THE KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY versus K.R. ANIL AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 161 · Decided: 03-12-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.N. RAY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

THE KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY 
A 
v. 
K.R. ANIL AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 3, 1997 
(G.N. RAY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.) 
B 
Service law : 
Kera/a State and Subordinate Services Rules-Proviso to Rule 14(c), 
Rule 14( d) and Rule 15 : 
C 
Selection procedure--Rese1ved post-Kera/a Agiicultural University ad-
vertised for post of Junior Assistant Professm~Rese1ved for Ezhava com-
.-: 
munity-Respondent No. I belonging to Ezhava community-Educationally 
{ 
) 
; 
I -
' 
qualifie~But not selecte~Hel~Proviso to Rule 14(c), Rule 14(d) and 
Rule 15 indicate selection on assessment by me1it even for reserved vacan-
D 
cy-Hence, principle on which High Cowt rendered decision is set 
aside-However, direction of High Court to appoint Respondent No. 1 not 
interfered with in 'the special facts of case viz (i) that records relating to 
selection not produced by university inspite of allegation of malafide; (ii) that 
Respondent No. I educationally qualified; and (iii) that he was subsequently E 
appointed against tempormy post as Junior Assistant Pivf esso1: 
Kerala Agriculture University advertised for the post of Junior 
Assistant Professor. A post was reserved for candidate belongb1g to Ez-
hava community. Respondent No. 1, belonging to the Ezhava community, 
was a candidate for the post. Inspite of having the requisite qualifications, F 
Respondent No.1 was not selected under the reserved category, and hence, 
he moved a Writ Petition before the High Court. 
The High Court held that under Rules 14 to 17 of the Kerala State 
and Subordinate Services Rules no selection method was available for G 
filling up the reserved vacancy. Since .Respondent No. 1 was eligible, his 
elimination by the selection committee on ground of not being found 
suitable was improper. Furthermore, since in the meanwhile the post of 
Junior Assistant Professor had been abolished and Junior Asstt. Profes-
sors upgraded to post of Assistant Professor, the High Court directed 
Respondent No. 1 to be appointed as an Assistant Professor. 
0 
H 
161 
162 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A 
Being aggrieved, the University filed the present Appeal wntending, 
B 
interalia, that Rule 14 r/w Rule 15 indicates that even for filling up reserved 
post, inter-se-merit assessment of candidates of the reserved category is 
to be made. The Respondent No. 1 was interviewed but the selection 
committee did not find him suitable on assessment of merit. 
The Respondent No. 1 did not dispute that prima facie scrutiny of 
candidates for reserved post can be done and hence, he appeared before a 
selection committee. He however, contended that such scrutiny cannot 
mean a comparison of reserved category candidate with general can-
didates, through general selection procedure. Furthermore, even assuming 
C that Respondent No. 1 had to face similar selection procedure, since he 
had specifically stated that he had done well in the interview and had not 
been selected because of malafide, the University records onght to have 
been produced. It was also stated that admittedly Respondent No. 1 was 
qualified for the Post of Junior Assistant Professor or Assistant Professor 
and was subsequently appointed to the aforesaid post, against a temporary 
D vacancy. 
Disposing of the Appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. The High Court was not justified in holding that if a 
E candidate belonging to a reserved category is otherwise eligible on the basis 
of his academic qualification, he cannot be eliminated by assessing his 
merit. Proviso to Rule 14(c), Rule 14(d) and Rule 15 indicate that a merit 
assessment is to be made even for candidates eligible to be appointed 
against a reserved vacancy. The Judgment of the High Court that Rules 14 
to 17 do not indicate that selection is required for appointment against a 
F reserved vacancy is incorrect and set aside. [166-C-E] 
1.2. However, the ultimate direction of the High Court to appoint the 
Respondent No.1 to the post of Assistant Professor is not interfered with in 
the special facts of the case, namely, that the University failed to produce the 
G records of the selection committee to show there had been a fair assessment, 
inspite of allegation of malafide; that the respondent No. 1 had the requisite 
11ualifications for the post; and that be had subsequently been given tem-
o 
porary appointment to the post of Junior Assistant Professor.[166-E-H] 
1':3. The appointment of Respondent No. 1 to the post of Assistant 
H Professor will b

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