IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 19TH JULY 2011 / 28TH ASHADHA 1933 WA.No. 491 of 2011 -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.18789/2010 Dated 23/07/2010 .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS: ------------------------------ 1. SREENIVASAN P., S/O.NARAYANAN NAMBIAR, AGED 29, THEKKAN OTHAYOTH HOUSE, P.O.EACHOOR, VIA KANNUR - 670 591. 2. NISHA.K., D/O.JAYAN K., AGED 30, KALLON HOUSE, PALLIANMOOLA, P.O.ALAVIL, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 008. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.IBRAHIM RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------- KANNUR UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, KANNUR UNIVERSITY CAMPUS P.O. PIN - 670 567. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASEENDRAN,SC,KANNUR UNIVERSITY THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & Antony Dominic, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.No. 491 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 19th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT J.Chelameswar, C.J. The unsuccessful petitioners in W.P.(C) No.18789 of 2010 are the appellants aggrieved by judgment dated 23.07.2010. 2. Of the two appellants, the first appellant claims to be a person with disability of Cerebral Palsy assessed to be a disability of 50% by the medical board constituted by the District Medical Officer and evidenced by Ext.P1(b) certificate dated 22.04.2010. The second appellant claims to be a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste. The writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P3 notification issued by the respondent University dated 04.09.2008. The prayers in the writ petition are as follows: “i) Call for the records leading to Ext.P3 and quash the same. ii) Issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent to issue fresh notification to the posts of Assistants notified in Ext.P3 for recruitment following the WA No. 491 of 2011 -:2:- principles of reservation as required under Kannur University Act, KS and SSR and Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. iii) Pass such other orders that this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper in he facts and circumstances of the case; and iv) to award cost of the writ petition.” 3. It may be mentioned here that the writ petition is filed on 16.06.2010, almost after a lapse of one year 9 months reckoned from the date of Ext.P3 notification. By the impugned notification the respondent University invited applications from persons qualified for appointment to the various posts indicated in the notification. By the said notification 53 posts were sought to be filled up. The objection of the appellants to the said notification is that the notification does not indicate that either rules of reservation provided under Rules 14, 15, 16 and 17 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules or the reservation provided under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, WA No. 491 of 2011 -:3:- 1995 are applicable to the recruitment covered by the notification in question. In this regard, paragraphs 6 and 7 of the writ petition reads as follows: “6. The respondent is legally bound to notify the post for recruitment making clear that the reserved communities and physically handicapped persons will be considered for recruitment. In fact, as and when the posts are notified, the notification would specify whether vacancies notified would be filled by following communal reservation and the reservation for scheduled caste/scheduled tribe and physically handicapped persons. The respondent it appears has deliberately denied reservation to the deserving communities by notifying the post for recruitment in open quota. 7. It is submitted that the recruitment proceedings initiated by Ext.P3 is therefore hit by Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and it is liable to be quashed in as much as the petitioners' right to reserved posts under reserved quota has been affected. The respondent cannot fill the vacancies of Assistants without following the provisions of the Kannur University Act and the Statutes.” 4. By the judgment under appeal, a learned Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petition essentially on the ground that the same is barred by laches. The relative portion of the judgment reads as follows: WA No. 491 of 2011 -:4:- “As already noticed, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground of delay and laches.” Hence the appeal. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants, Sri.P.K. Ibrahim, very emphatically argued that the appellants cannot be denied the protection afforded to them both under the provisions of the Constitution as well as the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act on a technical ground that they approached the Court 'belatedly'. It is further submitted that the appellants had no knowledge of the impugned notification till recently and immediately on coming to know of the notification, the appellants approached this court during the pendency of the recruitment process contemplated under the impugned notification and therefore it cannot be said that they are guilty of either delay or laches. 6. In support of his submission, the learned counsel relied upon the following judgments; State of Manipur v. Y. Token Singh [AIR 2010 SC 3502], Ramesh Gajendra Jadha v. Secretary, Late S. G. S. P. Mandal [AIR 2007 SCW 1995] and WA No. 491 of 2011 -:5:- P.V. Antony v. State of Kerala [2008(2) KLJ 257]. We are of the opinion that all the three judgments deal with the legal obligations while making appointments either by the State or bodies which fall within the definition of expression State under Article 12. In our opinion, none of the decisions are relevant to the context of the issue on hand. Whether a person who belatedly approaches the Court is entitled to raise the objection that there was some illegality in the process adopted in making appointment to posts either by the Government or some other public body was not the issue in any one of the said cases. 7. Apart from that, it is not the case of the appellants that they applied in response to the impugned notification and their cases have not been considered. Their grievance is that the notification does not indicate that appropriate rules of reservation are applicable to the recruitment process. We are of the opinion that whether the notification contains such a declaration or not, the rules of reservation such as the one relied upon by the appellants per se apply by operation of law and it does not depend upon the volition or otherwise of the WA No. 491 of 2011 -:6:- employer/State. On the other hand, the respondent University in the statement filed in the writ petition made a categoric statement that rules of reservation are strictly followed by the respondent University. In the circumstances, we do not see any merit in the appeal. The Writ Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice. Antony Dominic, Judge. ttb