IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2010 / 1ST SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 18789 of 2010(W) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. SREENIVASAN P., S/O. NARAYANAN NAMBIAR, AGED 29, THEKKAN OTHAYOTH HOUSE, P.O.EACHOOR, VIA KANNUR -670591. 2. NISHA K., D/O. JAYAN K., AGED 30, KALLON HOUSE, PALLIANMOOLA, P.O. ALAVIL, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 008. BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.IBRAHIM SMT.K.P.AMBIKA SRI.FASEEMA A.M RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- KANNUR UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, KANNUR UNIVERSITY CAMPUS P.O. PIN-670 008. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASEENDRAN,SC,KANNUR UNIVERSITY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P. (C) No. 18789 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T The 1st petitioner is a Graduate and he is suffering from 50% disability as is obvious from Ext.P1. The 2nd petitioner is a Graduate from the Kannur University and she belongs to Scheduled Caste. They filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P3 notification issued by the Kannur University for selection to the post of Assistant, contending that it is bad in law on various grounds. The main contention is that in the notification there is no specific statement to the effect that the University would be following the rules of reservation under Rules 14 to 17 of the Kerala State & Subordinate Services Rules, 1958(for short the 'KS&SSR). Absence of such indication regarding adherence to the provisions under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995(for short 'Act of 1995') for filling up of the vacancies, is also raised as a ground. Yet another contention is that observance of the rules of reservations under the KS&SSR and WPC.18789/2010 : 2 : the provisions under Act 1995 should have reflected in the notification itself, lest it would amount to denial of equal opportunity especially to the aforesaid classes. 2. At the outset, it is to be noted that Ext.P3 is a notification which was issued on 4th September, 2008 and this writ petition has been instituted only on 16.6.2010. A perusal of Ext.P3 notification would reveal that 45 vacancies in the category of Assistants have been notified and the minimum qualification prescribed was possession of a University Degree. A statement has been filed in this writ petition by the respondent. It is stated thereunder pursuant to such notification as against the 45 notified vacancies nearly 15,000 applications were received and the University had conducted a selection test in January 2010. Thereafter, a short list of candidates was published on 3.7.2010. It is further stated in the statement that going by section 6(2) of the Kannur University Act, 1996, it is mandatory to observe the rules of reservation under Rules 15 to 17 of the Kerala State & Subordinate Services Rules, 1958. According to them there is sufficient indication in Ext.P3 itself that rules of reservation WPC.18789/2010 : 3 : would be followed in the matter of selection initiated as per Ext.P3. According to the petitioners there is absolutely nothing in Ext.P3 which would reveal that in the matter of selection initiated as per Ext.P3 rules of reservation would be followed. 3. On the ground of delay and laches this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. However, in the context of the aforesaid rival contentions, Ext.P3 can be examined. In the notification it is stated thus:- “Applications are invited from qualified person for appointment to the post of University Assistant on the basis of merit in the competitive test and interview.” The notification also contains another recital as hereunder:- The request should accompany a Chalan receipt for Rs.100/-(Rupees One Hundred only)(for SC/ST Rs.50/- only)paid into the University fund. 4. That apart, it is further stated therein that the age relaxation as per the rules would be applicable to all the posts in the case of reserved communities/castes. According to the petitioners, absence of a specific statement in Ext.P3 that the rules of reservation and the provisions under the Persons with WPC.18789/2010 : 4 : Disabilities(Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 would be followed disabled them from making application in response to Ext.P3. Therefore, the short question is whether Ext.P3 is bad in law in view of the above contentions raised by the petitioners. As already noticed hereinbefore, it is stated that the normal fee for the application is Rs.100/-. But, it is specifically stated therein that for Scheduled Caste they need pay only Rs.50/-. That apart, it is specifically stated therein that the age relaxation would be applicable to all the posts, in case of reserved communities/castes. That apart, Rule 6(2) of the Kannur University Act, 1996 reads thus:- In making appointments to the teaching and non- teaching posts, the University shall, mutatis- mutandis, observe the provisions of clauses of (a) (b) and (c) of rule 14 and the provisions of rules 15,16,17 and 17A of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958, as amended from time to time, and communal rotation shall be followed category-wise treating all the departments as one unit. 5. Thus, it is evident that under Rule 6(2) of Kannur University Act, 1996, it is mandatory to observe mutatis mutandis, the provisions of clauses (a), (b) and © of rule 14 WPC.18789/2010 : 5 : and the provisions of rules 15,16, 17 and 17A of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1985 in the matter of appointment under the University. Therefore, according to me, in case, they fail to follow such rules of reservation in the matter of any selection definitely that would give a cause of action to the concerned persons. Whether they have deviated from it and effected selection ignoring the said mandate could be gathered only on completion of the selection process. In fact, in the light of present position of law a vacancy which is earmarked for reservation category cannot be filled up from candidates from open category and in the absence of candidates from such reserved communities the vacancies are liable to be re-notified. Thus, it is obvious that the university could not fill up vacancies without giving due regard to the rules of reservation, in any selection, in view of the aforesaid rule position. According to me, it is only the misconception that prevented the petitioners from responding to Ext.P3 notification. Ext.P3 is a notification that was issued on 4th September 2008 and the statement made by the University would reveal that in response to Ext.P3 notification nearly WPC.18789/2010 : 6 : 15,000 applications for the post of Assistants were received. Thereafter, they have already conducted a selection test in January 2010 and subsequently published the short list of candidates for appointment to the post of Assistant on 3.7.2010. Admittedly, it was mentioned in Ext.P3 notification that age relaxation as per the rules would be applicable to all the posts the case of reserved communities/castes. If, the first petitioner could not respond to the said notification under the impression that reservation benefits would not be extended, in the matter of selection, to candidates belonging to schedule caste he cannot blame the respondents for his misconception. With respect to the contention regarding absence of statement that persons with disabilities would be given reservation in the matter of selection to the post of Assistants in terms of the provisions of the Act in Ext.P3 not specifically mentioned therein. I am of the view that also cannot be a reason for interfering with a notification issued as early as 4.9.2008 especially, taking note of the fact that the written test was conducted in January, 2010 and a short list was published on 3.7.2010. At any rate, being persons who failed to respond to WPC.18789/2010 : 7 : Ext.P3 notification and in the absence of a contention that appointments were made without giving due regard to rules of reservation this court will not be justified in interfering with Ext.P3 notification at this distance of time. As already noticed, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground of delay and laches. The aforesaid reasons also compel me to come to a conclusion that it is liable to be dismissed. In this circumstances, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge