SHIV PRASAD versus GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 6 S.C.R. 1096 · Decided: 25-04-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.K. THAKKER · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008) 6 S.C.R. 1096 
A 
SHIV PRASAD 
v. 
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2979 of 2008) 
B 
APRIL 25, 2008 
(C.K. THAKKER AND D.K. JAIN, JJ .. ) 
Service Law: 
Roorkee University Act, 1947: 
c 
Appointment of Associate Professor/Assistant Professor 
in University -
Incumbent allegedly recommended for 
selection as Associate Professor but not offered appointment, 
but respondent No.4, an ineligible woman candidate, was 
D appointed as Assistant Professor - Challenge to - High Court 
set aside the appointment of respondent No. 4 - Correctness 
of - Held: Incorrect - Cadre of Associate Professors and 
~ 
Assistant Professors is combined one - Since legality of 
combined cadre not challenged, it could be treated as legal -
E In terms of reservation policy of the State Government, as 
accepted by the University, there exist reservation for woman 
candidate - Reservation of woman candidate cannot be held 
invalid - Selection Committee was, therefore, enjoined to 
consider the selection in terms of reservation policy treating 
the cadre as combined cadre - Under the circumstances, 
F selection of respondent No. 4, a woman candidate, as Assistant 
Professor cannot be held illegal/unlawful. 
.. 
Appointment against a single post - Applicability of rule 
of reservation - Held: Not applicable - However, in the instant 
G case, there were three posts to be filled in, allowing 20% 
reservation for woman candidates, one post, therefore, could 
to be reserved horizontally for a woman candidate. 
It is the case of the appellant that pursuant to the 
...,., 
advertisement issued by the respondent-University for 
H 
1096 
SHIV PRASAD v. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ORS. 
1097 
filling up the posts of Associate Professor/Assistant A 
Prof~ssor, he had applied for appointment for the post of 
Associate Professor and his name was recommended for 
appointment as Associate Professor; that respondent No. 
4, a woman candidate who was not recommended by the 
Selection Board, but was declared selected and being B 
appointed as Assistant Professor in the Department of 
Mathematics. Against her appointment, he had made 
representations to the University, but there was no 
favourable reply. He, therefore, filed a writ petition, which 
was allowed by the Division Bench of the High Court C 
setting aside the appointment of respondent No.4 and 
directing the University to re-advertise the post and to 
conduct the selection process afresh. Though, the 
selection and appointment of respondent No. 4 to the post 
of Assistant Professor had been set aside, no effective 0 
relief was granted in favour of the appellant. Hence, the 
present appeal. Aggrieved against the order of the High 
Court setting aside her appointment, respondent No.4 has 
filed a cross appeal. 
Appellant contended that there was no merit list E 
prepared for the Combined Cadre of Associate/Assistant 
Professor, and horizontal reservation could not be applied 
thereto; even otherwise, the rule of reservation does not 
apply to a single post; that respondent No. 4 was an 
outside candidate and she had wrongly been selected 
F 
under Flexible Cadre Structure (FCS) as Assistant 
Professor; that the High Court wrongly interpreted and 
applied a decision of this Court in the case of Swati Gupta 
vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1995) 2 SCC 560 : JT 1995 (2) 
SC 438 and refused relief to him; and that once the High G 
Court upheld his contention that the University was not 
right in appointing respondent No. 4 as Assistant 
•-1 
Professor, it ought to have allowed the petition in its 
entirety by directing the authorities to appoint him against 
the post of Associate Professor. To that extent, the order H 
1098 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 6 S.C.R 
A passed by the High Court deserves to be set aside by 
granting consequential relief to him. 
Respondent No. 4 submitted that the High Court has 
committed an error of law in allowing the petition filed by 
the appellant and in quashing her appointment; that 
11 
admittedly, the cadre of Associate Professor and Assistant 
Professor is combined one and even the advertisement 
was issued showing that one post was reserved for 
woman candidate; that according to the policy of U.P. 
Government, there should be 20% reservation for 'women 
C candidates' and the said policy had been followed by the 
University; and that since there were three posts in the 
'Combined Cadre', one was reserved for a woman 
candidate. Respondent No. 4 was a woman can

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.