate that  the University has properly made of Rules 14 to 17-a applicable in relation to the  recruitment of  non-teaching staff to the university in certain  posts viz.,  class I  class III and class IV. In furtherance thereof  the vice-chancellor  was authorised  by the syndicate  to  advertise  the  posts  and  constitute  a selection committee  for recruitment  of the  candidates. In furtherance  thereof   ,  a   committee   was   constituted. Advertisement came  to be  made. it  is seen  that when  the general  rules   have  been  made  applicable  there  is  no necessity by  the university to make a special; recruitment. Therefore the  non-mention of the special recruitment in the resolution is  of little  consequence As  seen the syndicate adopted the  Rules in  relation to the non teaching staff of the university As a consequence the advertisement came to be made for  special recruitment  of the  scheduled castes  and scheduled tribes to the posts reserved for them. In fact the first respondent  also had  applied for and sought selection but  remained   unsuccessful.  Having  participated  in  the selection she  is estopped  to challenge  the correctness of the  procedure.   That  apart  we  have  already  held  that procedure was  correctly followed and therefore the omission to mention  in  the  advertisement  the  it  was  a  special recruitment is of no consequence. the further finding of the High court  relates to  proviso 1  to Rule  4 which provides that  when  duly  qualified  candidates  are  available  the appointment shall  be made  to them.  In other words if duly qualified candidates  are available the appointment shall be made to  them. In  other words  if duly qualified candidates

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

are not  available then  advertisement  could  be  made  for selection.  That   rule  is   applicable  to   the   general recruitment. But  with reference  to the special recruitment of the  candidates belonging  to the  scheduled  castes  and scheduled Tribes  Rules  14  to  17-A  stand  attracted.  In addition as  seen earlier  the advertisement came to be made as early  as on  April 22, 1982 by which time the Resolution of the  syndicate was  not  adopted  the  same  having  been adopted on  March 7,1982.  so Rule  4 is inapplicable to the special recruitment  advertised on October 1,1981. Therefore the later  Resolution applying  Rule 4  has no retrospective effect. It  is contended  by the  learned  counsel  for  the respondent No.1,  that respondent  s 3  and 4  have left the jobs and  so there  is no need to disturb the appointment of the first  respondent. As  they are  said to  be on  foreign service they  are entitled to join back on their posts. thus considered the  high court  was clearly in error in allowing the writ petition. The appeals  are  accordingly  allowed.  allowed.  the  writ petition sta nds dismissed. No costs.