C.R. Priya vs The Joint Director of Collegiate Education

K.K. Sasidharan, J.—Challenge in this Writ Petition is to the notification dated 5 February, 2014 issued by the third respondent calling for applications for appointment to the post of Assistant Professors in various subjects and the challenge is primarily on the ground that communal reservation was not made in accordance with the relevant Government Orders.

THE FACTS:

The petitioner is working as Assistant Professor (Self-Financing) in Lekshmipuram College of Arts and Science at Neyyoor in the district of Kanyakumari. The third respondent originally published a notification dated 13.11.2013, calling for applications for appointment to the post of Assistant Professors in subjects, Chemistry, English, History, Mathematics, Physics and Tamil. The said notification was recalled and thereafter, the impugned notification was issued.

It is the grievance of the petitioner that instead of arranging the subjects alphabetically, the third respondent arranged the subjects irregularly with a view to defeat the rule of reservation. According to the petitioner, the arrangement of post of Assistant Professors in the manner adopted by the third respondent would not only affect the chance of backward class candidates for getting appointment but also would result in chaos and confusion in the matter of assessment of future vacancies and providing reservation. The petitioner, therefore, is before this Court challenging the notification.

The third respondent filed a counter-affidavit in answer to the contentions raised in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition. According to the third respondent, the College has scrupulously followed the reservation prescribed under the Government Order in G.O.Ms. No. 55, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department, dated 08.04.2010. It was the further contention of the third respondent that there is no requirement for arranging the subjects alphabetically as indicated in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition. In short, the third respondent maintained that the rule of reservation was followed in accordance with the Government Order.

SUBMISSIONS:

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the first respondent is the appropriate authority to decide the question of reservation and arrangement of subjects. The third respondent, with a view to select the chosen few, adopted a method, which is neither logical nor legal. The learned counsel further contended that in case the subjects are arranged in alphabetical order, there would be a fair distribution of seats for reserved candidates. The learned counsel, therefore, wanted the impugned selection notification to be quashed.

The learned counsel for the third respondent, by placing reliance on the Government Order in G.O.Ms. No. 55, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department, dated 08.04.2010, contended that the notification impugned in this Writ Petition fully satisfied the reservation criteria prescribed by the Government. The posts are arranged in accordance with the Government order in G.O.Ms. No. 55, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department, dated 08.04.2010 and more particularly, by adopting 200 point reservation. The learned counsel further contended that the petitioner submitted application for appointment as Assistant Professor in Tamil. The interview was on 13, 14, 15 June, 2014. However, the petitioner failed to appear for the interview. The third respondent has completed the selection process and in view of the pendency of the Writ Petition, appointment orders were not issued to the selected candidates.

DISCUSSION:

The petitioner is primarily aggrieved by the arrangement of subjects for the purpose of communal reservation. According to the petitioner, subjects should be arranged in alphabetical manner, as otherwise, the Management would be in a position to show favouritism. It is the further contention of the petitioner that in case the subjects are arranged in alphabetical manner, the post of Assistant Professor in Tamil would be available for selection among the Backward Class candidates. However, on account of the illogical arrangement of subjects, for the purpose of reservation by the third respondent, Backward Community candidates, like her are really prejudiced.

The Government have issued G.O.Ms. No. 55, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department, dated 08.04.2010, revising the rule of reservation and making amendments to Rule 2 of Preliminary and Rule 22, Schedules III, III-B and IV of the General Rules of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services. The Government Order in G.O.Ms. No. 55, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department, dated 08.04.2010, indicates that the vacancies arising on and from 29 April, 2009 shall be filled up as per Schedule III and all selections for appointment shall be started afresh from serial No. 1 in the said Schedule III with effect on and from the said date. Schedule-III contained the details of reservation. It starts with General Turn. The third respondent is, therefore, expected to conduct the selection process in accordance with the Government Order in G.O.Ms. No. 55, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department, dated 08.04.2010.

The notification issued by the third respondent clearly shows that they have strictly followed the Government order in G.O.Ms. No. 55, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department, dated 08.04.2010. The third respondent is obliged to reserve the first vacancy for General Turn, the second for Scheduled Castes, third for Most Backward Classes and Denotified Communities, fourth for Backward Classes other than Backward Class Muslims, fifth again for General Turn, sixth for Scheduled Castes, seventh for Most Backward Classes and Denotified Communities and eighth for Backward Classes other than Backward Class Muslims and ninth once again for General Turn. There are nine posts of Assistant Professor available for appointment. The third respondent has followed the Government Order relating to communal reservation by earmarking posts for different communities. Therefore, I am of the view that the petitioner is not correct in her contention that the rule of reservation was not followed by the third respondent, while issuing the notification.

The next contention taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner relates to the arrangement of subjects for the purpose of giving reservation. The Government Order in G.O.Ms. No. 55, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department, dated 08.04.2010 does not contain any indication as to how a particular post should be reserved. The Government Order mandates that communal reservation should be followed in its letter and spirit. The petitioner has no case that the Government have issued detailed guidelines with regard to the manner in which posts should be earmarked for giving reservation. The petitioner has evolved her own procedure for arrangement of subjects and wanted the third respondent also to follow the same by arranging it alphabetically. In the absence of any statutory guideline, it cannot be said that the third respondent was not correct in arranging different subjects for the purpose of giving communal reservation. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the second contention taken by the petitioner with respect to arrangement of subjects alphabetically for providing communal reservation.

CONCLUSION:-

The third respondent has very clearly demonstrated that they have followed the rule of reservation in accordance with the Government Order in G.O.Ms. No. 55, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department, dated 08.04.2010. The petitioner failed to produce acceptable materials to show that there is a statutory requirement for arrangement of subjects alphabetically. Therefore, I do not find any merit in any of the contentions taken by the petitioner to quash the impugned notification.

In the upshot, I dismiss the Writ Petition. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. No costs.