W.P.(C) No. 30469/2015 & c/cases – Dr. Retheesh Babu v. Central University of Kerala and others

W.P(C).No.30469/2015 & c/cases 1 **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA** **FRIDAY ,THE 04TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 14TH POUSHA, 1940** ## **WP(C).No. 30469 of 2015** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **DR.RETHEESH BABU AGED 43 YEARS E-2, RLV COMPLEX, BSNL QUARTERS, ALAPPUZHA-688 001. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** |**1**|**CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF KERALA**| |---|---| ||**REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR, CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF**| ||**KERALA, VIDYANAGAR P.O., KASARAGOD-671 123.**| |**2**|**VICE CHANCELLOR,**| ||**CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, VIDYANAGAR P.O.,**| ||**KASARAGOD-671 123.**| |**3**|**REGISTRAR,**| ||**CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, VIDYANAGAR P.O.,**| ||**KASARAGOD-671 123.**| |**4**|**DR.JILLY JOHN,**| ||**ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, SCHOOL OF HUMANITIES AND**| ||**SOCIAL SCIENCES, CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF KERALA,**| ||**VIDYANAGAR.**| |**5**|**DR.RANJITH R.PILLAI, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR,**| ||**SCHOOL OF HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES, CENTRAL**| ||**UNIVERSITY OF KERALA,**| ||**VIDYANAGAR.**| |**6**|**DR.DILIP DIWAKER G,**| ||**ASSISTANT PROFESSOR,**| ||**SCHOOL OF HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES, CENTRAL**| ||**UNIVERSITY OF KERALA,**| ||**VIDYANAGAR.**| W.P(C).No.30469/2015 & c/cases 2 **7** **DR.LAXMI, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, SCHOOL OF HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES, CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, VIDYANAGAR.** **(ADDL.R4 TO R7 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 12.11.2015 IN I.A.NO.16360/15 AND THEIR ADDRESSES ARE CHANGED AS PER ORDER DT.30.11.2015 IN I.A.NO.17050/2015)** **BY ADVS. SRI.V.SAJITH KUMAR, SC, CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF KERALA SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY SMT.J.KASTHURI SMT.L.ANNAPOORNA SMT.N.SANTHA SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN SRI.K.A.BALAN SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO SRI.PRATHAP PILLAI SRI.S.A.ANAND SRI.SAIJO HASSAN SRI.SEBIN THOMAS SRI.VISHNU BHUVANENDRAN SRI.VIVEK V. KANNANKERI SRI.V.VARGHESE** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06.12.2018, ALONG WITH WP(C).NOS.26213/2016 AND 29620/2016, THE COURT ON 04.01.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P(C).No.30469/2015 & c/cases 3 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA** **FRIDAY ,THE 04TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 14TH POUSHA, 1940** **WP(C).No. 26213 of 2016** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **HARIDAS K. AGED 41 YEARS KIZHAKKE MAZHUVANCHERIL, ARAKULAM P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685 591.** **BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** |**1**|**CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF KERALA**| |---|---| ||**TEJASWINI HILLS, PERIYE P.O., KASARAGOD**| ||**DISTRICT,PIN-671 316, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.**| |**2**|**THE VICE CHANCELLOR,**| ||**CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, TEJASWINI HILLS,**| ||**PERIYE P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT,PIN-671 316.**| **BY ADVS. SRI.V.SAJITH KUMAR, SC, CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF KERALA** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06.12.2018, ALONG WITH WP(C).30469/2015 AND 29620/16, THE COURT ON 04.01.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P(C).No.30469/2015 & c/cases 4 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA** **FRIDAY ,THE 04TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 14TH POUSHA, 1940** ## **WP(C).No. 29620 of 2016** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **DR. RAMARAO BONAGANI, S/O. B.VARADAIAH, 9-89, AKKAYAPALEM, JANDRAPETA P.O, VETAPALAM, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 523 165.** **BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **1 THE CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, TEJASWINI HILLS, PERIYE P.O, KASARAGOD DISTRICT - 671 316, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. 2 THE VICE CHANCELLOR, CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF KERALA,TEJASWINI HILLS, PERIYE P.O, KASARAGOD DISTRICT 671 316. BY ADV. SRI.SAJITH KUMAR V.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06.12.2018, ALONG WITH WP(C).30469/2015 AND 26213/16, THE COURT ON 04.01.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **P.V.ASHA, J.** **W.P.(C) Nos.30469 of 2015 & 26213 & 29620 of 2016** **Dated this the 4[th] day of January, 2019** ## **JUDGMENT** ## **W.P.(C) No.30469 of 2015** **The petitioner who is a physically handicapped candidate with locomotor disability is aggrieved by the denial of appointment as Asst.Professor in Social Work in the Central University of Kerala, against the 3% reservation quota available for physically disabled.** **2. The Central University of Kerala (hereinafter referred to as “the University”) issued re-notification dated 13.02.2015 inviting applications for various teaching posts including that of Assistant Professor in Social Work. The number of posts earmarked for the discipline Social Work in the School of Humanities and Social Sciences was four, out of which three were earmarked for unreserved and one for OBC. In the General Information as contained in Ext.P1 it was** W.P.(C) No.30469/15 :6: **provided that reservation would be applicable to SC/ST, Differently abled(DA) in accordance with Government of India guidelines and such candidates were directed to produce testimonials in support of the same. As per clause 2, the candidates belonging to SC/ST/DA (Psychically and visually differently-abled) categories were eligible for relaxation of 5% marks at the Graduate and Masters level, based on the qualifying marks without including any grace marks procedure. It was stated that persons who had applied for those posts earlier as per notification dated 18.02.2013 were not required to apply again.** **3. The petitioner had already submitted his application for the post of Assistant Professor in the Department of Social Work pursuant to the notification dated 18.02.2013. On the basis of Ext.P1 renotification he updated his curriculum vitae, testimonial etc. He forwarded his disability certificate and requested to consider his application in general merit and or in the category of Differently Abled depending on the possibilities, in accordance** W.P.(C) No.30469/15 :7: **with the guidelines of the UGC/Government of India.** **4. The proforma of application contains the column to indicate the particulars of disability in case a candidate is differently abled. Petitioner furnished the particulars of his disability in column No.2 as against entry no.2 in Ext.P2 application. He is having 86% locomotor disability and he had submitted the disability certificate as serial no.13 in the list of enclosures. Petitioner has acquired MSW with First class followed by M.Phil and thereafter Ph.D from Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. He was having about 11 years and 9 months of research experience as on the date of application. According to the petitioner 1[st] , 34[th] and 67[th] turns among the faculties in the University were to be filled up by persons with disabilities as provided under Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for short). However, when the rank list was published, the petitioner was included in the waiting list. On coming** W.P.(C) No.30469/15 :8: **to know that the respondent University was not appointing disabled candidates, the petitioner had collected information under the Right to Information Act. The Public Information Officer of the University had in Ext.P3 letter dated 26.08.2013, on an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 informed that University had not appointed anybody in the category of differently abled, in any of the faculties. However, it was stated that one Assistant Professor, who was appointed was having locomotor disability. He also furnished that the number of differently abled persons appointed permanently in the University before 08.08.2013 was one in the Department of Economics. It was also informed that the University had appointed 18 Assistant Professors on regular basis and as per the Government of India Rules one person with disabilities has to be appointed when it reaches at 33[rd] point. It was stated that the Assistant Professor in Economics appointed was one among the 18 Assistant Professors, which is well within the prescribed ratio of PWD. It was further stated that** :9: W.P.(C) No.30469/15 **even though the post with reservation for PWD was not specifically mentioned in the advertisements, as per Government of India Rule, 3% of the posts are to be reserved for PWD and that the advertisement was wide open to maintain the spirit of reservation so that any candidate under the category of PWD can be appointed against a post which suits him. It was also stated that there were instances of posts specifically reserved for PWD, lying vacant for many years, due to nonavailability of eligible candidates.** **5. The petitioner submits that the number of permanent faculties in various Departments in the University as on 29.09.2015 was stated as 53 in Ext.P4 list furnished by the University. Out of that 40 posts were that of Assistant Professors; 12 posts were of Associate Professors and 1 post was of Professor. The number of Assistant Professors notified in Ext.P1 notification issued on 13.02.2015, was 13 out of the total 32 posts. Apart from that 3 SC/ST backlog vacancies of Asst. Professors of the recruitment year 2013, were also notified. It was also stated that by** W.P.(C) No.30469/15 :10: **another notification a total number of 8 posts were notified, out of which 4 were of Assistant Professors. Thus the total number of posts of Assistant Professors notified was 20. However, the petitioner claimed that when 43 posts were notified and 52 Assistant/Associate Professors were already working in the Central University, appointments against the 1[st] , 34[th] and 67[th] turn were to be made from among disabled persons. The petitioner claimed that the post of Assistant Professor in Social Work was to be earmarked for the disabled and he being the only physically handicapped candidate was liable to be selected against the 3% vacancies reserved for the physically disabled. The petitioner filed the Writ Petition immediately after the interview was over on 28.09.2015, seeking a direction to the respondent University to set apart the post of Assistant Professor in Social Work notified in Ext.P1 for persons with disabilities.** **6. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, the University issued Ext.P7 rank list on 9.11.2015. The rank list for Assistant Professors in the Department of** W.P.(C) No.30469/15 :11: **Social Work contained 9 candidates, with rank nos.1 to 3 as selected and rank nos.4 to 9 in the wait list. Petitioner was included at rank no.5 being no.2 in the wait list. Petitioner thereupon amended the Writ Petition and challenged the rank list and sought appointment against one of the posts in the reservation turn. He claimed that being a disabled candidate he was entitled to be appointed under the 3% quota. It was alleged that the rank list was drawn contrary to the Govt. of India Office Memorandum Exts.P5 and P6, which insist 3% reservation while making appointment to teaching posts. After collecting information under the Right to Information Act, submitting Ext.P9 application, petitioner alleged that till that time the respondent University did not make any appointment of a physically challenged. In Ext.P9(2) letter dated 30.10.2015, the University informed that no faculty has been appointed specifically under the differently abled category. Referring to Ext.P5 office memorandum dated 29.12.2005 issued by the Department of Personnel & Training, the petitioner alleged that the University is** W.P.(C) No.30469/15 :12: **not following the guidelines issued by the Government of India, for implementation of the provisions contained in the 1995 Act. Clause 4 of Ext.P5 provided that the Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment had already issued a list of posts/jobs identified for appointment of the physically disabled, considering the job requirement. It was ordered that appointments under 3% reservation shall be made against the posts in that list as amended from time to time. However, it was also stated in Clause 4 (b) that the list was not exhaustive and the concerned Ministries/Departments shall have the discretion to identify jobs/posts in addition to the jobs/posts already included in the list, provided no post already included shall be excluded either by the Ministry or Department or by the Establishment. Clause 5 of Ext.P1 provided that even if a post stands identified suitable only for one category of disability, the quota for reservation in that post shall not be reduced; the total reservation in the post will be given to persons suffering from the disability for which it has been identified. Likewise** W.P.(C) No.30469/15 :13: **in case the post is identified suitable for two categories of disabilities, reservation shall be distributed between persons with those categories of disabilities equally, as far as possible. It shall, however, be ensured that reservation in different posts in the establishment is distributed in such a way that the persons of three categories of disabilities, as far as possible, get equal reservation. Clause 15(a) and (b) of Ext.P5 OM provided as follows:** _(a) All establishments shall maintain separate 100 point reservation roster registers in the format given in Annexure II for determining/effecting reservation for the disabled – one each for Group 'A' posts filled by direct recruitment, Group 'B' posts filled by direct recruitment, Group 'C' posts filled by direct recruitment, Group “c” posts filled by promotion, Group 'D' posts filled by direct recruitment and Group “D' posts filled by promotion._ _(b) Each register shall have cycles of 100 points and each cycle of 100 points shall be divided into three blocks, comprising the following poits:_ **==> picture [258 x 61] intentionally omitted <==** **Petitioner alleges that respondent University did not comply with the procedure prescribed in Ext.P5 or the provisions contained in the Act. It is also pointed out** W.P.(C) No.30469/15 :14: **that pursuant to the judgment of the Apex Court in** _**Union of India and another vs. National Federation of the Blind and others : (2013) 10 SCC 772**_ **the Department of Personnel and Training issued revised order Ext.P6 on 03.12.2013 whereby Clause 14 of Ext.P5 order was modified to the effect that “Reservation for persons with disabilities in Group 'A' or Group 'B' posts shall be computed on the basis of total number of vacancies occurring in direct recruitment quota in all the Group 'A' posts or Group 'B' posts respectively, in the cadre”. It was also warned that non-observance of the provisions of reservation shall be considered as an act of disobedience and would be taken seriously and the Nodal Officers would be departmentally proceeded against. As per Clause 14 of Ext.P5 OM it was ordered that the reservation for persons with disabilities in Group 'A' posts shall be computed on the basis of vacancies occurring in direct recruitment quota in all the identified Group 'A' posts in the establishment and that the same method of computation would apply for Group 'B' posts.** W.P.(C) No.30469/15 :15: **7. In Ext.P6 OM, issued in implementation of the judgment of the Apex court, Clause 14 was modified and it was ordered that reservation in Group 'A' or Group 'B' posts shall be computed on the basis of total number of vacancies occurring in direct recruitment quota in all the Group 'A' posts or Group 'B' posts respectively, in the cadre”.** **8. The learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the effect of modification in Ext.P6 is that the number of Group A and Group B posts are to be taken together and 3% for reservation shall be computed on the total number of group A and group B posts in the direct recruitment quota. Thus according to her, for computing reservation, number of all the faculties against permanent posts working in the University in various categories, i.e including Professors, Associate Professors and Assistant Professors shall be reckoned and in that event the number of disabled persons to be appointed would be far more. It is also her case that the post of Assistant Professor in Sociology is already identified and therefore Social Work which is a similar** W.P.(C) No.30469/15 :16: **discipline need also be identified. It is their case that the Universtity ought to have identified the post in Social Work and appointed the petitioner against that post.** **9. The respondent University has filed a statement, counter affidavit and additial counter affidavit. In the statement filed in November, 2015 it was stated that University had identified one post of Asst.Professor in Malayalam and another in Public Administration for the purpose of reservation for physically handicapped and those two vacancies would be notified and filled up immediately. It was stated that as per G.I., Dept. of Per.&Tra OM No.36035/14/95-EST. (Res) dated 27.02.1996 read with OM No.36035/2/98-estt. (res.), dated 04.06.1998 the vacancies need to be identified and the head of the Department has to decide the category of persons to be adjusted and the identified post against which they are to be adjusted. It was stated that the University had already accommodated one physically handicapped Asst.Professor in Economics and there were other equally qualified** W.P.(C) No.30469/15 :17: **persons in the selection process when a physically handicapped was found suitable by the selection committee. According to the University the strength of Assistant Professors in the University was 38 and on the completion of the recruitment process 24 more faculties would be available. It was stated that in Ext.P1 notification, reservation for physically handicapped was not specifically notified and therefore the petitioner does not have any legal right to insist that the post in Social Work should be identified.It was further stated that University was free to frame its own rules and regulations for implementation of reservation for physically handicapped. It was further stated that the selection committee prepared the select list for appointment to the post of Asst.Professor in Social Work only on the basis of merit.** **10. The 3[rd] respondent filed a counter affidavit in June, 2016 stating that persons like the peitioner are estopped from chalenging the selection, after participating in the same, without raising any objection. Further contention is that since Ext.P1** W.P.(C) No.30469/15 :18: **notification does not specify any reservation for physically handicapped, petitioner cannot have any claim for reservation. It is also their case that unless the post is identified for the disabled, petitioner cannot have any right to insist appointment against the reservation turn of PH. According to the respondents, the office memorandums dated 27.02.1996 and 04.06.1998 permit the head of the Department to decide the vacancies which need to be identified; the University had taken a policy decision to offer two vacancies of Asst.Professors, in the upcoming recruitment process and the 3% reservation would be implemented for physically handicapped. It is also submitted that Ext.P10 has been issued to fill up the remaining vacancies in the existing departments and there was sufficient provision for accommodation of PH candidates. The respondent University pointed out the difficulties on account of shortage of faculties based on the interim order granted by this Court on 21.12.2015 directing that no appointments shall be made without getting orders from this Court. Thereafter, as** W.P.(C) No.30469/15 :19: **per interim order dt.7.6.2016 the stay order was modified to the extent that filling up of vacancies would be subject to the result of the Writ Petition. On the basis of the interim order the appointments in the University were made on provisional basis subject to the result of the Writ Petition.** **11. The respondent University filed an additional counter affidavit in November, 2018. In this it is stated that OM, dated 29.07.2013, (produced again as Ext.P7 along with the reply affidavit filed in answer to the counter affidavit of the 3[rd] respondent), the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment while notifying the posts which were identified to be filled from various categories of physically handicapped, have ordered that the autonomous bodies are free to supplement the list appended to notification. According to the respondent University, the post of Asst. Professor/Lecturer in Social Work is not included in the annexure attached to the notification dated 29.07.2013, which explains the nature of work and working conditions to find suitability to be reserved.** W.P.(C) No.30469/15 :20: **It was stated that two Asst.Professors belonging to visually handicapped and Ortho handicapped were already appointed as Assistant Professors.** **12. Relying on the 2[nd] Ext P7 produced along with the reply affidavit petitioner submits that if a post is already held by a person with disability it shall be deemed to have been identified. Petitioner claims that since he is already included in the rank list though in the wait list, he is to be appointed against the reservation quota.** **13. By 2[nd] Ext.P7 notification of 2013, the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment issued a list of posts in Group A, B,C and D which are identified by the expert committees as suitable for persons with disabilities in each of the categories, in supercession of the lists notified as per orders dt.18.02.2007 and 15.05.2007. In Note 3 of the OM, it is ordered that “if a post is already held by a person with disability, it shall be deemed to have been identified** _”._ **The list was thus revised in the light of Section 31 of the Act. Petitioner points out that the** W.P.(C) No.30469/15 :21: **Assistant Professor in Sociology is already identified for reservation of candidates with locomotor disability and therefore Assistant Professor in Social Work is also liable to be identified for appointment of differently abled.** **14. Respondents 5 and 6 filed counter affidavit stating that they were appointed on the basis of their merit in the interview held and on the basis of the regular process of selection in which they were ranked above the petitioner. According to them, the post of Asst.Professor in the Department of Social Work is not reserved for differently abled and therefore the petitioner does not have any right to insist appointment. It was stated that the 5[th] respondent had joined the University after resigning his job of Asst. Professor in Psychiatric Social Work in the Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences, Kozhikkode and the 6[th] respondent resigned his job as Associate Fellow in Indian Institute of Dalit Studies, Indian Council of Social Science Research, Ministry of Human Resource Development, New Delhi and he belongs to SC community.** W.P.(C) No.30469/15 :22: **15. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment in** _**Government of India through Secretary & anr. v. Ravi Prakash Gupta & anr :** (2010) 7SCC 626_ **and argued that in case the University failed to identify the post, the petitioner cannot be put to prejudice. The learned Counsel also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in** _**Rajeev Kumar Gupta and Ors. v. Union of India & Ors:** (2016) 13 SCC 153_ **and the Division Bench judgment of this Court in** _**Managing Director, Ernakulam Regional Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd., Edappally v. State of Kerala & Ors:** 2016 (3) KHC 350_ **in support of the contention that the University was duty bound to appoint differently abled candidates against vacancies notified in Ext.P1.** **16. Having heard the contention on either side, the question to be examined is whether petitioner could claim appointment against 3% reservation quota based on Ext.P1 notification and if so whether on application of the 3% reservation, the turn for a candidate with locomotor disability could have been reached as on the date on which appointments were made against the post** W.P.(C) No.30469/15 :23: **of Assistant Professor in Social Work. Yet another question is whether computation of 3% vacancies is to be made on group A and group B posts together or separately, as petitioner relies on the Office Memorandums Exts.P5 and P6. Further questions relating to identification, appointment, etc. need be examined, depending upon the answers to the first two questions.** **17. The contention of the University is that Ext. P1 notification does not specify any post for reservation of physically handicapped and therefore petitioner cannot claim reservation. However, Clause I of General Information in Ext.P1 notification issued on** ## **13.02.2015 it is specifically provided as follows:** _(1) Reservation for SC/ST, OBC and Differently Abled Persons (DA) for all posts exists as per the guidelines of the UGC/Govt. Of India. Candidates applying for the reserved posts should clearly state the category they belong to. They must also enclose selfattested photocopy of caste certificate/medical certificate from the competent authority. Caste certificate to be produced by OBC candidates must be in the format as prescribed by the Govt. of India._ **In clause 2, relaxation of 5% marks was provided for SC/ST and differently abled categories. Apart from that the proforma of application contains specific columns** W.P.(C) No.30469/15 :24: **to enter the details with respect to physical disability, the percentage of disability, category of disability and for production of certificate in proof of the same. Therefore, the contention of the University that reservation was not permissible in the absence of a notification is totally unsustainable. Such a contention goes against the stand of the University also, before the filing of the Writ Petition, when they in the answers given under the Right to Information Act were seen elequent in implementing the provisions in the 1995 Act. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is the duty of any employer to make appointment against 3% of the vacancies reserved for physically disabled.** **18. The next question is whether the turn for a person with locomotor disability reached while effecting appointments pursuant to Ext.P1 notification. Section 33 of the Act provides that out of the 3% reservation, 1% each of the appointments shall be made/reserved for candidates with the disability of (i) blindness or low vision (ii) hearing impairment (iii)** W.P.(C) No.30469/15 :25: **locomotor disability. On the basis of this provision, the turns 1,34 and 67 in a block of 100 vacancies are earmarked for appointment of the categories of low vision, hearing impaired and locomotor disability respectively. Therefore, the turn for a candidate with locomotor disability arises on 67[th] vacancy.** **19. Going by the statement filed by the respondent University, the number of Assistant Professors in service and to be appointed were 38+24 Assistant Professors which would mean that there would have been 62 Assistant Professors. Going by Ext.P4, relied on by the petitioner it is 40+13+3+4=60. Whether it is 62 or 60, the 3[rd] turn for differently abled would not have reached.** **20. Therefore, the next question to be considered is whether the 3% is to be computed on the total number of teaching posts in the University or in other words the total number of posts of Assistant Professors, Associate Professors and Professors together as contended by the petitioner. The basis for such a contention is the modification brought about to clause** W.P.(C) No.30469/15 :26: ## **14 of Ext.P5 by Ext.P6 OM. It is therefore necessary to examine clause 14 of Ext.P5 which read as follows:** _“14. Reservation for persons with disabilities in Group 'A' posts shall be computed on the basis of_ _**vacancies occurring in direct recruitment quota in all the identified Group 'A' posts** in the establishment. The same method of computation applies for Group 'B' posts.”_ (emphasis supplied) **After amendment as per Ext.P6 Clause 14 reads as follows:** _“14. Reservation for persons with disabilities in Group 'A'_ _**or** Group 'B' posts shall be computed on the basis of_ _**total number of vacancies occurring in direct recruitment quota in all the Group 'A' posts or Group 'B' posts** respectively, in the cadre”._ (emphasis supplied) **The difference brought about is that in Ext.P5 3% need be computed only against vacancies in identified posts either in Group A posts or Group B posts as the case may be. But after amendment the 3% has to be reckoned not only based on the vacancies in the identified posts, but with reference to all the vacancies in all the posts in the cadre of Group A or in Group B as the case may be. The only difference is the absence of the word “identified” in Ext.P6. At the same time, all other provisions in Ext.P5 continue to be the same. Para.15 of Ext.P5 provides for maintaining separate** W.P.(C) No.30469/15 :27: **roster for Group A, Group B, Group C and Group D. There is nothing in Ext.P6 OM which provides for computing reservation based on total number of vacancies in Group A and Group B posts. It is pertinent to note that the question which arose before the Apex Court in** _**Union of India v. National Federation of the Blind, (2013) 10 SCC 772,**_ **as stated in paragraph 26 of the judgment, were** _**:**_ **(** _**a**_ **) The manner of computing 3% reservation for the persons with the disabilities as per Section 33 of the Act and (** _**b**_ **) Whether post-based reservation must be adhered to or vacancy-based reservation. In paragraph 52 of the judgment it was held as follows:** _“52. Thus, after thoughtful consideration, we are of the view that the computation of reservation for persons with disabilities has to be computed in case of Group A, B, C and D posts in an identical manner viz. “computing 3% reservation on total number of vacancies in the cadre strength” which is the intention of the legislature. Accordingly, certain clauses in the OM dated 29-12-2005, which are contrary to the above reasoning are struck down and we direct the appropriate Government to issue new office memorandum(s) consistent with the decision rendered by this Court.”_ ## **Further it was held that the reservation policy stipulated in** ## **the 1995 Act is vacancy-based reservation.** ## **21. Even assuming that the Assistant Professor in** **Social Work is one to be identified for DA, the** W.P.(C) No.30469/15 **==> picture [17 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** **petitioner will be able to stake a claim for appointment in the reservation quota, only if the 67[th] turn reached. When the 67[th] turn was not liable to reach when appointments were made based on Ext.P1 notification, there is no basis for his claim. Though it is true that modifications to Ext.P5 were effected by way of Ext.P6 in implementation of the directions contained in the judgment in** _**Union of India & anr. v. National Federation of the Blind & Ors:(2013) 10 SCC 772,**_ **I am unable to accept the contention of the learned Counsel that Ext.P6 directs that percentage of reservation is to be computed reckoning all the posts in Group A and Group B.** **22. In the above view of the matter, the claim raised by the petitioner is unsustainable. When the turn for the category to which the petitioner belongs, has not reached, I do not find it necessary to go into the other contentions raised regarding requirement of identification.** **23. Hence the Writ Petition fails and is dismissed.** W.P.(C) No.30469/15 :29: ## **W.P(C).Nos.29620/2016 and 26213/2016** **Petitioners in W.P(C).Nos.29620/2016 and 26213/2016 have filed the Writ Petitions since their inclusion in the rank list and subsequent appointment were made provisionally and subject to the result of the W.P(C). No.30469 of 2015. Now that W.P.(C) No.30469 of 2015 is dismissed, no orders are required in these Writ Petitions. Their appointments are only to be made regular.** **These Writ Petitions are disposed of accordingly.** Sd/- **P.V.ASHA JUDGE** **rkc/** _**rtr**_ W.P.(C) No.30469/15 :30: ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 30469/2015** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 P1 : COPY OF THE EMPLOYMENT RENOTIFICATION (NO.RE-4/2015) DTD.13.2.2015.** - **EXHIBIT P2 P2 COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER TOGETHER WITH COVERING LETTER DTD.5.3.2015.** - **EXHIBIT P3 P3 : COPY OF THE REPLY DTD.26.8.2015. EXHIBIT P4 P4 : COPY OF THE TABLE PREPARED USING THE INFORMATION COLLECTED FROM THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF THE CENTRAL UNIVERSITY.** **EXHIBIT P5 P5 : COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM DTD.29.12.2005.** **EXHIBIT P6 P6 : COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM OF THE MEMORANDUM DTD.3.12.2013. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 9.11.2015.** - **EXHIBIT P7 COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DT.29.7.2013 ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EMPOWERMENT. (PRODUCED ALONG WITH REPLY AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONER DT.24.10.2018)** **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE SAMPLE COPY OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE DT.1.10.15 TOGETHER WITH REPLY DT.30.10.2015. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE SAMPLE COPY OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE DATED 1.10.2015 TOGETHER WITH REPLY DATED 30.10.2015. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 4.12.2015.** W.P.(C) No.30469/15 :31: ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29620/2016** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** |**EXHIBIT P1**|**TRUE COPY OF THE NET CERTIFICATE DT.4.10.2006 ISSUED**<br>**TO THE PETITIONER.**| |---|---| ||| |**EXHIBIT P2**|**TRUE COPY OF THE EMPLOYMENT NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY**<br>**THE UNIVERSITY ON 4.12.2015.**| ||| |**EXHIBIT P3**|**TRUE COPY OF THE RANKED LIST.**| ||| |**EXHIBIT P4**|**TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN W.P(c).NO.26213/16.**| ||| W.P.(C) No.30469/15 :32: ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26213/2016** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE POST GRADUATE DEGREE CERTIFICATE. EXHBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NET CERTIFICATE. EXHBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUNIOR RESEARCH FELLOWSHIP CERTIFICATE.** **EXHBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PHYSICAL DISABILITY CERTIFICATE. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF AN EMPLOYMENT NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY ON 4.12.2015. EXHBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE RANKED LIST. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFER OF APPOINTMENT DT.6.9.2016. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.19.3.2018.**