vil Appeal No 432938 of 1990
From the Judgment and Order dated 305
1990 of the Allahabad High Court in CMWP Nos
18102 18036 22161 22836 and 22877 of 1989
Kapil Sibal Additional Solicitor General Satish Chan dra Ms Shobha Dixit Pradeep Mishra RK Virmani Gopal Subramaniam Harish N Salve and DK Garg for the appearing parties
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 898 RANGANATHAN J
We have come to the conclusion that the 
High Court s decision under appeal has to be upheld
But as the question raised is one of importance and difficulty we have heard the counsel at length
We grant leave in all the petitions and proceed to give the reasons for our conclusion in detail
Both sets of appeals are the off shoots of a Residency Scheme for junior doctors introduced in the State of UP and they can be conveniently disposed of by a common order
In the State of UP post graduate courses in medicine were of two types degree and diploma
The duration of the degree course was two years and that of the diploma course one year
The minimum requirement for admission to a post graduate course whether degree or diploma was that the candidate should have passed the MBBS degree examina tion then done one year s internship and then done a house job for one year
The Residency Scheme was notified on 22889
This was the culmination of a long period of agitation by junior doctors in the State for better emoluments and conditions of service
This scheme was given retrospective effect from 181987 for para 8 of the scheme says The above residen cy scheme shall be deemed to have been enforced from 1st August 1987
Under the scheme every candidate selected for a post graduate degree course would have a tenure of three years which would also be the tenure of the course itself
All such candidates were to be called Junior Resi dents 1st year 2nd year and 3rd year respectively during their tenure
Each candidate selected for postgraduate diploma course would have a tenure of two years which would also be the tenure of the course and all such candidates were to be called Junior Residents 1st year and 2nd year respectively
In other words the duration of the degree course was raised to three years and that of the diploma course to two years
However simultaneously the eligibili ty requirement of one year s experience in a house job was dispensed with the net result being that the total period needed after taking a MBBS degree to acquire a post graduate degreediploma remained the same as before
The modifications introduced by the new scheme needed certain transitory provisions being made for two purposes
The first was to devise a formula of equation between the old and the new systems
This was done by redesignating all students junior doctors house officers and others in position in the manner set out in para 5 of the 899 scheme
The original notification is in Hindi but a free translation of the first part of the above para as set out in the judgment of the High Court reads thus Upon enforcement of the above Residency Scheme all the House Officers Junior Residents 1st year working since 1st August 1987 and similarly working all Juniors Doctors all junior doctors similarly working is perhaps a better translation shall stand converted to the following new designation propose in the residency section No President designation Designation upon enforcement of residency scheme
House OfficerDemonstrator Junior Resident 1st year
1st year
Junior ResidentRMO 1st year Junior Resident RSO 1st yearRGO 1st year 2nd year
Demonstrator 2nd yearP G degree student 1st year PG Diploma student 1st year
Senior ResidentRMO 2nd year Junior Resident RSO 2nd yearRGO 2nd year 3rd year
Demonstrator 3rd year RegistrarPG Degree students 2nd year
The second provision necessary was in regard to their admis sion to the post graduate courses
This was done by the second sub para or para 5 which ran thus At the same time Iske sath hi sath the admis sion and registration of the House Officers working at the time us sumay to post graduate courses degreediploma course shall be done after completion of their tenure and on the basis of their merit at MB B S and house job
Words in brackets give the original Hindi expressions used emphasis added by us  900 The provisions of the scheme do not explicitly say that the category of persons dealt with under the second sub para above will be admitted to the second year of the degree course junior resident 2nd year of the residency scheme on the basis of inter se merit
A somewhat different line of thinking seems to have been adopted by the High Court in Dr Sandeepa Srivastava s case to which we will be referring later
But so far as the present appeals are concerned all parties have proceeded on the footing that the scheme is a valid one and that it envisaged that a person who had completed house job for one year could get admission into the second year of the course whether degree or diploma
The only controversy is whether this admission is open only to those persons who were in a house job as on 22889 and completed it before 30101989 hereinafter referred to as the appellants  or to all persons who had been in a house job on or after 1887
The question arose when a number of doctors hereinafter referred to as the writ petitioners who had done their MBBS internship and house job by April 1988 and who save for one had even obtained admis sion in March 1989 into a diploma course sought admission in the Motilal Nehru Medical College at Allahabad  MLN College  for short into the second year of a degree course in the same or a different speciality by taking advantage of clause 5 of the residency scheme
Their applications were rejected on the ground that the relevant clause of the scheme was a transitory provision intended to benefit only persons who were on a house job as on 2281989
They alone could take advantage of the scheme as soon as they completed the house job not persons who had completed their house job much earlier to that date
The writ petitioners went to Court and this time they were successful
A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court held interpreting rule 5 that rule 5 extended the privilege of admission to the second year of the degree course to all persons who were working as house officers on or after 1st August 1987
The State as well as certain doctors who were in house jobs as on 22889 and who had been admitted to post graduate degree courses on the basis of the State s interpretation of the scheme but lost their seats as a result of the High Court s decision have preferred these appeals
Four questions arose for the consideration of the High Court 1 Is the concession contemplated by rule 5 of the scheme limited only to doctors in house jobs as on 22889 or available to all those who were in house jobs as on 1887 and later 2 Is a candidate who has already been admitted to and is 901 undergoing a diploma course eligible to seek admission to a degree course under rule 57 3 Is it open to a candidate who is a student in a post graduate diploma course in one speciality to seek admission to the postgraduate degree course in any particular special ity 4 Is it permissible for a candidate who is undergoing a diploma course to abandon it in the middle and join a degree course The High Court expressed no opinion on the latter two ques tions leaving it to the Principal of the College to decide the same in due course but answered the first two questions in favour of the writ petitioners
We are concerned here only with these two questions
We may take the second of these questions first
The writ petitioners say that a direct answer to this question is provided by a notification issued on 13887 by the Governor of the State in pursuance of the provisions of Article 348 of the Constitution read with section 285 of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act Act X of 1973 as amended Act 29 of 1974
This notification effects an amend ment to an earlier notification dated 15121982 as subse quently amended by adding a new para thereto
The new para provides 7A If any candidate has been admitted in post graduate Diploma or Degree Course in one speciality he shall not be eligible for admission in Post Graduate Diploma or Degree Course in any other speciality
For removal of doubts it is clarified that if a candidate has been admitted in Post Graduate Diploma Course in one speciality he may be allowed admission in Post Graduate Degree Course in that very spe ciality
 If this is correct there can be no doubt that none of the writ petitioners can be denied registration and considera tion for admission to the degree course merely on the ground that he has earlier been admitted to a diploma course in some speciality
It is urged on behalf of the appellants that this rule has lost its force on the promulgation of the new scheme
It is difficult to see why this should be so because its principle could be applied mutatis mutandis to the residency scheme as well
But even if this is correct and this para is kept out of consideration altogether there is no rule which prohibits a person even though he may already be a student in a post graduate course from seeking 902 admission to the second year of junior residency the eligi bility clauses for admission to which he fulfills
The High Court was therefore right while expressing no view on the question whether any of the writ petitioners are eligible to be admitted to any particular speciality in holding that they could not be excluded from consideration for admission to the second year of the degree course merely because they are already students in a diploma course
The first question however is a more difficult one
We have considered the contentions of both sides carefully and we have come to the conclusion that there is no reason to disturb the High Court s conclusion
Prior to the enforce ment of the scheme all candidates who had completed their MBBS together with one year of internship and one year of house job were eligible for admission to a postgraduate degree or diploma course and a particular candidate could make repeated attempts for being considered for admission to a particular post graduate speciality irrespective of the batch to which he belonged or the particular year in which he was admitted to the MBBS course or the particular year in which he passed the final MBBS examination
That liberty is available after the introduction of the new scheme also to all MBBS graduates who have completed one year of internship
Irrespective of the year in which they qualified in the MBBS degree examination it is open to all such candidates to seek admission to the first year of the new three year degreetwo year diploma course
That is not in dispute
The question only is whether any of them are entitled to claim admission in the second year of that course on the ground that they had also completed their house job earlier
The answer to this question must depend on the interpretation of the none too clear para 5 of the Residency Scheme
In interpreting the scheme it is first necessary to point out that the preamble to the notification sets out a two fold objective of prescribing a policyprocedure a for the conversion of the existing designations in the depart ments to equivalent designations and b for specification of the number of seats for various degreediploma courses and for eligibility examination for selection thereon
sic apparently this should read eligibility examina tion or selection thereto  One further important factor to be borne in mind is that the scheme was given effect to from 1887
To ask persons who had already completed a one year house job to undergo the three year degreetwo year diploma course would be a severe handicap to them as earlier they could have got their post graduate degreediploma after two yearsone year
In order to adjust them into the new scheme 903 the State designated holders of house jobs as junior resi dents first year under the new scheme
This enabled the holders of house jobs to get into the second year course under the residency scheme
It has been stated in the appellants  rejoinder that a large number of candidates who had completed their MBBS even ten years earlier and some candidates who were even on the verge of completing a post graduate degree course had applied for registration as junior residents 2nd year along with the appellants and the writ petitioners
This kind of situation would be im practical
Obviously the scheme could not be stretched and converted into a limitless provision making it possible for all persons who had completed their house jobs at some distant past to compete for admission to the second year of the degree course
That is why para 5 limited the scope of the redesignation and admission
The first part of it limit ed the equation above referred to only to persons who were working on house jobs since 18 1987
The High Court was clearly right in saying that the words 1st year used in column of the table in para 5 against serial No 1 govern only demonstrator
It is clear that the words House Officer Junior Resident and Senior Resident used against serial Nos 1 2 and 3 redesignate all such officers working since 1887 as junior residents 1st  2nd and 3rd year respectively
That being so both the writ petitioners as well as the appellants before us are all junior resi dents 1st year and should be eligible for admission to the second year of the residency scheme course
But it is said this cannot be for two reasons
One is that the second sub para of para 5 is restricted only to those who were House Officers on 22889
We think that this contention has been rightly repelled by the High Court
To accept this construction would mean a segregation of the two parts of para 5 and the substitution of the words on 22nd August 1989 for the words since 1st August 1987 used in the first para of para 5
The words us sumay clearly establish a nexus between the two parts of para 5 and can only refer to the period referred to in the first part viz since 1st August 1987
It is difficult to see how a refer ence to two different periods could have been intended by the two parts of para 5
That this could not be so is also clear for the scheme though announced on 22889 was to be effective from 18 1987
That is why a line is drawn as on that date and all persons who are working as house officers junior resident doctors or senior resident doctors since that date are all assimilated into the new scheme
There is no justification to read such assimilation as partial as contended for by the State
It was contended that the scheme was the outcome of negotiations with junior doctors in the State who were 904 agitating for better conditions of service and higher emolu ments and that the settlement with them was only that higher emoluments will be paid wef 1887
Necessary material to substantiate this plea was not placed before the High Court or before us
But even assuming that the negotiations and agreement had a limited scope we have to interpret the scope of para 5 on its language
The reference to the period since 18 1987 in para 5 fits in with the declaration in para 8 that the scheme should be deemed to have come into force on 1887
In this context it is of significance that the scheme notified on 22889 states that the scheme has been introduced in pursuance of proposals submitted to the State Government for the desired improvement in under graduatepost graduate training in all colleges and hospi tals but makes no reference to the revision of the scales of pay of the junior doctors
It is therefore difficult to accept the plea that the date 1887 has significance only in the matter of pay scales and nothing else
This objection is not therefore sustainable
The second point made by the State and the appellants is that the writ petitioners under the scheme are already junior residents 2nd year as they are already in the first year of a post graduate diploma course and they can not therefore be eligible for admission to the second year of the degree course where also they will be designated as junior residents 2nd year
In our view the objection is untenable
In the first place it is only a variation of the argument that a person already undergoing a diploma course cannot be admitted to a degree course which we have reject ed already
But that apart there is  nothing wrong in the writ petitioners being admitted to the second year degree course and being called junior residents 2nd year there instead of in the diploma course
In this context it is necessary to point out that they have been admitted into the diploma course only in March 1989 and that they are not seeking any credit for the period of education they have undergone in the diploma course
It is then argued that the words ussamay occurring in the second part of para 5 of the scheme is really a mistake for at this time or is sumay or vartman mein
In support of this contention it is pointed out that the Director of Medical Education had written to the secretary to the Government on 2111989 requesting that the word vartman be substituted in place of us samay in the notification of 22889 so that the meaning of the above lines shall be clear
It is also submitted that the refer ence to such persons being eligible for admission after the completion of the tenure in the house job also makes it clear that persons who had already completed 905 their house jobs in 1987 or 1988 are not within contempla tion
We are unable to agree
When the notification talks of us samay we cannot read it differently
The letter of Director of Medical Education dated 211
1989 finds a reference only in the appellants  rejoinder affidavit and the writ petitioners have had no opportunity to meet it
The State has not referred to this letter or the action taken on it anywhere
These difficulties apart the letter pat ently seeks to bring about a change in the contents of the notification and is not a simple request for clarification as it purports to be
At best it only reflects the Direc tor s understanding of the notification and cannot bind the writ petitioners or the Court
Also no information has been furnished by the appellants or the State as to whether the request of the Director has been accepted and an amendment published by the Government for the amendment suggested can become effective only on such publication
It may be pointed out a propose this contention that the notification of 22889 itself had been published in the Gazette only on 251189 much subsequent to the Director s letter
Even assuming that her suggestion has since been accepted and the words at that time stand replaced by the words at the present time by a proper notification later that amendment cannot affect the parties before us
The date material for the purposes of their admission was 30989 the last date by which the applications had to be sent in
That being so the words us samay used in the second sub para of para 5 are the operative words
They clearly embody a reference to an anterior point of time and this can only be a reference to the period since 1887 which finds specific mention in the first sub para and which is the period subsequent to the scheme coming into operation
Thus all persons doing house jobs after 1887 are covered by the second sub para of para 5
The words after completion of the tenure had to be used here because the class of persons referred to also included those who were in house jobs as on 22889
Indeed this was how the scheme was understood by the Principal of the MLN College and perhaps by the other principals too
We find that the terms of the advertisement issued by the Principal MLN College to which the writ petitioners had responded said this Candidates must have passed MBBS Degree from a University recognised by MCI should have completed one year compulsory rotatory internship training and should have completedwill be completing one year house manship in the subject concerned by 30th October 1989   906 This was the understanding of the scheme by the College Principal and admittedly the writ petitioners fulfilled these requirements
There is therefore no substance in the second contention either
Ms Sobha Dixit appearing for the State submitted that the interpretation placed by the High Court creates two types of major difficulties
The first is that though the High Court s decision related only to MLN College at Allahabad similar claims have also been made for admissions into post graduate courses all over the State and in some cases the High Court following the present case has issued directions to a like effect with the result that a large number of candidates who have secured admissions are now facing the loss of their seats and of the benefit of almost one year of study which they have already undergone by now
This argument in our opinion has no force
It does not appear to be correct to say that the High Court s deci sion in the present case will affect admissions all over the State
The respondents have stated thus in para 13 of their counter affidavit The admission in other Medical Colleges of UP have been done on the basis of old rules ie on the basis of Govt
Notification dated 1512
1982 and 1381987 and the students who have completed their house job much earlier prior to 22889 were given admission in 2 year degree and 1 year diploma course according to their respective merits after the introduction of residency scheme dated 22889 underlining ours This remains uncontroverted
Further the validity of the admissions made to the other colleges would depend on those who had applied for admission there
If earlier batches of house officers had also applied for admission to those colleges and been refused admission as in the MLN Col lege the position may be similar to that in the present case
If however such persons had not at all applied or had been duly considered no question can arise now for their consideration
No unjustified revision of completed admissions is therefore likely to result
The plea that the appellants have already completed about a year in the course and should not lose the benefit thereof cannot also be given much weight because by interim orders passed in the writ petitions the High Court had made it clear that they were being allowed to continue in the course only on the specific understanding 907 that their admissions will be subject to the result of the writ petitions
The second point made by the State counsel is that it compels the batch of students working in a house job as on 22889 to face competition from earlier batches and this according to her is contrary to law
In support of this contention she referred to certain observations made by this Court that it would not be correct to compare the merits of candidates in different examinations and different States
We see no force in this contention
As pointed out earlier before and after the introduction of the scheme admission to the first year of the scheme was and will by open competition between medical graduates who had completed house jobs or internships irrespective of the batch to which they belong
It is stated in an affidavit filed on behalf of the appellants that though the writ petitioners while getting admission to the postgraduate diploma course earlier had to compete with earlier batches of students they were given some preference
We do not know on what basis such preference was given and it is too late now to examine that aspect
But the fact remains that they were considered along with candidates of earlier batches
We therefore see no justification for contending that great injustice will be caused to the appellants because it has become necessary for them to face competition from two earlier batches of stu dents
On the contrary as pointed out by the High Court it is the interpretation pleaded for by the State that may offend article 14 of the Constitution
We have held earlier that the scheme though introduced in 1989 is effective from 1887
If that be so to place house officers working on 22889 alone in a better position than those who had com pleted house jobs in 1987 1988 or earlier in 1989 would result in a discrimination in their favour and against the writ petitioners unrelated to indeed contrary to the very object and purpose of giving the scheme retrospective effect from 1887
One further contention raised on behalf of the state and the appellants is based on a decision of the High Court in the case of one Dr Sandeepa Srivastava Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No 1341989 a petition for special leave against which was dismissed by this Court SLP 138089 dismissed on 6490
Dr Srivastava had completed MBBS in 1987 and one year internship in June 1988 and had applied for admission to a house job but before the admission could be decided upon the Residency Scheme had been introduced
She challenged the admission to the first year of the degree course granted by the MLN College in preference to her to one Dr Surabhi Rai who 908 had completed her MBBS in 1987 completed her internship in 1988 and was in a house job as on 22889
A very pecul iar situation seems to have arisen in that case
Dr Surabhi Rai had applied for admission to the first year and not the second year of the new residency course though she was on a house job as on 22889
It appears she could not apply for the 2nd year like the writ petitioners here as her house job could not be completed by 301089 the date mentioned in the advertisement with which we are concerned
Dr Srivasta va contended before the High Court a that only the 1983 batch of students who had passed MBBS in 1988 were eligible for admission to the degree course and not those who had passed out earlier and b that Dr Surabhi Rai should have sought admission to the second and not the first year of the Junior Residency course
The court re jected the first contention which was patently untenable and this was sufficient to dispose of the writ petition
The court however also proceeded to consider the second con tention and dealt with it as follows The second contention of the petitioner has also no force
For this proposition the petitioner has relied on the last part of para 5 of the Government order dated 22889
Para 5 of the Government Order has laid down that house officers and Junior doctors working since August 1 1987 will be converted into Junior Residents of First Year
Second year etc
in accordance with the chart given in this para
Last part of this para lays down about these house officers who were working since 1887
This para does not provide for the criteria or deal with the admission of those candidates who have joined the First Year House Job and have not yet completed even first year
The cases of those who have joined the course of house job but could not complete till the introduction of the new scheme of the residency has been considered in the meeting of the Principals of all the Medical Colleges of UP and Director of Medical Education and Training on 1691989
Para 6 of this resolution laid down that as the course of house job has been abolished after the enforcement of the residency scheme and the candi dates who are undergoing training of house job cannot pursue their studies and training any more and as such
all those candidates who are undergoing training of house job should be admitted in the first year course of Junior Resi dency on the basis of merit
This resolution of the Princi pals of all the Medical Colleges appears to be fair and 909 most reasonable  As the course of house job has been abol ished and the candidates undergoing this course cannot possibly pursue their studies and if they are not admitted in the first year of the Junior Residency they will suffer great hardship and irreparable loss because they have been deprived of their right to persue their course of house job in the middle of the session
When the course of house job has been abolished it is impossible for the persons undergoing the course of house job to persue their studies any more
In fact respondent No 3 would have been happy if she was permitted to continue and conclude the one year course of house job because in that case after few months she would have got admission in the second year of Junior Residency and would have become senior to the petitioner and all others who will be joining the first year of Junior Residency course now but on ac count of the abolition of the system of house job it became impossible for the Respondent No 3 to continue with the course and as such she had to be contended with the admis sion in the first year of Junior Residency course
 We do not wish to say anything about this part of the judgment as we are not aware whether any appeal has been sought therefrom
It is sufficient to point out that all the appellants before us are persons who were in a house job on 22889 and are claiming admission to the second year of the degree course
We shall therefore simply content ourselves by saying that since all the parties before us have pro ceeded on the footing that persons in the position of the appellants are eligible for admission as Junior Residents 2nd year we are not called upon to consider the correctness of the judgment in Dr Sandeep Srivastava s case on this point
That was a case which dealt with an admission to the first year of the degree course and since there is nothing in the scheme which prohibits any person in the position of the appellants or Dr Surabhi Rai from applying for admission as junior resident 1st year the decision of the High Court was clearly correct
The dismissal of the SLP in that case does not therefore affect our present discus sion
The Judgment of the High Court in appeal before us the judgment in Dr Sandeepa Srivastava s case and the other judgments to which Ms Sobha Dixit made a reference howev er make it clear that the interpretation of the clauses of the scheme is by no means an easy 910 task
In practice also the basis on which the principals at least the principal of the MLN College proceeded does not appear consistent with the letter of the Director of Medical Education dated 21189
In this state of affairs we think that it is upto the State to find out a practical solution to ensure that the student community is not prejudiced by the ambiguities in the scheme
In this context our attention was drawn to the directions of this Court in the case of Mridula Avasthi and Others vs University of Delhi and Others  In this background we are of the view that the impasse created on account of the rival claims advanced by the freshers and the seniors has to have a rough and ready solution yet not arbitrary and as acceptable and satisfying as possible
We find that the two year degree course spe ciality wise has 149 seats while the three year degree course has 139 seats
For convenience we extract the partic ulars made available at page 4 of the Bulletin of Informa tion
It may be pointed out that there are 1003 candidates as against total 270 vacancies degree and diploma courses together for the seniors and there are 33 1 candidates as against 205 vacancies for the two courses for the freshers
With a view to providing some more seats for seniors we suggested to Mr Rao appearing for the University that the number of seats may be increased and he has on instructions agreed provided the Union of India provides funds and the Medical Council agrees to accommodate
There are 21 special ities as indicated above
We direct that the University shall create one seat in every speciality and thus 21 addi tional seats will be available over and above the 149 seats fixed by the University representing the 75 quota
To this enhanced number of seats the 25 reservation of All India Selection shall not apply
From the reserved seats made for the freshers 21 seats being one from every speciality shall be taken away and made available to the seniors
Thus 42 seats in all will be available for the seniors in the Post Graduate course to be filled up on the basis of inter se merit keeping the senior group apart
The creation of the 21 seats will involve addi tional funds to be provided by the Union of India
It will also require approval of the Medical Council of India and there 911 will perhaps also be necessity for permitting the variation of guide student ratio
Since it is for one year and there would be no scope for recurrence and this has arisen in peculiar circumstances explained above we direct the Gov ernment of India to take our order made without hearing it with a sense of understanding and make the necessary provi sions
We also suggest to the Indian Medical Council to provide the necessary accommodation by relaxing the require ments
These may be done quickly so that the time schedule may not be affected
 Based on the above observations an application has been filed before us praying that directions may be issued to the State of create with the approval of the Medical Council of India an adequate number of additional seats to accommodate all the applicants in the second year of the degree course in some speciality subject to the other rules in force in the State in this behalf
We do not know how far this will be feasible having regard to the position prevalent not only in the MLN Medical College but also elsewhere in the State
We do not know how many additional seats will have to be created on this footing and whether it is at all possible to do so
We therefore give no specific directions but leave it to the State Government to review the situation in the entire State and see if any solution that will accommo date all the contestants who qualify on merit can be found out
However any such review should not stand in the way of the immediate consideration subject to other rules in force of the writ petitioners for admission as junior residents 2nd year
They have already lost almost one year of the degree course though presumably except perhaps for one they have been continuing their studies in the post graduate courses where they had been earlier admitted
This should be set right and such of those as are admitted should be enabled to make up for lost time and to complete their post graduate course if possible by the end of 1991
With the above observations these appeals are dis missed
We however make no order as to costs
RSS Appeals dismissed


Summary:
The respondent University issued an employment notice inviting applications for the posts of Professors Readers and Lecturers in different subjects
The notice mentioned the number of reservations category wise but not subject wise
Including the petitioners a number of candidates belonging to both reserved and non reserved categories applied
Selection Committees were constituted which recom mended 47 candidates for 53 posts weightage was given to candidates belonging to the reserved category
Thereafter the Executive Council constituted a sub Committee to decide which posts should be reserved
On its recommendations and on consideration of the backlog of reservations the Execu tive Council decided to set apart 17 posts and gave perma nent appointments only to 30 candidates
It also decided that in respect of the 17 posts reserved temporary appoint ments would be made pending the availability of suitable candidates from the reserved category
On receipt of some representations expressing grievances against the employment notice as also the procedure followed in making the appointments the Chancellor appointed a one man Committee to in 884 quire into the matter
The Committee submitted its report which was accepted by the Chancellor
Meanwhile a batch of writ petitions was filed in the High Court challenging the employment notice on the ground that the non obtaining of the recommendation from the Board of University Teaching and Research before issuing the employment notice was bad in law in view of the provisions of Section 322iii of the Act
The High Court quashed the employment notice and set aside the appointments made to the posts
It also restrained the University from making any appointment without obtaining the recommendations as afore said
Taking into consideration the report of the one man committee and the decision of the High Court the Chancellor directed the Vice Chancellor to terminate the services of all the appointees including the appellants
Accordingly the Vice Chancellor issued orders of termination of the services of the appellants and other similarly appointed
Although the services were thus terminated the Vice Chancellor on the same day issued another order in exercise of his emergency powers under Section 114 of the Act and appointed all the appellants and others to the same posts protecting their pay and allowances and making it clear to the appointments were temporary
However the matter went before a Full Bench since one Division Bench took the view that post wise reservation was not necessary and another Division Bench differed from it
The Full Bench held that general reservations were in breach of the provisions of the Act and against reservation policy and hence illegal
It also held that since the appointments were not in accordance with law from the beginning the termination of the appellants  services was legal
Aggrieved the appellants have preferred the present appeal against the decision of the Full Bench
Dismissing the appeal this Court HELD 1
The employment notice dated July 27 1984 was bad in law since it had failed to notify the reservations of the posts subject wise and had mentioned only the total number of reserved posts without indicating the particular posts so reserved subject wise
893G 2
The word post used in section 574a of the Nagpur University Act 1974 has a relation to the faculty disci pline or the subject for 885 which it is created
When therefore reservations are re quired to be made in posts the reservations have to be postwise ie subjectwise
The mere announcement of the number of reserved posts is no better than inviting applica tions for posts without mentioning the subjects for which the posts are advertised
When therefore Section 574a 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 ie the subject in which the post is vacant and for which the applications are invited from the candidates belonging to the reserved classes
A nonindication 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 574d which requires the selection committee 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
891H 892A C 31 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 visa vis each post
It is for this reason that the Government Resolution dated 30381 states that although minimum per centage of reserved posts may not be ifiled in one or some posts it will be enough if in that year it is filled in taking into consideration that total number of appointments in all the posts
This however does not absolve the ap pointing 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 candidates belonging to the reserved and unreserved catego ries 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
892H 893A C 32 However the course to be adopted would depend upon the unit of reservations the period over which the backlog is to be carried the number of appointments already made in the relevant posts the availability of candidates from the reserved category etc
893F Dr Raj Kumar vs Gulbarga University ILR  referred to
886 4
In the instant case there is nothing on record to show that the method of giving weightage to the candidates was not followed in respect of reserved category candidates even if they had not applied for the post in the reserved seats
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 know ing whether they had applied for reserved or nonreserved 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 committee
This method was open to an obvious objection since it gave a scope to eliminate unwant ed selected candidates at that stage
891A D 5
When the court decides that the interpretation of a particular provision as given earlier was not legal it in effect declares that the law as it stood from the beginning was as per its decision and that it was never the law otherwise
This being the case since the Full Bench and now this Court has taken the view that the interpretation placed on the provisions of law by the Division Bench in Bhakre s case was erroneous it will have to be held that the ap pointments made by the University on March 30 1985 pursuant to that decision were not according to law
Hence the termination of the services of the appellants was in compli ance with the provisions of section 575 of the Act
894B D 6
Since the services of the appellants are to be termi nated in view of the change in the position of law and not on account of the demerits or misdemeanour of individual candidates it is not necessary to hear the individuals before their services are terminated
The rule of audi alterem partem does not apply in such cass and therefore there is no breach of the principles of natural justice
894D E 7
It seems some of the appellants had resigned from their earlier jobs and joined the University
Some of them have become overaged for making any fresh application while others will have no chance either because the posts as per the new advertisements of 1987 are reserved or non reserved and they belong to the other category
It is recommended on compassionate grounds that the University may take into consideration the relevant facts pertaining to each of the appellants and if it is possible accommodate them without transgressing the law and the claim of other eligible candi dates
894F G 887