Geetha P And Ors vs Flemine Xavier And Ors

These writ petitions are with regard to appointments of Assistant Professors from the ranked lists prepared by the University. It is submitted that a

comprehensive notification was issued on 3.3.2016 and ranked lists were prepared and published on 19.2.2019 for appointment to the posts notified in

the separate departments in the University. The learned counsel for the petitioners in these writ petitions contend that without making appointments

from the ranked list, the University has proceeded to fill up the vacancies by making temporary appointments and daily wages and contractual

appointments.

An interim order was passed on 10.6.2020 specifying that appointments are liable to be made from the ranked list and appointments from outside

the ranked list can be made only if candidates in the ranked list are not available for appointment. The said interim order was taken in appeal by the

University. The University had taken up a contention that on the basis of the Regulations framed based on the Central Educational Institutions

(Reservation in Teachers' Cadre) Act, 2019, the UGC had directed the University to implement the provisions of the Act and that was the reason for

delay in making appointments from the ranked list. The writ appeal was disposed of directing the parties to approach the learned single Judge for a

hearing and keeping the directions in the interim order in abeyance till the issue is decided.

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned standing counsel appearing for the University.

The learned standing counsel appearing for the University submits that it was only on account of the directions issued by the UGC that the

appointments from the ranked list had been kept in abeyance. It is further submitted that the provisions of the Central Act of 2019 have no application,

whatsoever to the University, which is a University established by an Act of the State legislature. It is submitted that the filling up of vacancies,

therefore, does not have to await the directions of the UGC and that the appointment is liable to be made in accordance with the provisions contained

in Rule 13 to 17 of the KS&SSR. It is contended that the University is desirous of making the appointments from the ranked list itself and that all the

vacancies available will be filled up from the list, which is alive till 18.2.2021. It is submitted that though 50 vacancies had been notified, the ranked list

had been operated for filling up nearly 150 posts.

I have considered the contentions advanced. It is clear that the notification in the instant case was issued by the University on 3.3.2016 and the

ranked list is in force from 19.02.2019 onwards. The Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Teachers' Cadre) Act, 2019 was brought into

effect only after the ranked lists came into force. In the above view of the matter, it is clear that the notified vacancies and the existing vacancies are

liable to be filled up from the ranked lists and in accordance with the law in force. Even otherwise, as is specifically contended by the learned standing

counsel for the University, the application of the Central Act is confined to Central Universities and deemed universities and can have no application to

the respondent University, which is a University established by an Act of the State legislature. The Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in

Teachers' Cadre) Act defines the Central Educational Institutions under Section 2(c) of the Act. Section 2(c) reads as follows:-

“(c) “Central Educational Institutionâ€​ means-

(i) a University established or incorporated by or under a Central Act;

(ii) an institution of national importance established by an Act of Parliament;

(iii) an institution, declared as an institution deemed to be University under Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (3 of 1956), and

maintained by or receiving aid from the Central Government;

(iv) an institution maintained by or receiving aid from the Central Government, whether directly or indirectly, and affiliated to an institution referred to

in sub-clause (i) or sub-clause (ii), or a constituent unit of an institution referred to in sub-clause (iii); and

(v) an educational institution established by the Central Government under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (21 of 1860)â€​.

Section 3 provides for reservation of posts in direct recruitment out of the sanctioned strength in teachers' cadre in a Central Educational Institution

to the extent and in the manner as may be specified by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette.

Section 3(2) provides for the purpose of reservation of posts, a Central Educational Institution shall be regarded as one unit. The learned Standing

Counsel for the UGC submits that the reservation policy of the Government is liable to be accepted by all Universities and that the Universities have

been informed accordingly by the UGC.

In view of the specific provisions of the Act and the definition of Central Education Institutions contained in Section 2(c) thereof, I am of the opinion

that the Central Act and the notification cannot apply to the first respondent University, which is not a Central Educational Institution under the Act. In

the above view of the matter, it is clear that University is duty bound to make appointments to all existing vacancies from the ranked list prepared

pursuant to the notification dated 3.3.2016. The University shall take appropriate action in that regard at the earliest.

In two of these writ petitions, that is, W.P.(C).No.110/2021 & 16386/2020, the issue raised is with regard to the appointment to NCA vacancies.

The issue raised stands covered by a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1373/2019. It has been held by the Division Bench that

the NCA vacancies cannot be filled up by appointing the candidates from the reserved community from the current ranked list, since the NCA

vacancies were not notified specifically. In the above view of the matter, following the judgment of the Division Bench, the NCA vacancies are

directed to be notified forthwith, without delay. However, the claim of the petitioners in W.P.(C).No.110/2021 and 16386/2020 for appointment against

the NCA vacancies which have admittedly not been notified is not sustainable. Suffice it to say that appointments shall be made in accordance with

law to the existing and arising vacancies by the Agricultural University without delay, at any rate before the expiry of the ranked lists. Appropriate

steps for extension of the lists can also be taken by the University, if such course of action is legally possible, so as to enable the filling up of the

vacancies from the list.

The writ petitions are ordered accordingly.