IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2009 / 24TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 24900 of 2008(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- BEENA.V.I., 35 YEARS W/O.SREEJITH.K.S., KURUMPELIL MIYYANNUR PO., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- REGISTRAR, KERALA GRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY ADV. SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN,SC,KERALA AGRL.UTY FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). No. 24900/08. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1. COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DTD.24.5.2000. P2. COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DTD.9.10.07. P3. COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DTD.28.6.08 CONTAINING THE RANK LIST OF CANDIDATES SELECTED FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE POST OF ASSISTANT PROFESSORS. P4. COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DTD.28.6.08. P5. COPY OF THE ROTATION CHART. P6. COPY OF THE BIO-DATA OF THE PETITIONER. Sdk+ ///True copy/// P.S. to Judge S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 24900 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 15th July, 2009. J U D G M E N T In this writ petition, the petitioner, who is an aspirant for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in the discipline of Soil Science and Agricultural Chemistry in the 1st respondent's University, raises a grievance regarding violation of the principles of communal rotation by the University in making appointments pursuant to the selection for which the petitioner participated. Ext. P4 is the rank list prepared pursuant to the selection in which the petitioner is rank no. 3. There were 5 vacancies. However, only two vacancies have been filled up by open competition candidates. One candidate was appointed in the rotation applicable to Ezhava community. Since other reservation community candidates were not available, the balance two vacancies were left unfilled in view of Rule 15(b) of Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, which stipulated that whenever candidates from the reservation community is not available those vacancies should not be filled up and should be notified separately. The petitioner's contention is that since there were five vacancies, if three vacancies are set apart for being filled up by communal rotation, that would violate the 50% Rule in Rule 15(d), which stipulates that in one selection year, the reservation category of posts shall not exceed 50% of the total number of vacancies for which selection is resorted to in a selection year. One selection year is defined to mean the period from the date on which the rank list of candidates comes into force to the date on which it expires. Therefore, according to the petitioner, out of the five vacancies available for filling up, only two could have been filled up by communal rotation lest it would violate the 50% rule. According to the petitioner, therefore, three of the five vacancies should have been filled up from open competition candidates, in which case, the W.P.C. No. 24900/08 -: 2 :- petitioner being rank no. 3 would be the one to be appointed. Therefore, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “[i] issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the respondent to appoint the petitioner against the vacancies notified as per Ext. P2; [ii] issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, restraining the respondent from filling up all the available vacancies from Ext. P3 ranked list; [iii] declare that the respondent is liable to fill the vacancies from Ext. P3 ranked list only to the extent of notified vacancies as per Ext. P1 and the 5 vacancies notified as per Ext. P2 notification are to be filled from Ext. P4 ranked list.” 2. A statement has been filed by the respondent-University in which the rotation as worked out by the University has been explained. Going by the same, the rotation for this particular selection should start at the 18th point in the 100 point roster which goes to an Ezhava. The first Ezhava available in Ext. P4 rank list is Smt. Mini V, who has been appointed in that vacancy. The next vacancy goes to open competition candidate and the 1st rank holder was appointed to that post. The roster point 20 has to be filled up by a Viswakarma candidate. Since no Viswakarma candidate is available, the said vacancy was left unfilled. Roster point 21 goes to open competition candidate. The second rank holder, namely, Thulasi, V., was accommodated in that roster point and appointed. According to University, since the roster point 22 should go to a Latin Christian and no Latin Christian candidate was available, that vacancy was also left unfilled to be filled up by notification. According to the University, the rotation has been worked out strictly in accordance with Rule 15 and the roster prescribed thereunder. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. W.P.C. No. 24900/08 -: 3 :- 4. Up to roster point 21, there is no infirmity in the rotation adopted. The question is whether the 5th vacancy could have been left unfilled as one to be filled up by a Latin Christian by separate notification or whether it should be filled up by an open competition candidate. Admittedly, for the selection year, there were only five vacancies. Therefore, if more than two vacancies are filled up by communal rotation, then that would violate the 50% Rule. Hence, the selection can be completed in respect of that selection year without violating 50% Rule only by filling up the 5th vacancy by an open competition candidate. Admittedly, the petitioner is the next open competition candidate to be appointed. That being so, clearly, the petitioner is the one to be accommodated in the 5th vacancy available for filling up in the selection year. In view of the above findings, I allow the writ petition and direct the respondent to appoint the petitioner in the 5th vacancy, which has been notified as per the notification pursuant to which Ext. P4 rank list has been prepared. Orders in this regard shall be issued as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is allowed as above. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/