TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether vacancies arising during the recruitment year could be treated as backlog vacancies and reserved only for reserved categories without prior open recruitment; (ii) what constitutes the proper unit for applying reservation under the 1994 Act in appointments to lecturers' posts in degree and postgraduate colleges; (iii) what is the minimum cadre strength for applying the roster under the 1994 Act; (iv) whether the impugned advertisement was valid in part and liable to be quashed in part.
Issue (i): Whether vacancies arising during the recruitment year could be treated as backlog vacancies and reserved only for reserved categories without prior open recruitment.
Analysis: Vacancies that arose during the year because of retirement, resignation or death were fresh vacancies and not vacancies earlier advertised and left unfilled. Backlog or carry forward vacancies arise only where a reserved vacancy had earlier been subjected to recruitment and remained unfilled. Fresh vacancies could be reserved in accordance with the reservation law, but they could not be taken into the special drive for backlog vacancies so as to exclude general category candidates from participation.
Conclusion: Fresh vacancies could not be treated as backlog vacancies or reserved exclusively for reserved categories.
Issue (ii): What is the proper unit for applying reservation under the 1994 Act in appointments to lecturers' posts in degree and postgraduate colleges.
Analysis: The statutory scheme under the higher education law and the reservation law showed that appointments were made subject-wise and college-wise, and that different disciplines required different qualifications and were not interchangeable. The existence of a consolidated list for recruitment did not convert all lecturers' posts across colleges into one unit. Reservation and roster therefore had to be worked out subject-wise in each college, and not by pooling all lecturers' posts together across the State or even all subjects within one college.
Conclusion: The proper unit was college-wise and subject-wise, not a consolidated State-wide pool of lecturers' posts.
Issue (iii): What is the minimum cadre strength for applying the roster under the 1994 Act.
Analysis: The statutory percentage of reservation had to operate within the constitutional ceiling and could not be implemented so as to create 100% reservation or exceed the prescribed quota. A solitary post could not be reserved. In very small cadres, reservation could operate only if the prescribed percentage could be accommodated without crossing the statutory limit; where the cadre strength was too small, reservation could not be forced by roster rotation. The Court held that at least five posts were required for full working of reservation for Scheduled Castes and Other Backward Classes, while a cadre of three or less posts could not carry reservation at all.
Conclusion: A single post could not be reserved, and reservation could not be applied in cadres of three or fewer posts; meaningful application of the roster required at least five posts for the full statutory operation described by the Court.
Issue (iv): Whether the impugned advertisement was valid in part and liable to be quashed in part.
Analysis: The advertisement was invalid to the extent it clubbed fresh vacancies with backlog vacancies and treated the fresh vacancies as reserved-only posts. The selection process relating to earlier carry forward vacancies could continue, but the authorities were required to re-determine reservation subject-wise and college-wise before declaring results. The Government order directing reservation to be computed on the basis of entire cadre strength was also unsustainable.
Conclusion: The advertisement was quashed in part and upheld only for the carry forward vacancies, with directions for fresh re-determination of reservation.
Final Conclusion: The writ petitions succeeded in part: the special recruitment was curtailed to genuine carry forward vacancies, the fresh vacancies were excluded from backlog treatment, and the reservation exercise was directed to be redone on a subject-wise and college-wise basis.
Ratio Decidendi: For lecturers' appointments in affiliated degree and postgraduate colleges, reservation under the 1994 Act must be applied subject-wise and college-wise, and fresh vacancies cannot be converted into backlog vacancies so as to exclude open competition.
TaxTMI 
