The Supreme Court held that when a candidate selected and appointed under the Cochin University of Science and Technology Act resigns after joining service, the vacancy created by such resignation must be filled by applying the rule of communal rotation prescribed under the Act and not automatically by appointing the next candidate from the existing rank list. The Court affirmed the decisions of the Kerala High Court, which had upheld the University’s stand that statutory provisions relating to communal rotation govern the filling up of such vacancies, even if the rank list prepared during the recruitment process remains valid at the time the vacancy arises.
The dispute arose from a recruitment process initiated by the University for a single post of Associate Professor in Inorganic Chemistry, which was earmarked for a Scheduled Caste candidate. A rank list was prepared and the first-ranked candidate was appointed to the post. After serving for more than a year, the selected candidate resigned upon obtaining a professorship in another institution. The appellant, who was ranked second in the same rank list, claimed entitlement to appointment to the vacated post on the ground that the rank list continued to remain in force and that vacancies arising during its validity period should be filled from the list.
The Supreme Court examined the relevant provisions of the CUSAT Act and noted that while the Act provides for the validity of rank lists for a specified period, it also mandates strict adherence to communal rotation in appointments. The Court explained that communal rotation is a substantive statutory requirement that applies whenever a vacancy is filled, and that it cannot be suspended merely because a rank list is still operative. According to the Court, treating the vacancy caused by resignation as a simple continuation of the earlier recruitment would defeat the purpose of communal rotation and render that statutory provision ineffective during the entire validity period of the rank list.
The Court rejected the argument that the next candidate in the rank list acquires an automatic right to appointment upon the resignation of the selected candidate. It reiterated the settled principle that inclusion in a rank list does not confer a vested right to appointment, and that any appointment must always conform to the governing statutory framework. The Court emphasized that statutory rules relating to reservation and rotation override claims based solely on merit ranking when vacancies are filled.
In its reasoning, the Supreme Court applied the doctrine of harmonious construction, holding that all provisions of the statute must be read together and given effect. It observed that the provision relating to the validity of rank lists and the provision mandating communal rotation must operate in tandem. An interpretation that allows the rank list to override communal rotation until its expiry would undermine legislative intent and make the rotation provision ineffective for a substantial period.
The Court also clarified that the vacancy created after resignation is a fresh vacancy for the purpose of applying communal rotation, even though it arises from an earlier selection process. It distinguished cases where selected candidates do not join service at all, noting that such situations stand on a different footing. In the present case, the initially selected candidate had joined service, completed probation, and later resigned, which necessitated filling the vacancy in accordance with the rotation roster rather than by mechanically drawing from the rank list.
On the issue of lien, the Supreme Court observed that once the selected candidate resigned after securing substantive employment elsewhere, any lien on the original post stood terminated. Therefore, considerations relating to lien could not be used either to delay the filling of the vacancy or to support the claim of the appellant.
The judgment reaffirmed that public appointments under statutory schemes must strictly adhere to reservation and communal rotation norms. The Supreme Court concluded that the University had acted in accordance with the law in refusing to appoint the appellant from the rank list and in choosing instead to fill the vacancy by applying the communal rotation system. The ruling underscores that vacancies arising from resignation, even within the currency of a rank list, must be filled in compliance with the complete statutory framework governing appointments, rather than solely on the basis of merit ranking.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.