UNIVERSITY OF COCHIN, REP., BY ITS REGISTRAR UNIVERSITY OF COCHIN ETC. versus N.S. KANJOONJAMMA AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1997] 3 S.C.R. 150 · Decided: 20-03-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
UNIVERSITY OF COCHIN, REP., BY ITS REGISTRAR 
UNIVERSITY OF COCHIN ETC. 
v. 
N.S. KANJOONJAMMA AND ORS. ETC. 
MARCH 20, 1997 
(K. RAMASWAMY ANDS. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.] 
S e1vice Law : 
Kera/a State Subordi11ate Service Rule : 
Rules 4, 14 to 17-A-Promotio11-Reservation for Scheduled Castes 
and Scheduled Tribe;~Special recn1itme11t to Class 1 a11d Class II non-teach-
ing posts-Advertisement issued for selection to the posts-Contesting respo11-
dent applied for the posts but was unsuccessful-She challenged the 
D recmitment-High Cowt allowed her writ petition-Held, Rules having not 
been challenged, the University has properly made applicable the mle;~Rule 
4 is i11applicable to the special recmitment-Contesting respondent having 
participated i11 the selection, she is estopped from challenging the c01rectness 
of the procedure-High Cowt en-ed in allowing the writ petition of the 
E contesting respondent-Appeal allowed-Estoppel. 
F 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2223 of 
1985 Etc. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.2.85 of the Kerala High 
Court in O.P. No. 5366 of 1982. 
K. John Mathew, (E.M.S. Anam) (NP), N. Sudhakaran and K.R.R. 
Pillai for the appearing parties. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
These appeals by special leave arise from the judgment of the 
Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, made on February 13, 1985 in 
OP No. 5366/1982. The contesting first respondent, a Section Officer in the 
University, appointed by direct recruitment, challenged the promotion of 
V. Vasudevan as Deputy Registrar and P.K. Sudhakaran as Assistant 
H Registrar of the Cochin University. The facts are that the Syndicate in its 
150 
'\I 
4
UNIVERSITY OF COCHIN v. N.S. KANJOON JAMl\1A 
151 
Resolution dated December 3, 1980 adopted Rules 14 to 17-A of the A 
. Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules (for short, the 'Rules') so as 
to be applicable to the University in the matter of recruitment., The 
Syndicate in its meeting dated January 20, 1981 resolved that non-teaching 
posts in the University in Class I, Class III and Class IV would be made 
available for application of rule of reservation in the matter of promotion B 
to the Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes. In Resolution dated March 
7, 1981, the Syndicate further resolved that special recruitment to six vacant 
posts be advertised for recruitment of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled 
Tribes declaring them to reserved posts. By further Resolution dated 
October 1, 1981, it resolved to recommend constitution of Staff Selection 
Committee for recruitment of those candidates. By a further Resolution C 
dated June 4, 1982, the Syndicate authorised the Vice-Chancellor to con-
stitute the Selection Committee to make selection. Accordiugly, the Vice-
Chancellor constituted a Selection Committee. The advertisement was 
made for recruitment to fill up the said six posts. The respondents 3 and 
4, candidates above-named and the first respondent along with others D 
applied for the said posts and were interviewed by the Selection Committee 
on July 17, 1982. It selected and the appointment of respondents 3 and 4 
came to be made on July 20, 1982. Accordingly, the Syndicate approved of 
the selection by its proceedings of the even date and appointed respon-
dents 3 and 4 as Deputy Registrar and Assistant Registrar respectively. 
The first respondent, as stated earlier, filed writ petition in the High 
Court questioning the correctness of the appointment of Respondents 3 
E 
and 4 on the ground that when selection was made, there was no rule for 
special recruitment of the reserved candidates. The Rules have not been 
specifically applied for special recruitment and, therefore, the selection and 
F 
appointment of the respondents is not in accordance with law. The Rule 
is when inservice candidates were available, direct recruitment could not 
be resorted to. That contention found favour with the High Court. Thus, 
these appeals by special leave. 
The only question that arises for consideration is : whether the view 
taken by the High Court is correct in law? Rules 14 to 17A of the Rules 
relate to the reservation of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and 
the method of recruitment has been provided therein and Rule 17-A reads 
G 
asm~: 
H 
A 
B 
c 
152 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1997] 3 S.C.R. 
"Special recruitment from among the Scheduled Castes and 
Scheduled Tribes -
Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.