LexTHE UNIVERSITY OF COCHIN versus DR. N. RAMAN NAIR & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
626 Tim UNIVERSITY OF COCHIN A v. DR. N. RAMAN NAIR & ORS. October 30, 1974 [M. H. BEG, v. R. KRrfllNA IYRR AND N. L. UNTWALlA, JJ.] Cochin Unlvmity A.ct (30 of 1971) s. 6-Scope qf B Section 6 of tho Cochin University Act, 1971, read as a whole, indicat1:a that it was meant to eliminate unjustifiable discrimination. Section 6(2) layil down the mandatory duty upon the University to observe els. (a), (b) and (c) of Rule 14 of the Kerala State Subordinate Servii:.i: Rules mutatiJ mutandis. Rule J.4 laya down rulo ot rotation in making appoinunents. C1ause (c) of the Rule lays down a scheme of rotation for every block of 20 vacancies, the first vacancy to be filled by open competition. The Syndicate of the University passed a resolution in 1972 C providing that the rules mentioned in s. 6 (2) be implemented in the case of teach· ini: iltaff as a class, except in the case of post of Professor which shall bi: filled up exclusively in considert.tion of merit and that the reservation quota .~i:ainst thiil category ahould be provided additionally in tho category of Readers, Lectu· rera etc. tll;en collectively. Tho fint reapondent applied for tho post of Reader in tho department of Hindi, and though he ranked first, the post was given to another who waa a member of tho backward class. The respondent filed a writ petition and Hii:h Court 1illowcd D it. Diamis1in11 the appeal to this Court, HELD: (l) Section 6(2) docs not indicate the m!DDer in which the claui· fication of members of service under !he University has to be made for the pur- pose of applying the rules mentioned therein, . but, inasmuch as every statutory power lw to be exercised reasonably, the classification bail to be reuonable. [533CJ E (2) Thcmi:h rule 14(c) doe$ not specifically ilaY that the ru~e of rotation witl be applied in the order in which vacancies occur, by necessary implication, the rule is intended to be.so applied. That being the object of the rule the rule must have been intended to operate with reference to the dates on which the vacan- cies occur and not with reference to some other events. Though the rules were made by the Government in 1967, for the purpose of applying the rules to the Univcrsitv the rotation could only be applied to vacancies existine on the date when tho Act came into force and in the order in which the vacancies had occurred. F [533E-H) (3) The: Syndicato of tho University appointed a Standing Committee 1ll draw up the li•t of vacancies at the time when the Act came into force and the list in .. dicates that the vacancy o[ 11. Reader in the department of Hindi wu the fir't t() occur. [534A-B; 535A-B] ( 4) The High Court was right in holding that the power to apply the rulO! mutatis mutandis does not include the power of amending the sub>tantial provi- G siorui in the rules. The power of the University is confined to making only what are necessary adaptations so as to make the rules, applicable to tnosc in the ser· vice of the University in place of the government servants for wlaom they were promulgated. It could include a power to ignore only snch parts a.! may be inap· p\ica.ble or in conflict with the Act itself. The Svn<lic.1tc could not. in any ca•o, alter the provisions of s. 6(2) of the Act itself which made it incumbent on tho University to apply the ro1ation rule as contemplated under the rules to every ser· vice, class or category under the University. If the post of Reader in the depart· ment of Hindi was the first to arise in service under the University an application H of tho rotation principle would compel the first appointment to take place: <in the ba.oiis of an open competition. That pri11ciplc could certainly not ~ mod.ified by the Univcnlty by taking shelter behind the words mutati.f mutand/3. [53.50-H] A B c D E F G COCHIN U.NIVERSITY V. N. RAMAN (Beg, I.) 527 (5) The resolution of 1972 is on the face of it partly invalid by attempting to place appointment to the post of a Professor outllide the reservation and rotation rules altogether, and it is ambiguous i~ its exact meaning. The second part seems designed to provide for other backward classes a compensatory quota of reserved appointment3 in a category other than of Professors in lieu of the removal of post of Professors from subjection to the rules. The second part is apparently a con- ~llllnce of the exclusion ·of the p_rofessors from the operation of the rules, which is
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.