Shaffique, J
1. The University of Calicut and its Registrar have preferred this appeal challenging judgment dated 10/8/2020 in WP(C) No.34578/2019 by which the
learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and direction had been issued to the appellant University to appoint the petitioner in the place of
Dr.Aboobacker Puthanpurayil against the vacancy of Principal that had arisen at Kadmat on 5/12/2019.
2. The short facts of the case would disclose that the petitioner, the 1st respondent herein, retired as Principal. His complaint was that though he was
the 2nd rank holder in a select list prepared by the Calicut University pursuant to Ext.P30 notification dated 31/12/2018 for appointment to the post of
Principal on contract basis at P.M.Sayeed Calicut University Centre, Andrott and Calicut University Centre, Kadmat, after appointing one
Vijayakumaran C.P.V, who was rank No.1 at Andrott, he being the 2nd rank holder, was not appointed in the vacancy at Kadmat.
3. The appellant University took up a contention that the rank list prepared for mainlanders have been rotated for keeping the communal rotation.
While taking into account the communal rotation, petitioner was given appointment earlier and following the present rotation, after appointing
Sri.Vijayakumaran at Andrott under the open category, the next turn is for a Muslim candidate against which Dr.Aboobacker Puthanpurayil has been
appointed i.e., 15th turn of OC and 16th turn of Muslim. Learned Single Judge however observed that the contention that appointments are made
based on the turns of communal rotation cannot be accepted since the notification does not say that the appointments are made applying communal
rotation. Accordingly, it was found that giving appointment to Dr.Aboobacker Puthanpurayil, who is rank No.4, in preference to the petitioner, is
illegal.
4. While impugning the aforesaid judgment, learned counsel for the appellant specifically made reference to S.6(2) of the University Act, which reads
as under:-
“(2) In making appointments by direct recruitment to posts in any class or category in each department under the University, or to posts
of non-teaching staff in the University, the University shall mutatis mutandis observe the provisions of clauses (a), (b) and (c) of rule 14 and
rules 15, 16 and 17 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958, as amended from time to timeâ€.
5. He also placed reliance on a Full Bench judgment of this Court in State of Kerala and Another v Rafia Rahim (1978 KLT 369) wherein, this Court
had occasion to consider how the communal rotation has to be given effect in terms with Rules 14 to 17 of the KS & SSR.
6. We heard Sri.Liju V.Stephen, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/writ petitioner and Sri.S.Manu, learned Central Government
counsel. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent attempted to support the view taken by the learned Single Judge. Learned Single Judge proceeded on
the basis that there is nothing to indicate that Rules 14 to 17 of KS & SSR would apply in relation to the selection being made by the University. But
as rightly pointed out by the counsel for appellants, Section 6(2) clearly indicates that all appointments have to be made observing the provisions of
Rules 14 to 17 of the KS & SSR. Under such circumstances, the University is bound to follow the reservation policy, in which event, there is
justification for appointing Dr.Aboobacker Puthanpurayil as the candidate falling under the 16th turn of Muslim category overlooking the rank of the
petitioner.
7. Under such circumstances, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge committed error in evaluating the legal and factual aspects involved in
the matter. Accordingly, the said judgment has to be set aside and we do so.
In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The writ petition stands dismissed.
