In a recent legal case, the court delved into the complexities surrounding reservation shortfall for the Hindu Nadar community. The focus was on the interpretation of rules and circulars in the context of filling vacancies and addressing the community’s rightful representation. Let’s explore the legal intricacies and implications of this case.
Facts
- Four appellants filed original application before Kerala Administrative Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985.
- Tribunal directed Kerala Public Service Commission to make shortfall in reservations from succeeding rank list.
- Circular issued on 31.8.2010 regarding reservation for SIUC Nadars and Hindu Nadars.
- Notification published on 15.12.2012 for Medical Officer (Homeo) post.
- Grievance was that main rank list for Medical Officer (Homeo) did not have any Hindu Nadar candidate.
- Hindu Nadar community granted 1% reservation from 21.11.2009 with retrospective effect.
- Rank list published on 3.8.2015 included appellants at Sl. Nos. 3, 4, 5, and 6 for Hindu Nadar community.
- Commission restricted implementation of rules to rank list after 21.11.2009.
- Vacancies after 21.11.2009 should be filled from Hindu Nadar community candidates based on rank list from 3.8.2015.
- The High Court held that the Commission could have kept vacancies unfilled if suitable candidates from the Hindu Nadar community were not available for selection.
- The Commission decided to fill up the shortfall by advising candidates from the rank list that came into force on 3.8.2015.
- The Tribunal directed the shortfall in the quota of the Hindu Nadar community to be made good from candidates in the subsequent rank list dated 3.8.2015.
- The Commission’s Circular stated that the Hindu Nadar community would be provided reservation from the rank list published on or after 21.11.2009.
- The High Court set aside the Tribunal’s order and dismissed the OA filed by the appellants.
- The Commission was bound to fill up the shortfall in vacancies reserved for the Hindu Nadar Community as appointments had already been made based on the rank list.
- The Commission assessed the shortfall of the Hindu Nadar Community to be three posts.
- The private respondents challenged the Tribunal’s order before the High Court, arguing that the shortfall in reservation for the Hindu Nadar community had to be adjusted in future vacancies without disturbing the advice already made.
Also Read: Interpretation of Mandatory Statutory Time Limits
Arguments
- Vacancies had to be notified separately for the Hindu Nadar community in case of any shortfall as per Rule 15(a).
- 133
- Appellants waived their right if any by not notifying vacancies for Hindu Nadar community after the publication of the rank list.
- Reservation for the Hindu Nadar community was provided after persistent effort by the community.
- Shortfall vacancies could not be filled from succeeding rank list according to the appellants.
- No recruitment process initiated for shortfall vacancies, hence appellants cannot claim appointment based on subsequent rank list.
- Article 16(4-B) of the Constitution is an enabling provision, the appellants cannot claim a right based on it.
- Rules as amended and Commission’s circular dated 31.08.2010 related to reservation for Hindu Nadar community.
- Challenge to denial of reserved vacancies in the 2009 rank list was not made by the appellants, resulting in a delayed application to the Tribunal.
- Benefit of reservation to the Hindu Nadar community cannot be denied based on the delay in challenging the reservation denial, as per Explanation II in the Rules.
- Commission confirmed a shortfall of three posts after the Rules amendment, leading to the appellants’ appointment in accordance with Tribunal directions.
- The next available post for the Hindu Nadar community would come at Serial No 160.
- Amended rules were made applicable to all ranked lists published on or after 21.11.2009.
- The Commission stated that Rule 15(a) does not apply to the present case, as it does not involve temporary passing over of vacancies or non-availability of candidates.
Also Read: Legal Analysis on Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
Analysis
- Explanation II applies to advice given from the rank list published on or after 21.11.2009 until the Rules were amended.
- The posts available to the Hindu Nadar community after 21.11.2009 must be provided to them.
- The argument of delay or waiver has no factual or legal basis.
- Rule 15(a) of the Rules is inapplicable in the present case as it does not involve temporary passing over of vacancies or non-availability of candidates.
- The Commission did not consider vacancies arising after the amendment of the Rules while making appointments from the rank list.
- The Circular of the Commission and Explanation II address the shortfall in reservation in advices made between 21.11.2009 and the date of the Circular, but do not cover vacancies arising after the amendment of the Rules.
- No advice was issued nor any rank list published during the period specified by Explanation II.
- The claim of appointment is for vacancies that arose after 21.11.2009 when reservations for the Hindu Nadar community were provided.
- The appellants are not relying on the argument based on Article 16(4-B) of the Constitution.
- The submissions made on behalf of Mr. Gupta do not warrant acceptance.
Also Read: C.A. No.-003966-003966 / 2020
Decision
- The appeals are allowed.
- The order and judgment of the High Court is set aside.
- The order and judgment of the Tribunal is restored.
Case Title: DR. ASWATHY R.S.KARTHIKA Vs. DR. ARCHANA M. (2020 INSC 470)
Case Number: C.A. No.-002796-002796 / 2020
