# Tim UNIVERSITY OF COCHIN v. DR. N. RAMAN NAIR & ORS

- **Citation:** [1975] 2 S.C.R. 526
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1974-10-30
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 885 of 1974
- **Bench:** M. H. Beg, v. R. KRrfllNA IYRR, N. L. UNTWALlA
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/tim-university-of-cochin-v-dr-n-raman-nair-ors-6176
- **Pages:** 12

## Headnote

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 purpose 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 vacancies 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 proviG
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

## Text

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 purpose 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 vacancies 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 proviG
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 itself not permissible, and not an adaptation for the purpose. of applying the
rules to the University. The two parts are inseparable and therefore the whole
resolution is invalid. [S36F-537q
! '·
't'.
(6) The appointee as well as the respondent are now both holding posts of
readers in the Hindi Department as the needs of the University have expanded;
but it is necessary to determine the order of their appointments after the University
has laid down it3 own method of reasonable classification either of the whole
teaching staff of the University collectively or by putting various categories of
the teaching staff into .separate compartments for the applications of the rules.
The University may treat all the teaching posts as belonging to one class for the
application of the rules. On the other band, it may treat only post of readers
in all subjects or in a particular subject as a category by itself for the application of the rules. But it c~nnot exempt any class or category such as professor
from the operation of the rules altogether. It is desirable that the University
should be left to make its own reasonable classification in accordance with
these principles and to determine which of the two readers was entitled to be
appointed earlie.r. [5370-FJ
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 885 of 1974.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment & Order dated the
29th November, 1973 of the Kerala High Court in Q. P. No. 1(}2 of
1973.
A. K. Sen, M. Ramachandran and A. S. Nambiar, for the Appellant.
T. S. Krishnamurthi Iyer and N. Sudkakaran, for Respondent
No. 1.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
BEG, J.-The University of Cochin was granted special leave to
appeal to this Court against the judgment and order of the Kerala
High Court allowing a writ Petition of the respondent Dr. N. Raman
Nair who had applied unsuccessfully on 15-10-1972 for the post of
Reader in the Department of Hindi after coming into force of the
Cochin University Act 30 Of 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act,').
The High Court had quashed a resolution, passed by the Syndicate on
6-1-1973, for appointing Dr. A. Ramchandra Dev to the post. The
High Court had also quashed the resolution of the Syndicate of the
University passed on 17-7-1972, the relevant part of which runs as
follows:
"Resolved that
1. the rules mentioned under section 6(2) of the Cochin
University Act, 1971, be implemented in the case of teacbH
ing staff as a class except in the case of post of Professor
which shall be filled up exclusively in consideration of merit:
but the reservation quota against this category should be provided additionally in the category of readers, Lecturers,
Teaclrlng Assistant, etc. taken collectively".
3-L319Sup. CI/75
•
528
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1975] 2 s.c.R.
It had directed the University to make appointments in conformity · A
with Section 6(2) of the Act. Section 6 lays down :
6. "Uni1•ersity open to All Classes and Creeds:-
( 1) No person shall, on· grounds only of religion, race,
caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence, language, political opinion or any of them, be ineligible for, or discriminate?
against in respect of any employment or office under the Umversity or membership of any of the authorities or bodies of
the University or admission to any degree or course of study
in the University.
(2) In making appointments to posts in any service,
class or category under the University, the University shall
mutatis mutandis, observe the provisions of clauses (a), (b)
( c) of rule 14 and the provisions of rules 15, 16 and 17 of
the Keirala State and Subordinate Service Rules as demanded
from time to time".
Section 6 of the Act, read as a whole, indicates that it was meant
to ·eliminatt1 unjustifiable discrimination. The provisions of Sec.tion
6 (1) are directed agah1st discrimination against particular individuals
on any of the grounds given there. Section 6(2) is meant to ensure
.equality of treatment between citizens as members of groups, and, ·in
particular, to enable "backward" classes to secure appointments s1:> as
to remove the gap between the "advanced" .and the "backward". In
doing so, it may appear that the principle of equality of opportunity
·on the basis. of individual merit is being modified. Even if that be: the
result, the wider object is to promote equality between groups of
<Citizens.
Rule 14, mentioned in Section 6(2) lays down· a rule of rotation
in making appointments.
Rule indicates that the principle of
minimum qualifications to determine: whether candidates are suitable
for selection is not abandoned. .Rule 16 provides for a "sub-rotation"
among sub·:groups of major backward classes. This concept is fur.
~er explllined and elaborated iIJ Rule 17. These rules are set out bi~low
10 toto.
B
c
D
E
F
"14. Reservatio11 of apPOintments.-Where the Special
Rules lay down that the prmciple of ·reservation of appointments shall apply to any service, class or category, or. where
in the case of any service, class or category for which no
spe.cial ·Rules have been issued, the Goverrunent have by
notificiltion in the ('razette declared that the principle of reservation of appointments shall apply to such service, class
or category, appointments by direct recrultment to such service, class or category shall be made on the following
basis:·.-
G
(a)I The unit .of. appointmeJ!:t for the Ptll'POSe of this rule
shall be 20, of which two shall be reserved for scheduled
castes and scheduled tribes andl 8 shall be reserved for the
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
COCHIN UNIVERSITY V. N. RAMAN (Beg, J.)
5 2 9
other Backward classes and the remaining 10 shall be filled
on the basis of merit.
Provided that one out of every. five posts reserved for
Scheduled Castell and Scheduled Tribes shall go to a Scheduled
Tribe
candidate
only
in
the
absence
of
a
Scheduled Tribe Candidate, it shall go to a Scheduled Caste
candidate.
(b) The claims of members of Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes· and Other Backward Classes shall also be
considered for the appointments which shall be filled on the
basis of merit and where a candidate belonging to a Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe or Other Backward Class is selected on the basis of merit, the number of posts reserved for
scheduled castes, scheduled tribes or for Other Backward
Classes as they case may be, shall not in any way be affected.
( c) Appointments under this rule shall be made in the
order of rotation specified below in every of 20 vacancies.
1. Open COmpetition.
2. Other Backward Classes.
3. Open Competition.
4. Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
5. Open Competition.
6. Other Backward Classes.
7. Open Competition.
8. Other Backward Classes.
9. Open Competition.
10. Other Backward Classes
11. Open Competition.
12. Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
13. Open Competition.
14. Other Backward Classes.
15. Open Competition.
· 16. Other Backward Classes.
17. Open Competition .
. 18. Other Backward Classes.
19. Open Competition.
20. Other Backward Classes.
H
Provided that the fourth turn in the third. rotation and
the twelfth turn in the fifth rotation shall go to Scheduled
Tribe candidates and in the absence of scheduled tribe candidates, they shall go to Scheduled Castes candidates.
·
530
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1975] 2 s.C.R ..
Provided that the rule shall not apply in the case of
appointments of near rdatives of military personnel killed,
permanently disabled or reported to be mi&sing in action if
they are or have been wholly dependent on such personnel
and they shall be given preference, in the matter of appointment to Government Service provided, they possess the prescribed qualifications and subject to the condition that preference in the matter of appointment shall be given only to
one relation in '9e case of each such personnel.
Explanation :-The term "Near Relatives" means
the
widows/wives, son.s, daughters, sisters, brothers, fathers,
mother; nieces and neph~ws of th1~ military personnel.
15. If there is no suitable candidate for selection from a
particular community classified as "Other Backward Classes"
or from the group of communities classified as "Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes" in the tum allotted for them
in the integrated cycle combining the rotation in cl a use ( c)
of rule 14 and the sub-rotation in sub-rule (2) of rule 17,
the said community or group shall be passed over and the
post shall be filled up in the following manner :-
If a suitable candidate is available for selection in the
community or group immediately next to the passed over
community or group in the said cycle, he shall be selected.
If no such candidate is available in that co111munity or group,
selection shall be made from the community or group .in the
said cycle, he shall be selected. If no such candidate is
available in that community or group, selection shall be made
from the community or group next following, strictly in the
order of rotation. If no suitable candidate is available for
selection in any of the said communities or groups, selection
shall be made from among the open competition candidates.
The benefit of the turn thus forfeited to a community, or
group by reason of it being passed over shall be resorted to
it, at the earliest possi~le opportunity, if a suitable candidate
from that community or group is available for selection by
making adjustment against the claims of the community or
group that derived the extra benefit by reason of such passing
over;
Provided that in no year reservations including carrying
forward vacancies. to a category of post shall exceed 50%
of the total number of vacancies for
which selec.tion by
direct recruitment to that category is resorted to in . that
year:
Provided further that the right of restoration of the turn
shall lapse with the expiry of three years from the date of
the passing over;
·
Provided also that the ~aid right of restoration shall not
extend to a case where the selection has gone, to an open
competition candidate.
A
B
c
-D
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
COCHIN UNIVERSITY V. N. RAMAN (Beg, J.)
531
Note :-The year of reservation referred to above shall
be from the 15th June of a calendar year to 14th June of the
succeeding calendar year. The rotation referred to above
shall commence from 15"6-1967 and the outstanding compensation due to communities in the cycle of rotation upto
15-6-1967 will be treated as lapsed.
16. There shall be subrotation among major groups of
Other Backward Gasses.
17 (1 )". The grouping of Other Backward Classes for the
above purpose shall be as indicated below :-
1. Ezhavas and Thiyyas.
2. Muslims.
3. Latin Catholics S.1.U.C. and Anglo-Indians.
4. Scheduled Caste converts to Christianity,
5. Other Back'Ward Classes put together i.e. Communities other than those mentioned in items 1 to 4 above
included in the list of "Other Backward Gasses".
(2) The 40% reservation allowed to Other Backward
Classes shall be distributed among the different groups of
Backward Gasses in'the followitig proportion:-
Out of every 40 appointments 14 shall be given to
Ezhavas and Thiyyas, 10 to Muslims, 5 to !atin Catholics,
S.l.U.C. and Anglo-Indians, 1 to Scheduled Caste converts
to Christianity and 10 to Other Backward Gasses put together.
The following shall be the rotation by which posts reserved for Other Backward Classes will be distributed among
the various groups coming under the class :-
1. Ezhavas and Thiyyas.
F
2. Muslims.
3. Latin Catholics, S.I.lJ.C. and Anglo-Indians.
4. Other Backward Gasses.
5. Ezhavas and Thiyyas.
6. Muslims.
G
7. Ezhavas and Thiyyas.
8. Other Backward Gasses.
9. Latin Catholics, S.l.U.C. and Anglo-Indians.
10. Muslims.
11. Ezhavas and Thiyyas.
1-1
12. Other Backward Gasses.
13. Ezhavas and Thi>'yas.
14. Muslims.
15. Latin Catholics, S.I.U.C. and Anglo-Indians.
532
SUPREME COURT REPORT'S
[19175] 2 s.c.R.
16. Other Backward Classes.
17. Ezhavas and Thiyyas.
18. Muslims.
19. Scheduled Caste converts to Christianity.
20. Other Backward Classes.
21. Ezhavas and Thiyyas.
22. Muslims.
23. Ezhavas and Thlyyas.
24. Other Backward Classes.
25. Ezhavas and Thiyyas.
26. Muslims.
27. Latin Catholics, S.l.U.C. and Anglo-Indians.
28. Other Backward Classes.
29. Ezhavas and Thiyyas.
30. Muslims.
31. Ezhavas and Thlyyas.
32. Other Backward Classes.
33. Ezhavas and Thiyyas.
34. Muslims.
35. Ezhavas and Thiyya_s.
36. Other Backward Classes.
37. Latin, Catholics, S.I.U.C. and, Anglo-Indians ..
38. Muslims.
39. Ezhavas ahd Thiyyas.
40. Other Backward Classe~.
Explanation :-The
expression
"Other
Backward
Classes" referred to in items 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32,
36 and 40 shall mean Backward Classes referred to in item
5 under sub-rule (1) of this rule".
·
A
B
c
D
E
F
It is not disputed that the petitiontir-respondent N(). 1 Dr. Nair,
stood 1st in the order of merit as determined by the Beard of AppointG
mcnts for the. posts of a Reader. in the Department of Hindi in the
University. The petitioner-respondent's case was that the post of
Reader in Hindi is in itself a particular category. He also said :
''.If the principle for reservation of appointments provided
in Rules 14 to 17 of the General Rules is applied to tlie post
of Reader in Hindi, the petitioner alon~ is_ entitled to· get it
H
since he secured the 1st rank in the selection and since the
first post is resorved for open competition (on merits as· provided in Sub Rule ( c) of Rule 14) ".
' '-,
.,
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
COCHIN UNIVERSITY v. N. RAMAN (Beg, !.)
533
The petitioner submitted that the principle of reservation had been
wrongly interpreted by the University in its resolution of 17-7-1972
(Ex. P. 2) when it laid down that principles of reservation for appointment should be .applied to posts in a service, or class or catego1
1y
collectively and not separately. The . whole case, therefore,
hinged
round an interpretation of Rules 14 to 17 and their impact on the
principle of rotation as applied to "service, class or category under
the University".
-Section 6(2) laws down the mandatory duty upon the University
to observe clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Rul'e 14, as well as Rules 15,
16 and 17 of the ruleS" set out above. But, it does not indicate the
manner in which the classification of members of a service under tile
University has to be made for the purposes of applying these rules.
Inasmuch as every statutory power has to be exercised reasonably, we
can say that the classification has to be reasonable. Thus the University may treat all the teaching posts as belonging to one class for the
application of the rules.
On the other hand, it may treat only posts
of Readers in all subjects or in a particular subject as a category by
itself for the application of these rules. It cannot exempt any class
or category, such as Professors, from the operation of the rules altogether.· Only iLit so classifies all posts in a service under the University as to make its classifica.tion prima facie unreasonable, could
the validity of the classification made by it be assailed. The power is
presumed to be exercised reasonabfy on the strength of facts and
circumstances relevant for purposes intended to be achieved by the
classification. These purposes have also to pass the test of legality
and constitutionality.
Clause (c) ·of. Rule 14 lays down a scheme of rotation for every
block of 20 vacancies. But, it does not specifically say that the rule
of rotation will be applied in the order in which vacancies occur. We
however, think that, by necessary implication, the rule is intended to
be applied to vacancies in the order in which they occur. It could
not be meant to be applied with reference to the date on which a
vacancy is announed or advertised because these are fortuitous matters
over which those in power in the University may, if so inclined, be
able to exercise control. The whole object of such rules is to introduce
fixity of principle and of the method of its application so as to remove,
so far as possible, uncertainty and opportunities for abuse of power.
That being the object of such a rule, it seems obvious to us that the
rule must have been intended to operate with reference to the dates
on which the vacancies occur and not with reference to some other
events such as the dates of declaration or advertisement of . the
vacancies.
The rules were made bv the Govt. in 1967. Hence, the note occurs
at the bottom of Rule 15 that the rotation provided for will commence from 15-6-1967. This could not obviously be done under
the Cochin University Act 30 of 1971, which was published in the
State Gazette on 13-8-1971. Therefore. for the purposes of applying
these rules to the University, the rotation could only apply to vacancies existing on the date when the Act came into force and in the order
in which they had occurred.
534
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1975] 2 S.C.R
It appears that the Syndicate of the University appointed a Staude
ing Committee to draw up a list of the vacancies, in the class of posts
with which we are concerned, at the time when the Act came into
force, under which the appointments were to be made in accordan1~e
with the rotatio1;1 rules. This list (Ex. p. 3) drawn up at a meeting
of the Standing Committee of the Syndicate held on 1-1·1973 giving
the number and designations of vacant posts, dates of vacancies, and
allocation for the purposes of the rotation rule and the names of the
candidates appointed, runs as follows :-
"Regarding the apP.ointments made so far and the appointments to be maoe from among those who have been
selecte9 after advertisement and interview, the Committee
examined the details of allocations. The following is the re·
sult of the review:-
-----·-·-----·
-
No.
Name of post
Date of
Allrn:ation
Name of
candidate
Carried
over
1. Lecturer, SMS.
2. Lecturer, SMS.
3. Professor in Hindi
4. Professor in SMS.
5. Professor in SMS.
6. Reader in SMS.
7. Lecturer in SMS.
8. Lecturer in SMS.
9. Lecturer in SMS.
occurrence
of vacancy
APPOINTMENT MADE ON 17-7-1972
10-7-1971
9-12-1971
17-7-1972
Open
Res
Ezhava.
Open
Mrs.
Annies Georgi·.
Dr. K. C. Sankarana
Narayanan.
Dr. N. E. · Viswanatha
Iyer.
APPOINTMENT MADE ON 6-11-1972
10-7-1971 Res. Sch.
Dr. N.
Paramaswar~n
C&T
Nair Sch. C&T.
converted
as open.
16-8-1972 Open
16-8-1972 Muslim.
16-8-1972 Open
converted
as Sch. C&T.
16-8-1972 Res. (L.C.)
N.A.
16-8-1972 Open
Sri N.
Reddiar
Renganatha
Not joined.
·Dr. K. N. Nair, Res.
Muslim.
Dr.
Jose Thomas
Payyapally
Sch. C &T
C/o. is
lost and it is
filled open.
Dr. C. N. Pursushothaman Nair, L. C. Not
joined No. C/o. as it is
filled by open.
Sri Alex. P. Lukose.
POST TO BE FILLED ON 6-1-1973
10. Reader in Hindi
10-7-1971 Res. O.B.C.
This vacancy has occurred earlier.
11. Research Asstt. in Law
10-7-1972 Open.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
12. Lecturer in Physics
3-5-1972 Res. Sch. C&T.
H
13. Lecturer in Physics
10-12-1972 Op,en.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
<:OCH,IN UNIVERSITY V, N. RAMAN (Beg, /,)
535
The above mentioned doc:ument was signed by the Pro Vice Chanceilor of the U.niversity. It indicates that the vacancy of a Reader
in the Department of Hinqi was the first to occur. Hut, instead of
allocating it to the open competition class, for the purpose of apply·
ing the rotation rule, it was allocated to the reserved block of posts.
This was also an illegality complained of by the respondent Dr. Nair ..
The stand of the University was that it had followed the rotation
rule according to which appointments were to be made alternately by
a general or open competition and by choice ,ri:stricted to backward
groups. Dr. A. Ramchandra Dev, however, took up the position that
the University could even alter the rules, inasmuch as it had the power
to apply them "mutatis-mutandis", according to situations as
they
arose. It appears that, at the time of arguments in the High Court,
the University adopted the stand of' Dr. A. Ramchandra Dev on this
question. It seems to have been contended in the High Court on
behalf of the University that it was empowered to make the changes
in the rules. to meet the particular needs of the University so as to
enable it to implement the provisions of Section 6 ( 2) of the Act in
the way it thought fit.
We think that the High Court was right in holding that the power
to apply the rules "mutatis-mutandis'' d~s not include the power of
amending the substantial provision in the rules. The High Court
held : "Formal and inconsequential changes for dovetailing the rules
into,the frame work of. the Ac.t, alone seem to be contemplated". We
think that the· Hi~h Court was_ right in confining the power of the
University to making qnly what are necessary "adapt!ltions" so as to
make the rules applicable to those in the service of the lJniversity in
place of the Government servants for whom they, were promulgated.
It could include a power to ignore only such parts as may be inapplicable or in conflict with Act itself. An instance of this would be, as
pointed out above, commencement of the application of the rules after
the Act came into force instead of in 1967 when, according to a note
in Rule 15, the Rules had to be enforced. The High Court rightly
held that the Syndicate could not, in any case, alter the provisions of
Section 6(2) of the Act itself which made it incumbent on the University to apply the rotation rule, as contemplated under the rules, to
eveey "service, class or category under the University". It held that
''if section 6(2) were to operate on its own terms, selection to the post
of Reader, for the first time made by the University, should, in the
first .turn, go to the candidate adjudged best on open competition, and
only on the next turn or turns to candidates on the principle of ·com-
. munal rotation".
If the post of Reader in the Depart.ment of Hindi w~s the 1st to
arise in service under the University, as appears to be the position
from Ex. P. 3, an application of the rotation principle would compel
the first appointment to take place on tl}.e basis of an open competition.
That principle could certainly not be modified by the University by
taking sh~lter behind the words "mutatis-mutandis". It has been
stated by the learned Counsel for the University that the validity of
536
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1975] 2 s.c.R.
the impugned resolution may be doubtful so far as the withdrawal •Df
the post of Professor from the applicaticm of the abovementioned rules
is concerned, but, learned Counsel submitted, we need not decide that
question as we arc not concerned here with an appointment to the
post of a Professor.
If', however, the Professors and Lecturers and
Readers were all to fall in one class it may become necessary ito
consider this question alsq.
Moreover, we indicated below the two
parts of the resolution do not seem to be separable. It is true that
Section 6, sub. s. ( 2) lodges in the University a power to determine
what should constitute class or category of service under the University.
No rigid formula to fit all circumstances can be laid down
and the authority concerned must be left to define, subject to constitutional limitations, what should be a class or category.
But, this
power would not, in our opinion, enable the University to dispense
with the application of the rotation principle itself to any particular
class or category of service under the University as appears to have
been the real object of the resolution of 17-7-1972 with regard to
Professors.
The word ·service' does seem to us to denote, as the High Court
held, various classes or categories of posts within it. It is obviously
the widest class.
A classification which puts the whole teaching staff
in one class for purposes of applying the rule would seem unassailabk
But, one which puts all classes and categories of service from the
peons to Professors together may, by destroying the distinction between classes and categories of service, seem to run counter to the
words used in Section 6 ( 2). As that question is not before us, we
refrain from deciding it.
This provision appears to us to be intended
to ensure that, whatever may be the kind of post to be held by a
person in a service "under the University'', principles laid down in
Rules 14, 15, 16 and 17 must apply in making appointments to it.
We are not called upon to decide here what is meant by a service
"under the University" us it is admitted by both sides that this description applies to the post of a Reader.
Nor have
we
to
determine hem the reasonableness of a classification which may put
the teaching and non-teaching staff in one class or category.
It was submitted by learned Counsel for the University, that the
rc-solution of 17-7-1972 was intended to do no more than to categorise ''Readers, Lecturers and Teaching Assistants," by putting them
into a single class or category, for applying the rules to them "collectively''. If that is all it was meant to do, apart from attempting to
place posts of Professors outside rules 14 to 17, the intention is expressed in very unsatisfactory and
misleading language. It is
of
course, open to the University to pass a resolution which does not
contravene Section 6(2) of the Act.
A
resolution which merely
classifies or cat·~goriscs posts in a reasonable manner would not offend
against statutory provisions.
The resolution of. 17-7-1972 is, however. atleast partlv inv~lid, on the face of it, by attempting to place
appointments to the PQS'i of a Professor outside the reservation and
rotation ru'cs, altogether. and it is partly atleast ambiguous so that it
is difficult to decipher its exact meaning.
The second part seems
A
B
c
D
E
F
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
COCHIN UNIVERSITY 1'. N. RAMAN (Beg, J.)
537
designed, i_n so far as one may guess its meaning, to provide for
Other Bt1c~ward Classes" a compensatory quota of reserved appointments in a category othel' than that of Professors in lieu of the removal
of posts of Professors from subj~ction to the rules. If this is the real
object, as it seems to be, the intention was to alter the scope or ambit
of the rotation rule. The second part is apparently a consequcnc..:
of the exclusion of the Professors from the operation of the rulcswhich it itself not permissible-and not an adaptation for the purpose>
of applying the rules to the University.
Thus, the two parts seem
to be inseparable.
We, therefore, consider the resolution to be wholly
invalid.
The validity of Section 6(2) has not been questioned l'ither
in the High Court or here.
We have been informed at the Bar that both the 1st and the 3rd
Responticnts, that is to say, Dr. Nair and Dr. Ramchaudra Dev, arc
at present holding posts of Readers in the Hindi department as the
needs of the University have cxpand..:d.
It may however, be ncccs·
sary io determine the order of their appointments after the Univcr'
sity has laid down its own method of reasonable classification l'ither
of the whole teaching staff of the University collectively or by putting
various categories of the t·eaching staff into separate compartments for
the application of the rules. We have held that the University has
this power provided it is exercised on good and reasonable grounds.
We have only indicated that, on such facts as have come to our notice,
the particular vacancy for which both Dr. Raman Nair and Dr. Ram.
chanclra Dev were competing seemed to us to be the first to arise for
the purposes of applying Section 6(2) of the Act. As this matter was
not fully investigated, and the power is vested in the University to
make its own classification within the limits indicated by us, we think
that it is desirable that the University should be left to make its own
reasonable classification in accordance with the principles laid down
above by us so as to determine which of the two Readers was cntiaed
to be appointed earlier.
In other words, the Syndicate of the University will have to pass a fresh resolution which is in accordance
with the law as expl'ained by us and then to apply the rules in conformity with such a resolution in exercise of the powers possessed
by the University.
TI1e result is that we dismiss this appeal subject to the elucidation
given by us of the manner in which the directions issued by the fiigh
Court to the University to act in accordance with Section 6(2) of the
Act arc to be carried out by the University.
We make no order as
to costs.
V.P.S.
Appeal dismissed.