Dr. Rajesh Singh Tomar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3052 MP

          HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
                   BENCH AT GWALIOR
                      W.P. No.5695/2021
 ( Dr. Rajesh Singh Tomar and others Vs. The State of M.P. and
                           others )
                                  (1)

Gwalior, dated : 7/7/2021

      Shri R.B.S.Tomar, Advocate for the petitioners.

      Shri N.S.Tomar, G.A. for respondent no.1/State

Shri Kaushlendra Singh Tomar, Advocate for respondent nos.

2 and 3.

Heard through Video Conferencing.

By filing this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, petitioners have assailed the legality, validity and propriety of

the advertisement dated 4/2/2021 (Annexure P/1) issued by

respondent no.3/University for appointment on the posts of

Professor, Associate Professor and Assistant Professor, wherein the

University has reserved posts for SC, ST, OBC, EWS candidates

treating the University as one unit by applying the ordinance known

as "The Central Education Institutions (Reservation In Teachers'

Cadre) Ordinance, 2019" (for short "Ordinance, 2019").

2. Brief facts leading to filing of this petition are that petitioners

are qualified and eligible for appointment on the posts advertised.

Their teaching experience is also in accordance with the

advertisement. The Central Government had issued Ordinance, 2019

on 7/3/2019 which provides for reservation of posts in appointments

by direct recruitment in the teacher cadre in Central Educational

Institutions established, maintained or aided by the Central

Government. The said ordinance was circulated by the UGC to all HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR W.P. No.5695/2021 ( Dr. Rajesh Singh Tomar and others Vs. The State of M.P. and others )

the Registrars of Central Universities; State Universities who are

receiving grant-in-aid from the Central Government/UGC vide letter

dated 8/3/2019. Meanwhile, the State Government also issued order

dated 23/9/2019 directing all the Registrars of the Universities of

State of Madhya Pradesh to follow the directions issued in the letter

dated 8/3/2019.

3. The basic grievance of the petitioners is that numerous

subjects/disciplines have been grouped together and total number of

Professors, Associate Professors and Assistant Professors have been

calculated and thereafter reservation roster has been applied in such

a way that all the posts which fall on roster point are reserved.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that because of the

aforesaid anomaly, the petitioners, even though qualified, are not

able to apply for the respective posts in pursuance of the

advertisement. The main issue before this Court is as to whether

respondent no.3/University falls within the purview of Central

Educational Institution or not and whether the same is covered by the

definition of "Central Education Institution" as defined in clause 2(c)

of the Ordinance, 2019. He further submits that if the same is not

covered by the definition, the respondent no.3/University cannot be

treated as one unit. The aforesaid issue had come up for

consideration before the Principal Seat of this Court in W.P. No.

8323/2016, wherein it has been clearly held that single posts of HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR W.P. No.5695/2021 ( Dr. Rajesh Singh Tomar and others Vs. The State of M.P. and others )

different disciplines cannot be clubbed together unless it is shown

that such posts are interchangable. In compliance of the aforesaid

order, respondent/State Government had issued the order dated

21/11/2017 wherein the previous orders dated 11/12/2014 and

3/4/2017 treating Universities as one unit, were cancelled. Learned

counsel has placed reliance on decision in the case of Dr.

Chakradhar Paswan Vs. State of Bihar ((1988)2 SCC 214) and

that in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. K.Govindappa ((2009)1

SCC 1). He further contended that real test for the purpose of

grouping is whether a single post in a particular discipline should be

treated as a single post for the purpose of reservation within the

meaning of Article 16(4) of the Constitution. It is vehemently

contended that in order to apply reservation within a cadre, there

must be plurality of posts. In absence of interchangeability of posts

in different disciplines, each single post must be treated as a solitary

post for the purpose of reservation. Therefore, such grouping runs

contrary to the judgment of the Apex Court and, hence, the

reservation applied by grouping the posts is bad in law.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents

submitted that the Ministry of Human Resources and Development,

University Grants Commission and Department of Personnel and

Training are competent to issue appropriate directions from time to

time. The grouping has been done on the basis of directions issued HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR W.P. No.5695/2021 ( Dr. Rajesh Singh Tomar and others Vs. The State of M.P. and others )

from time to time. Therefore, the University is competent to

undertake the exercise of grouping in relation to certain posts to be

filled up through direct recruitment. It is submitted that the said

decision is neither without authority of law nor suffers from any

irregularity.

6. Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

7. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, it is clear that the petitioners

have assailed the recruitment process on twin grounds; firstly

contending that singular posts, as per advertisement, cannot be

reserved otherwise it would amount to 100% reservation on the said

solitary post. Secondly, it is contended that grouping of posts by

respondents is impermissible because different singular posts are not

interchangeable.

Clause 2(c) of the Ordinance, 2019 reads thus :-

"(c) "Central Educational Institution" means -

(i) a university established or incorporated by or under a Central Act;

(ii) an institution of national importance established by an Act of Parliament;

(iii) an institution, declared as an institution deemed to be University under section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, and maintained by or receiving aid from the Central Government;

(iv) an institution maintained by or receiving aid from the Central Government, whether directly or indirectly, and affiliated to an institution referred to in sub-clause (i) or sub-clause (ii), or a constituent unit of an institution referred to in sub- clause (iii); and

(v) an educational institution established by the Central Government under the Societies HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR W.P. No.5695/2021 ( Dr. Rajesh Singh Tomar and others Vs. The State of M.P. and others )

Registration Act, 1860."

From the above, it is clear that respondent no.3 is neither a

University established or incorporated under a Central Act; nor it is

an Institution of national importance established by an Act of

Parliament; nor it is an Institution declared as deemed to be

University under section 3 of the UGC Act. Further, the contention

of learned counsel for the respondents that respondent no.3

-Institution falls within the meaning of clause 2(c)(iv) (above) is also

not acceptable, inasmuch as though the Institution may be receiving

aid from the Central Government but it does not fulfill the affiliation

criteria to an Institution referred to in sub-clause (i) and (ii) nor it is a

constituent unit of an institution referred to in sub-clause (iii).

Further, unless it is shown that the subjects are same and the

posts are interchangeable, grouping is contrary to law and

impermissible. In view of the aforesaid, though respondents may be

having power of grouping the posts, the action of grouping the

isolated posts of different subjects, is unjustified and runs contrary to

the law laid down in the cases of Dr. Chakradhar Paswan (Supra)

and K.Govindappa (Supra). If such action is permitted, it would

amount to 100% reservation of singular posts which would run

contrary to the constitutional mandate.

8. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the impugned

advertisement dated 4/2/2021 (Annexure P/1), to the extent it relates HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR W.P. No.5695/2021 ( Dr. Rajesh Singh Tomar and others Vs. The State of M.P. and others )

to the posts in question for which petitioners are eligible, is set aside.

The rest of the advertisement shall remain intact.

The petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above.

(S.A.Dharmadhikari) Judge (and)

ANAND SHRIVASTAVA 2021.07.08 11:57:30 +05'30'