Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | C.A. No.-015040-015041 – 2025 |
| Diary Number | 9712/2025 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. ANJARIA |
| Bench |
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. ANJARIA |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms |
| Type of Law | Statutory interpretation of university recruitment provisions |
| Questions of Law | Whether a rank list valid for two years under Section 31(10) must still see each arising vacancy filled by communal rotation under Section 31(11), or if rotation waits until expiry of the list. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The rank list under Section 31(10) remains operative for two years and all vacancies during that span must be filled from it. Section 31(11) requires communal rotation for each vacancy. Both sub-sections must be read together by harmonious construction to give full effect to each. A vacancy arising on resignation terminates any lien, so rotation applies immediately. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Doctrine of harmonious construction (ut res magis valeat quam pereat); maxim that no provision should be rendered otiose; concept of lien terminating on substantive appointment; interplay of Sections 31(10)–(12) and Kerala State & Subordinate Service Rules, 1958 (Rules 14–15). |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner (SC) was second in the rank list for an Associate Professor post; the first-ranked appointee resigned after probation; the university applied communal rotation under Section 31(11) to fill the vacancy by Latin Catholic/Anglo Indian category; High Court dismissed her challenge; appeals before the Supreme Court arose. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All appointing authorities under Section 31 of the Cochin University of Science and Technology Act for university recruitments. |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and bodies interpreting similar rank-list and rotation statutes. |
| Distinguishes | Narayanan v. State of Kerala (1981) 2 SLR 340, on when reservation is satisfied. |
| Follows | CIT v. Hindustan Bulk Carriers (2003) 3 SCC 57; State of Gujarat v. R.A. Mehta (2013) 3 SCC 1. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Both Section 31(10) (two-year validity of rank list) and Section 31(11) (communal rotation) operate simultaneously.
- Each vacancy arising within the rank-list validity must be filled respecting communal rotation, not simply by the next candidate in merit.
- Resignation of a substantive appointee terminates any lien automatically, creating a vacancy subject to immediate rotation.
- Harmonious construction prevents rendering either provision dead; rotation cannot wait until list expiry.
- Clarifies that waiting-list rights are contingent on statutory rotation where prescribed.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Section 31(10) mandates that a published rank list remains in force for two years, and all vacancies in that period shall be filled from it.
- Section 31(11) requires communal rotation category-wise treating all departments as one unit.
- Harmonious construction (ut res magis valeat quam pereat) dictates both sub-sections must be given full effect, avoiding any “dead letter.”
- Lien jurisprudence (Ramlal Khurana; S.N. Tiwari) confirms resignation terminates lien, creating a genuine vacancy.
- Precedents on waiting-lists (Gujarat State Dy. Engineers’ Assn.; Surender Singh; Rakhi Ray; Vivek Kaisth; Raj Rishi Mehra) establish rank-list rights are limited and subject to statutory conditions.
- Vacancy arising on resignation thus triggers immediate application of communal rotation within the rank-list period.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- As second-ranked candidate on a valid two-year rank list, she was entitled to appointment when the first-ranked SC appointee resigned.
- The vacancy was reserved for SC; rotation rule under Section 31(11) could not override the operative rank list.
Respondent (University)
- Placement in the wait list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment.
- Resignation of the holder created a fresh vacancy to be filled by communal rotation under Section 31(11), not by automatic elevation of the next rank-list candidate.
Factual Background
The petitioner, an SC candidate, secured second place in the rank list for a single SC-reserved Associate Professor post at Cochin University. The top-ranked appointee joined, completed probation, then resigned. The university applied Section 31(11) communal rotation to fill the vacancy by Latin Catholic/Anglo Indian category. The petitioner’s writ petitions at the High Court were dismissed, leading to these appeals.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 31(9): Selection committees must publish rank lists.
- Section 31(10): Rank list valid two years; all vacancies in that period filled from it.
- Section 31(11): Communal rotation category-wise treating all departments as one unit.
- Section 31(12): Registrar’s register of appointments and reservations.
- Section 7(2): University to apply, mutatis mutandis, Kerala State & Subordinate Service Rules, 1958—Rules 14 (reservation/rotation), 15 (integrated cycle and selection year).
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No separate dissenting or concurring opinions were delivered.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural precedents or guidelines were issued beyond statutory interpretation.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – Existing principles of harmonious construction and waiting-list jurisprudence were affirmed.