Right of State to provide reservations unaffected by UGC Regulations: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently ruled that the right of the State government to provide reservations for backward classes is unaffected by regulations issued by the University Grants Commission (UGC) [Dr. Abdul Haleem PP v State of Kerala & Ors.].A Division Bench of Justices AK Jayasankaran Nambiar and Mohammed Nias CP stated that UGC Regulations that determine qualifications for selection to various posts in universities in a State cannot affect its reservation policy. "The right of the State to provide reservation is unaffected by the regulations issued by the UGC which determines the qualifications for selection to a post which is binding on the universities," the Court said in its judgment. .It held that since the reservation in appointments to public services has to be decided by a particular State on the basis of data as to the representation of particular classes within the State, the reservation will not apply to other States in the country."It is trite that Article 16 (4) of the Constitution of India is an enabling provision which enables the State to provide backward classes including Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, the reservation in appointments to public services. Such reservation is to be provided on the basis of quantifiable data including the adequacy or inadequacy, as may be of the representation of such classes in government service. Resultantly, such data will vary from State to State and a certification of a particular class as being entitled to reservation in a State cannot ipso facto make it applicable to the other States in the country," the judgment stated..The judgment was delivered on an appeal moved by Dr. Abdul Haleem PP against the decision of a single-judge that had dismissed his petition challenging the appointment of the 5th respondent to the post of Associate Processor in Information Technology at Kannur University in Kerala. The petitioner contended that the application of the fifth respondent could not have been entertained as he is a non-domicile hailing from Karnataka and the principle of reservations envisaged under the provisions Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules will not permit reservation in favour of non-domicile candidates.The University filed a counter-affidavit stating that as per the 2018 UGC Regulation, direct recruitment for the post of Associate Professor shall be on the basis of merit through an all-India test and that there was no bar for a Muslim candidate from any State in India to participate in the selection process.The University and the fifth respondent contended that the latter, though a native of the State of Karnataka, belongs to the Muslim community that is notified as a backward class in Kerala as well as in Karnataka..A single-judge of the High Court had held that Regulation 3.1 of the UGC applicable to the University meant that there was no exclusion of non-Keralites in the notification. This was challenged by the petitioner by way of the instant appeal. The petitioner relied on the judgments of the apex court in Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificates to SC & ST v Union of India, MCD v Veena and Ors., Pankaj Kumar v State of Jharkhand & Ors. and Raj Kumar Meena v Rankaswami and Ors. to contend that a candidate who has been certified as belonging to SC/ST/OBC in a particular State cannot claim benefits or privileges on the basis of the said certification in another State..Having considered the rival contentions and on going through the principles cited in the said judgments, the Division Bench held that the fifth respondent was not entitled to stake his claim in a reserved seat on the basis of the certificate issued to him from the State of Karnataka. .The Court stated that the reservation policy of a State need not be tinkered with so as to be in line with the UGC Regulation."The notification inviting the candidates on an All India basis in accordance with the UGC Regulations cannot mean that the reservation of posts which was in accordance with the Constitutional mandate as implemented within the State is affected in any manner," the judgement said..Therefore, it set aside the selection of the fifth respondent and directed the University to appoint the petitioner, being the second rank holder in the selection, within a period of one month. .Senior Advocate George Poonthottam instructed by advocate Nisha George appeared for the petitioner. Senior Advocate P Ravindran instructed by advocate PK Ibrahim appeared for the fifth respondent while Senior Government Pleader AJ Varghese appeared for the State..[Read Judgment]