http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 12  

PETITIONER: THE UNIVERSITY OF COCHIN

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: DR. N. RAMAN NAIR & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT30/10/1974

BENCH: BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH BENCH: BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH KRISHNAIYER, V.R. UNTWALIA, N.L.

CITATION:  1974 AIR 2319            1975 SCR  (2) 526  1975 SCC  (3) 628

ACT: Cochin University Act (30 of 1971) s. Scope of

HEADNOTE: Section  6  of the Cochin University Act, 1971,  read  as  a whole,   indicates   that   it  was   meant   to   eliminate unjustifiable  discrimination.  Section 6(2) lays  down  the mandatory duty upon the University to observe cls. (a),  (b) and (c) of Rule 14 of ’ ha Kerala State Subordinate  Service Rules muiatis mutandis.  Rule 14 lays down rule of  rotation in making appointments.  Clause (C) of the Rule lays down  a scheme  of  rotation for every block of  20  vacancies,  the first  vacancy  to  be  filled  by  open  competition.   The Syndicate  of  the University passed a  resolution  in  1972 providing that the rules mentioned in s. 6(2) be implemented in the case of teaching staff as a class, except in the case of post of Professor which shall be filled up exclusively in consideration  of  merit  and  that  the  reservation  quota against this category should be provided additionally in the category of Readers, Lecturers etc. taken collectively. The  first respondent applied for the post of Reader in  the department  of Hindi, and though he ranked first.  the  post was given to another who was a member of the backward class. ’The respondent filed a writ petition sad High Court allowed it. Dismissing the appeal to this Court, HELD  :  (1) Section 6(2) does not indicate  the  manner  in which  the  clarification of members of  service  under  the University  has to be made for the purpose of  applying  the rules  mentioned therein, but, inasmuch as  every  statutory power has to be exercised reasonably, the classification has to be reasonable. [533C] (2)  Though  rule 14(c) does not specifically say  that  the rule  of  rotation  will be applied in the  order  in  which vacancies  occur,  by  necessary implication,  the  rule  is intended  to  be so applied.  That being the object  of  the rule  the  rule  must have been  intended  to  operate  with reference to the dates on which the vacancies occur and  not with reference to some other events.  Though the rules  were made by the Government in 1967, for the purpose of  applying

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 12  

the  rules  to  the Universiry the rotation  could  only  be applied to vacancies existing on the date when the Act  came into  force  and  in the order in which  the  vacancies  had occurred. [533E-IH] (3)  The  Syndicate of the University appointed  a  Standing Committee to draw up the list of vacancies at the time  when the Act came into force and the list indicates    that   the vacancy of a Reader in the department of Hindi was the first to occur. [534A-B; 535A-B] (4)  The  High Court was right in holding that the power  to apply the rules mutatis  matandis does not include the power of  amending the substantial provisions in the  rules.   The power of the University is confined to making only what  are necessary adaptations so as to make the rules, applicable to those  in  the  service of the University in  place  of  the government  servants  for whom they  were  promulgated.   It could  include a power to ignore only such parts as  may  be inapplicable  or  in  conflict with  the  Act  itself.   The Syndicate could not, in any case, alter the provisions of s. 6(2)  of  the  Act itself which made  it  incumbent  on  the University to apply the rotation rule as contemplated  under the  rules  to every service, class or  category  under  the University.   If  the post of Reader in  the  department  of Hindi was the first to arise in service under the University an  application of the rotation principle would  compel  the first  appointment  to take place on the basis  of  an  open competition.That  principle could certainly not be  modified by the University by taking shelter behind the words mutatis mutandis. [535D-H] 527 (5)  The  resolution  of 1972 is on the face  of  it  partly Invalid by attempting to place appointment to the post of  a Professor   outside  the  reservation  and  rotation   rules altogether, and it is ambiguous irk its exact meaning.   The second  part  seems resigned to provide for  other  backward classes  a compensatory quota of reserved appointments in  a category other than of Professors in-lieu of the removal  of post of Professors from subjection to the rules, The  second part  is  apparently a consequence of the exclusion  of  the professors from the operation of the rules, which is  itself not  permissible, and not an adaptation for the  purpose  of applying  the  rules to the University.  The two  parts  are inseparable and therefore the whole resolution is invalid. [536F-537C] (6)  The  appointee as well as the respondent are  now  both holding  posts  of readers in the Hindi  Department  as  the needs  of the University have expanded; but it is  necessary to  determine  the  order of their  appointments  after  the University  has  laid  down its  own  method  of  reasonable classification  either  of the whole teaching staff  of  the University collectively or by putting various categories  of the  teaching  stat  into  separate  compartments  for   the applications of the rules.  The University may treat all the teaching posts as belonging to one class for the application of the rules.  On the other hand, it may treat only post  of readers  in  all subjects or in a particular  subject  as  a category by itself for the application of the rules.  But it cannot  exempt any class or category such as professor  from the operation of the rules altogether.  It is desirable that the  University  should be left to make its  own  reasonable classification  in accordance with these Principles  and  to determine  which  of  the two readers  was  entitled  to  be appointed earlier. [537C-F]

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 12  

JUDGMENT: CIVIL  APPELLATE,  JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal  No.  885  of 1974. Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment & Order dated  the 29th  November, 1973 of the Kerala High Court in 0.  P.  No. 102 of 1973. A.   K. Sen.. M. R handran and A. S. Nwnbiar, for the Appel- lant. T.   S. Krishnamurthi Iyer and N. Sudkakaran, for Respondent No. 1. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BEG, J.  The University of Cochin was granted special  leave to  appeal to this Court against the judgment and  order  of the  Kerala  High  Court allowing a  writ  Petition  of  the respondent Dr. N. Raman Nair who bad applied  unsuccessfully on  15-10-1972 for the Post of Reader in the  Department  of Hindi  after coming into force of the Cochin University  Act 30  of 1971 (hereinafter referred to as ’the Act’). no  High Court  had quashed a resolution; passed by the Syndicate  on 6-1-1973, for appointing Dr. A. Ramchandra Dey to the  Post. The  High  Court  had also quashed  the  resolution  of  the Syndicate  of  the  University  passed  on  17-7-1972,   the relevant part of which runs as follows :               "Resolved that               1.    the  rules mentioned under section  6(2)               of   the  Cochin  University  Act,  1971,   be               implemented in the case of teaching staff,  as               a  class  except  in  the  case  of  post   of               Professor which shall be filled up exclusively               in consideration of merit: but the reservation               quota against this category should be provided               additionally  in  the  category  of   readers,               Lecturers,  Teaching  Assistant,  etc.   taken               collectively".               L319Sup.  CI/75 528 It  had  directed  the University to  make  appointments  in conformity  with  Section 6(2) of the Act.  Section  6  lays down:               6.    "University  open  to  All  Classes  and               Creeds:-               (1)   No  person  shall, on  grounds  only  of               religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place  of               birth, residence, language, political  opinion               or   any  of  them,  be  ineligible  for,   or               discriminated   against  in  respect  of   any               employment  or office under the University  or               membership of any of the authorities or bodies               of  the University or admission to any  degree               or course of study in the University.               (2)   In  making appointments to posts in  any               service,   class   or   category   under   the               University,   the  University  shall   mutatis               mutandis,  observe the provisions  of  clauses               (a), (b) (c) of rule 14 and the provisions  of               rules  15, 16 and 17 of the Kerala  State  and               Subordinate  Service  Rules as  demanded  from               time to time". Section 6 of the Act, read as a whole, indicates that it was meant   to  eliminate  unjustifiable  discrimination.    The provisions   of   Section  6  (1)   are   directed   against discrimination against particular individuals on any of  the grounds  given  there.   Section 6(2)  is  meant  to  ensure equality of treatment between citizens as members of groups,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 12  

and,  in particular, to enable "backward" classes to  secure appointments so as to remove the gap between the  "advanced" and  the  "backward".  In doing so, it may appear  that  the principle  of  equality  of  opportunity  on  the  basis  of individual  merit  is being modified.  Even if that  be  the result,  the  wider object is to  promote  equality  between groups of ,citizens. Rule  14,  mentioned  in Section 6(2) lays down  a  rule  of rotation  in making appointments.  Rule indicates  that  the principle  of  minimum qualifications to  determine  whether candidates  are  suitable for selection  is  not  abandoned. Rule  16 provides for a "sub-rotation" among  sub-groups  of major  backward classes.  This concept is further  explained and elaborated in Rule 17.  These rules are set out below in toto.               " 14.  Reservation of appointments.-Where  the               Special  Rules lay down that the principle  of               reservation of appointments shall apply to any               service, class or cat,--gory, or where in  the               case  of  any service, class or  category  for               which  no special Rules have been issued,  the               Government have by notification in the Gazette               declared that the principle of reservation  of               appointments  shall  apply  to  such  service,               class  or  category,  appointments  by  direct               recruitment to such service class or  category               shall be made on the following               vice basis               (a)   The unit of appointment for the  purpose               of  this rule shall be 20, of which two  shall               be reserved for scheduled castes and scheduled               tribes and 8 shall be reserved for the               529               other  Backward classes and the  remaining  10               shall be filled on the basis of merit.               Provided  that  one out of  every  five  posts               reserved  for Scheduled Castes  and  Scheduled               Tribes shall go to a scheduled Tribe candidate               only  in  the  absence of  a  Scheduled  Tribe               Candidate,  it shall go to a  Scheduled  Caste               candidate.               (b)   The  claims  of  members  of   Scheduled               Castes and Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward               Classes  shall  also  be  considered  for  the               appointments  which  shall be  filled  on  the               basis of merit and where a candidate belonging               to a Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe or Other               Backward  Class  is selected on the  basis  of               merit,  the  number  of  posts  reserved   for               scheduled  castes,  scheduled  tribes  or  for               Other  Backward Classes as they case  may  be,               shall not in any way be affected.               (c) Appointments under this rule shall be made               in the               order of rotation specified below in every  of               20 vacancies.               1 .   Open Competition.               2.    Other Backward Classes.               3.    Open Competition.               4.    Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.               5.    Open Competition.               6.    Other Backward Classes.               7.    Open Competition.               8.    Other Backward Classes.               9.    Open Competition.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 12  

             10.   Other Backward Classes               11.   Open Competition.               12.   Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.               13.   Open Competition.               14.   Other Backward Classes.               15.   Open Competition.               16.   Other Backward Classes.               17.   Open Competition.               18.   Other Backward Classes.               19.   Open Competition.               20.   Other Backward Classes.               Provided  that  the fourth turn in  the  third               rotation  and  the twelfth turn in  the  fifth               rotation   shall   go   to   Scheduled   Tribe               candidates  and  in the absence  of  scheduled               tribe  candidates, they shall go to  Scheduled               Castes candidates.               530               Provided  that  the rule shall  not  apply  in               appointments  of  near relatives  of  military               personnel  killed,  permanently  disabled   or               reported  to be missing in action if they  are               or   have  been  wholly  dependent   on   such               personnel and- they shall be given preference,               in  the  matter of appointment  to  Government               Service provided, they possess the  prescribed               qualifications  and subject to  the  condition               that  preference in the matter of  appointment               shall  be  given only to one relation  in  the               case of each such personnel.               Explanation :-The term "Near Relatives"  means               the  widows/wives, sons,  daughters,  sisters,               brothers, fathers, mother; nieces and  nephews               of the military personnel.               15.   If  there is no suitable  candidate  for               selection   from   a   particular    community               classified as "Other Backward Classes" or from               the   group  of  communities   classified   as               "Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes" in the               turn allotted for them in the integrated cycle               combining  the rotation in clause (c) of  rule               14  and  the sub-rotation in sub-rule  (2)  of               rule 17, the said community or group shall  be               passed over and the post shall be filled up in               the following manner:-               If  a  suitable  candidate  is  available  for               selection   in   the,   community   or   group               immediately next to the passed over  community               or group in said cycle, he shall be  selected.               If  no  such candidate is  available  in  that               community  or  group selection shall  be  made               from the community or group in the said cycle,               he shall be selected.  If no such candidate is               available   in   that  community   or   group,               selection shall be made from the community  or               group next following, strictly in the order of               rotation.    If  no  suitable   candidate   is               available  for  selection in any of  the  said               communities or groups, selection shall be made               from  among the open  competition  candidates.               The  benefit of the turn thus forfeited  to  a               community,  or  group by reason  of  it  being               passed  over shall be resorted to it,  at  the               earliest  possible opportunity, if a  suitable               candidate  from  that community  or  group  is

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 12  

             available  for selection by making  adjustment               against  the claims of the community or  group               that  derived the extra benefit by  reason  of               such passing over;               Provided   that   in  no   year   reservations               including  carrying  forward  vacancies  to  a               category of post shall exceed 50% of the total               number  of  vacancies for which  selection  by               direct   recruitment  to  that   category   is               resorted to in that year :               Provided further that the right of restoration               of  the  turn shall lapse with the  expiry  of               three years from the date of the passing over;               Provided   also  that  the  said   right   of.               restoration  shall not extend to a case  where               the selection has gone, to an open Competition               candidate.               531               Note:-  The  year of reservation  referred  to               above  shall  be  from  the  15th  June  of  a               calendar  year to 14th June of the  succeeding               calendar year.  The rotation referred to above               shall   commence  from  15,-6-1967   and   the               outstanding compensation due to communities in               the  cycle of rotation upto 15-6-1967 will  be               treated as lapsed.               16.   There  shall be subrotation among  major               groups of Other Backward Classes.               17(1).  The grouping of Other Backward Classes               for  the above purpose shall be  as  indicated               below               1.    Ezhavas and Thiyyas.               2.    Muslims.               3.    Latin  Catholics  S.I.U.C.  and   Anglo-               Indians.               4.    Scheduled     Caste     converts      to               Christianity,               5.    Other Backward Classes put together i.e.               Communities  other  than  those  mentioned  in               items  1  to 4 above included in the  list  of               "Other Backward Classes".               (2)   The  40%  reservation allowed  to  Other               Backward  Classes shall be  distributed  among               the  different groups of Backward  Classes  in               the following proportion:-               Out of every 40 appointments 14 shall be given               to  Ezhavas and Thiyyas, 10 to Muslims,  5  to               latin Catholics, S.I.U.C. and Anglo-Indians, I               to  Scheduled Caste converts  to  Christianity               and 10 to Other Backward Classes put together.               Note  :-The  year of reservation  referred  to               above shall               The  following shall be the rotation by  which               posts reserved for Other Backward Classes will               be distributed among the various groups coming               under the class:-               1.    Ezhavas and Thiyyas,               2.    Muslims.               3.    Latin  Catholics,  S.I.U.C.  and  Anglo-               Indians.               4.    Other Backward Classes.               5.    Ezhavas and Thiyyas.               6.    Muslims.               7.    Ezhavas and Thiyyas.               8.    Other Backward Classes.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 12  

             9.    Latin  Catholics,  S.I.U.C.  and  Anglo-               Indians.               10.   Muslims.               11.   Ezhavas and Thiyyas.               12.   Other Backward Classes.               13.   Ezhavas and Thiyyas.               14.   Muslims.               15.   Latin  Catholics,  S.I.U.C.  and  Anglo-               Indians.               532               16.   Other Backward Classes.               17.   Ezhavas and Thiyyas.               18.   Muslims.               19.   Scheduled     Caste     converts      to               Christianity.               20.   Other Backward Classes.               21.   Ezhavas and Thiyyas.               22.   Muslims.               23.   Ezhavas and Thiyyas.               24.   Other Backward Classes.               25.   Ezhavas and Thiyyas.               26.   Muslims.               27.   Latin  Catholics,  S.I.U.C.  and  Anglo-               Indians.               28.   Other Backward Classes.               29.   Ezhavas and Thiyyas.               30. Muslims.               31.   Ezhavas and Thiyyas.               32.   Other Backward Classes.               33.   Ezhavas and Thiyyas.               34.   Muslims.               35.   Ezhavas and Thiyyas.               36.   Other Backward Classes.               37.   Latin  Catholics,  S.I.U.C.  and  Anglo-               Indians.               38.   Muslims.               39.   Ezhavas and Thiyyas.               40.   Other Backward Classes.               Explanation .-.-The expression "Other Backward               Classes"  referred to in items 4, 8,  12,  16,               20, 24, 28, 32, 36 and 40 shall mean  Backward               Classes  referred to in item 5 under  sub-rule               (1) of this rule". It is not disputed that the petitioner-respondent No. 1  Dr. Nair,  stood 1st in the order of merit as determined by  the Board,  of  Appointments for the posts of a  Reader  in  the Department  of  Hindi in the  University.   The  petitioner- respondent’s case was that the post of Reader in Hindi is in itself a particular category.  He also said :               "If   the   principle   for   reservation   of               appointments provided in Rules 14 to 17 of the               General Rules is applied to the post of Reader               in Hindi, the petitioner alone is entitled  to               get  it since he secured the 1st rank  in  the               selection and since the first post is reserved               for open competition (on merits as provided in               Sub Rule (c) of Rule 14)". 533 The  petitioner submitted that the principle of  reservation had  been  wrongly  interpreted by  the  University  in  its resolution  of 17-7-1972 (Ex.  P. 2) when it laid down  that principles of reservation for appointment should be  Applied to posts in a service, or class or category collectively and not separately.  The whole case, therefore, hinged round  an interpretation  of  Rules 14 to 17 and their impact  on  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 12  

principle  of  rotation  as applied to  "service,  class  or category under the University". Section   6(2)  laws  down  the  mandatory  duty  upon   the University  to observe clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Rule  14, as  well as Rules 15, 16 and 17 of the rales set out  above. But,  it  does  not  indicate  the,  manner  in  which   the classification of members of a service under the  University has  to be made for the purposes of applying  these  rules.. Inasmuch  as  every  statutory power  has  to  be  exercised reasonably,  we  can say that the classification has  to  be reasonable.  Thus the University may treat all the  teaching posts  as belonging to one class for the application of  the rules.   On  the  other hand, it may treat  only  posts,  of Readers  in  all subjects or in a particular  subject  as  a category  by itself for the application of these rules.   It cannot  exempt  any class or category, such  as  Professors, from  the operation of the rules altogether.  Only if it  so classifies all posts in a service under the University as to make its classification prima facie unreasonable, could  the validity of the classification made by it be assailed.   The power is presumed to be exercised reasonably on the strength of facts and circumstances relevant for purposes intended to be achieved by the classification.  These purposes have also to pass the test of legality and constitutionality. Clause  (c)  of Rule 14 lays down a scheme of  rotation  for every block of 20 vacancies.  But, it does not  specifically say  that the rule of rotation will be applied in the  order in  which  vacancies  occur.  We  however,  think  that,  by necessary implication, the rule is intended to be applied to vacancies in the order in which they occur.  It could not be meant  to be applied with reference to the date on  which  a vacancy  is  announced  or  advertised  because  these   are fortuitous  matters  over  which  those  in  power  in   the University may, if so inclined, be able to exercise control. The  whole  object of such rules is to introduce  fixity  of principle  and  of the method of its application  so  as  to remove,  so far as possible, uncertainty  and  opportunities for  abuse of power.  That being the object of such a  rule, it  seems  obvious  to  us that the,  rule  must  have  been intended to operate with reference to the dates on which the vacancies occur and not with reference to some other  events such  as  the dates of declaration or advertisement  of  the vacancies. The  rules were made by the Govt. in 1967.  Hence, the  note occurs  at the bottom of Rule 15 that the rotation  provided for will commence from 15-6-1967.  This could not  obviously be done, under the Cochin University Act 30, of 1971,  which was published in the State Gazette on 13-8-1971.  Therefore, for the purposes of applying these rules to the  University, the  rotation could only apply to vacancies existing on  the date when the Act came into force and in the order in  which they had occurred. 534 It appears that the Syndicate of the University appointed  a Standing  Committee to draw up a list of the  vacancies,  in the class of posts with which we are concerned, at the  time when  the Act came into force, under which the  appointments were to be made in accordance with the rotation rules.  This list  (Ex.  p.  3) drawn up at a  meeting  of  the  Standing Committee  of  the  Syndicate held on  1-1-1973  giving  the number and designations of vacant posts, dates of vacancies, and allocation for the purposes of the rotation rule and the names of the candidates appointed, runs as follows :- "Regarding the appointments made so far and the appointments to  be  made from among those who have been  selected  after

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 12  

advertisement  and  interview, the  Committee  examined  the details of allocations.  The following is the result of  the review No.  Name of post   Date of   Allocation     Nameof    Carried                occurrence               candidate      over                of vacancy           APPOINTMENT MADE ON 17-7-1972 1. Lecturer, SMS.10-7-1971 OpenMrs. Armies George. 2. Lecturer, SMS.9-12-1971 ResDr. K. C. Sankarana      Ezhava.Narayanan. 3. Professor in Hindi17-7-1972 OpenDr. N. E. Viswanatha                          lyer. APPOINTMENT MADE ON 6-11-1972 4. Professor in SMS.     10-7-1971    Res.    Sch.Dr.     N. Paramaswaran C&T    Nair Sch. C&T.,converted      as open. 5. Professor in SMS.     16-8-1972 OpenSri                N. Renganatha Reddiar Not joined. 6. Reader in SMS.   16-8-1972 Muslim.Dr. K. N. Nair, Res.                     Muslim. 7.   Lecturer   in   S   MS.              16-8-1972     Open Dr.     Jose Thomas      converted PayyapallySch. C &T      as Sch. C&T.   C/o. is lostand it is           filled open. 8. Lecturer in SMS. 16-8-1972 Res.    (L.C.)Dr.    C.     N. Pursushotha- N.A. man Nair, L. C. Not joined No. Clo. as it is filled by open. 9.    Lecturer    in   SMS.                16-8-1972    Open Sri Alex.  P. Lukose. POST TO BE FILLED ON 6-1-1973 10. Reader in Hindi 10-7-1971  Res. O.B.C.This  vacancy  has occurred earlier. 11. Research Asstt. in Law    10-7-1972 Open. 12. Lecturer in Physics  3-5-1972 Res. Sch. C&T. 13. Lecturer in Physics  10-12-1972 Open. 535 The  above  mentioned document was signed by  the  Pro  Vice Chanceilor of the University.  It indicates that the vacancy of  a  Reader in the Department of Hindi was  the  first  to occur.    But,  instead  of  allocating  it  to   the   open competition class, for the purpose of applying the  rotation rule, it was allocated to the reserved block of posts.  This was  also an illegality complained of by the respondent  Dr. Nair. The  stand  of the University was that it had  followed  the rotation  rule  according to which appointments were  to  be made  alternately  by a general or open competition  and  by choice    restricted   to   backward   groups.     Dr.    A. Ramchandra,Dev,  however,  took  up the  position  that  the University  could even alter the rules, inasmuch as  it  had the  power  to apply them "mutatis-mutandis",  according  to situations as they C     arose. it appears that, at the time of  arguments in the High Court, the University adopted  the stand  of Dr. A. Ramchandra Dev on this question.  It  seems to  have been contended in the High Court on behalf  of  the University that it was empowered to make the changes in  the rules  to meet the particular needs of the University so  as to enable it to implement the provisions of Section 6(2)  of the Act in the way it thought fit. We  think that the High Court was right in holding that  the power to apply the rules "mutatis-mutandis" does not include

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 12  

the  power  of  amending the substantial  provision  in  the rules. The High Court         held     :     "Formal     and inconsequential changes for dovetailing the rules      into the frame work of  the Act, alone seem to be  contemplated". We   think  that the High Court was right in  confining  the power of the   University to making only what are  necessary "adaptations" so as to make the rules applicable to those in the service of the University in        place     of     the Government servants for whom they were promulgated. It could include  a  power  to  ignore only  such  parts  as  may  be inapplicable or in conflict with Act itself. An instance  of this  would  be, as pointed out above, commencement  of  the application  of  the  rules after the Act  came  into  force instead of in 1967 when, according to a note      in    Rule 15,  the  Rules had to be enforced. The High  Court  rightly held  that the Syndicate could not, in any case,  alter  the provisions of       Section  6(2)  of the Act  itself  which made  it incumbent on the University to apply  the  rotation rule, as contemplated under the rules, to    every "service, class or category under the University". It held that  "if section 6(2) were to operate on its own terms, selection, to the post  of  Reader,  for  the  first  time  made  by   the University, should, in the    G    first  turn,  go  to  the candidate adjudged best on open competition, and only on the next  turn  or  turns  to candidates  on  the  principle  of communal rotation". If the post of Reader in the Department of Hindi was the 1st to  arise in service under the University, as appears to  be the position   from Ex. P. 3, an application of the rotation principle  would compel the first appointment to take  place on the basis of an open, competition.   That principle could certainly  not  be  modified by  the  University  by  taking shelter  behind  the words "Mutatis-mutandis". It  has  been stated  by the learned Counsel for the University  that  the validity of 536 the  impugned  resolution  may be doubtful  so  far  as  the withdrawal of the post of Professor from the application  of the above mentioned rules is concerned, but, learned Counsel submitted,  we need not decide that question as we  are  not concerned  here  with  An  appointment  to  the  post  of  a Professor.   If, however, the Professors and  Lecturers  and Readers  were  all  to  fall in  one  class  it  may  become necessary  to  consider this question  also.   Moreover,  we indicated below the two parts of the resolution do not  seem to  be  separable.  It is true that Section 6, sub.  s.  (2) lodges  in the University a power to determine  what  should constitute  class  or  category of service  under  the  Uni- versity.   No rigid formula to fit all circumstances can  be laid  down  and  the authority concerned  must  be  left  to define,  subject to constitutional limitations, what  should be  a class or category.  But, this power would not, in  our opinion,   enable  the  University  to  dispense  with   the application   of  the  rotation  principle  itself  to   any particular class or category of service under the University as appears to have been the real object of the resolution of 17-7-1972 with regard to Professors. The  word ’service’ does seem to us to denote, as  the  High Court  held, various classes or categories of  posts  within it.   It  is obviously the widest class.   A  classification which  puts  the  whole  teaching staff  in  one  class  for purposes of applying the rule would seem unassailable.  But, one  which puts all classes and categories of  service  from the  peons  to Professors together may,  by  destroying  the distinction between classes and categories of service,  seem

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 12  

to  run counter to the words used in Section 6(2).  As  that question  is  not before us, we refrain  from  deciding  it. This provision appears to us to be intended to ensure  that, whatever may be the kind of post to be held by a person in a service  "under  the University", principles  laid  down  in Rules 14, 15, 16 and 17 must apply in making appointments to it.  We are not called upon to decide here what is meant  by a  service "under the University" as it is admitted by  both sides that this description applies to the post of a Reader. Nor  have  we  to determine here  the  reasonableness  of  a classification  which may put the teaching and  non-teaching staff in one class or category. It was submitted by learned Counsel for the  University,that the resolution of 17-7-1972 was intended to do no more  than to categorise "Readers, Lecturers and Teaching  Assistants," by  putting  them  into  a single  class  or  category,  for applying  the rules to them "collectively".  If that is  all it was meant to do, apart from attempting to place posts  of Professors  outside  rules 14 to 17, the  intention  is  ex- pressed in very unsatisfactory and misleading language.   It is  of course, open to the University to pass  a  resolution which  does  not  contravene Section 6(2)  of  the  Act.   A resolution which nerely classifies or categorises posts in a reasonable   manner  would  not  offend  against   statutory provisions.-  The  resolution  of  17-7-1972  is,   however, atleast partly invalid, on the face of it, by attempting  to place H appointments to the post of a Professor outside  the reservation and rotation rules, altogether, and it is partly atleast  ambiguous so that it is difficult to  decipher  its exact meaning.  The second part seems 537 designed,  in  so   far as one may  guess  its  meaning,  to provide for Other Backward Classes" a compensatory quota  of reserved  appointments  in  a category other  than  that  of Professors  in lieu of the, removal of posts  of  Professors from  subjection to the rules.  If this is the real  object, as it seems to be, di.; intention was to alter the scope  or ambit of the rotation rule.  The second part is apparently a consequence  of  the exclusion of the  Professors  from  the operation  of the ruleswhich it itself  not  permissible-and not an adaptation for the purposes. of applying the rules to the University.  Thus, the two parts seem to be inseparable. We,   therefore,  consider  the  resolution  to  be   wholly invalid.-  The  validity  of  Section  6(2)  has  not   been questioned either in the High Court or here. We  have been informed at the Bar that both the 1st and  the 3rd  Responcients,  that  is  to  say,  Dr.  Nair  and   Dr. Ramrhandra  Dev, are at present holding posts of Readers  in the  Hindi  department as the needs of the  University  have expanded.   It  may however, be necessary to  determine  the order  of their appointments after the University  his  laid down  its own method of reasonable classification either  of the  whole teaching staff of the University collectively  or by  putting  various categories of the teaching  staff  into separate compartments for the application of the rules.   We have held that the University has, this power provided it is exercised  on  good and reasonable grounds.   We  have  only indicated  that, on such facts as have come to  our  notice, the particular vacancy for which both Dr. Raman Nair and Dr. Ramchandra  Dev were competing seemed to us to be the  first to  arise for the purposes of applying Section 6(2)  of  the Act.   As thiis matter was not fully investigated, and,  the power   is  vested  in  the  University  to  make  its   own classification  within the limits indicated by us. we  think that  it is desirable that the University should be left  to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 12  

make  its own reasonable classification in  accordance  with the  principles  laid down above by us so  as  to  determine which  of  the  two Readers was  entitled  to  be  appointed earlier.   In other words, the Syndicate of  the  University will have to pass a fresh resolution which is in  accordance with the law as explained by us and then to apply the  rules in  conformity  with such a resolution in  exercise  of  the powers possessed by the University. The  result  is that we dismiss this appeal subject  to  the elucidation  given  by  us  of  the  manner  in  which   the directions issued by the High Court to the University to act in accordance with Section 6(2) of theAct are to be  carried out by the University.  We make no order as to costs. V.P.S. Appeal dismissed. 538