BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :
29. 11.2013 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P(MD)Nos.10392 of 2013 and W.P(MD)Nos.11151, 12842 and 11225 of 2013 Connected Miscellaneous Petitions Dr.A.Deivendran ...Petitioner in W.P(MD)10392/2013 Dr.M.Senthilkumar ... Petitioner in W.P(MD)11151/2013 Dr.K.Thirupathi Vengatachalapathi ... Petitioner in W.P(MD)12842/2013 Dr.T.Saravanan ... Petitioner in W.P(MD)11225/2013 Vs. 1) The Madurai Kamaraj University, Represented by the Registrar i/c, Palkalai Nagar, Madurai-625 021. 2) The Director, Directorate of Distance Education, Madurai Kamaraj University, Palkalai Nagar, Madurai-625 021. ... Respondents in all WPs Prayer in all WPs .. Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the Impugned Advertisement Nos.R.35 to 52/MKU/DDE/2013 contained vide publications dated 27.04.2013 and 28.04.2013 on the file of the respondent No.1 and quash the same as illegal and consequently to direct the respondents to consider the vacancies in the Directorate of Distance Education as a single unit and work out the roster for reservation and re-advertise the vacancies in the 2nd respondent Directorate within the time stipulated by this Court. !For Petitioner .. Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy (W.P(MD)Nos.10392, 12842 and 11225 of 2013) For Petitioner .. Mr.K.Appadurai (In W.P(MD)11151 of 2013) ^For Respondents (In all WPs) .. Mr.Isaac Mohanlal :COMMON
ORDERChallenging the correctness of the impugned notification issued by the Madurai Kamaraj University in Advertisement Nos.R35to 52/MKU/DDE/2013 made in publications dated 27.04.2013 and 28.04.2013, treating each department in the Directorate of Distance Education as a single unit, these writ petitions have been filed to quash the same with the consequential direction to the respondents to consider the vacancies in the Directorate of Distance Education as a single unit and thereupon to work out the roster for reservation and re-advertise the vacancies in the 2nd respondent/Directorate of Distance Education, within the time to be stipulated by this Court.
2. Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in all these writ petitions, heavily assailing the impugned advertisement calling for applications for recruitment to the posts of Assistant Professor to various departments in the 2nd respondent/Directorate of Distance Education (hereinafter referred to as DDE), termed the approach adopted by the Madurai Kamaraj University as highly arbitrary, as the said approach is against the statues of the 1st respondent/Madurai Kamaraj University (hereinafter referred to as University). When Chapter VII of the statutes of the University clearly provides that there are 18 schools with 72 departments in the University, the 2nd respondent/DDE is not part of the same, inasmuch as the institute of correspondence course and continuing education is a separate and independent unit. Moreover, as per Chapter XXXII of the statutes of the University, the teachers of the institute are not transferable to University Department, resultantly, if any vacancy arises in the departments of the University, consequently, if any other teacher from the institute wants to apply, he/she has to apply separately and appear before the appropriate selection committee, therefore, it is clear that DDE is a separate and independent unit, hence the same cannot be divided into various departments.
3. Adding further, it was pleaded that the heads of department in the regular University are members of the Senate and the heads of the University Departments of Study and Research are Ex-officio members of the Academic Council, but it is not so with the 2nd respondent/DDE. When there are no separate departments and the heads of the departments of Directorate of Distance Education are not the members of the Senate and further when they are not the Ex-officio members of the Academic Council, it makes it clear that the Directorate of Distance Education is a single unit only.
4. Continuing his argument, he has further submitted that by the impugned advertisement seeking to fill up the posts of Assistant Professor in various departments lying in the Directorate of Distance Education, classifying the said directorate into 18 departments and following the roster has seriously resulted in giving most of the seats for general turn category. According to him, if 200 point roster system is followed in the instant recruitment drive for the 23 posts of Assistant Professor, five posts should be reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates, another five posts should be reserved for Most Backward Class candidates, yet another six posts should be reserved for Backward Class candidates and only seven posts are to be earmarked for general turn, however, contrary to that, the 1st respondent/University has wrongly sub classified the 2nd respondent/DDE into several departments claiming all the posts are single cadre posts, hence the same cannot be justified. By not treating the 2nd respondent/DDE as a single unit, earmarking most of the posts of Assistant Professor for general turn terribly curtails the right of reservation to SC/ST, BC and MBC candidates.
5. Again attacking the approach adopted by the 1st respondent/University, he pleaded that when the posts of Assistant Professor are purely single cadre posts, they cannot stand to the scrutiny of law, for the reason that even on earlier occasion there were several teaching staff who were employed in the Directorate of Distance Education, after their retirement, the recruitment process should be conducted by way of alphabetically arranged departments of DDE by following 200 point roster system in accordance with 16% reservation that is ensured in the Tamil Nadu Backward Classes Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of seats in educational institutions and appointments or posts in the Service under the State) Act, 1993.
6. Relying upon Section 3(b) of the said Act, Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy pleaded that when an educational institution is defined as ".any college or other educational institution, maintained by the State or receiving aid out of the State funds, or affiliated to any University, established by law including an university, college and a constituent college"., the said Act is applicable to the 1st respondent/University, but overlooking the above said definition given under Section 3(b) of the Act, seeking a different route to legitimize the present sub classification of DDE and following the roster system, treating each and every department of DDE as different unit, is unacceptable and untenable. In this context, the support sought to be relied on by the 1st respondent/University from the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. and others vs. M.C.Chattopadhyaya and others reported in (2004) 12 SCC333 Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research vs. Faculty Assn. reported in (1998) 4 SCC1 Dr.Chakradhar Pasvan vs. State of Bihar reported in (1988) 2 SCC214 are totally inapplicable to the present case, inasmuch as the facts and circumstances of the cases referred therein would clearly explain that they were dealing with single cadre posts and subject wise reservation as per the statutes, whereas, in the present case, the posts advertised are not single cadre posts, therefore, subject wise reservation cannot be followed.
7. Contending further, it was argued that if the earlier recruitment drive conducted by the 1st respondent/University relating to DDE is perused, this would explain that DDE is a single unit and therefore, roster system has to be followed in compliance with the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of R.K.Sabharwal vs. State of Punjab reported in (1995) 2 SCC745 8. By way of alphabetically arranging the departments of DDE to follow 200 point roster which is prime object of the Tamil Nadu Backward Classes Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of seats in educational institutions and appointments or posts in the Service under the State) Act, 1993, in order to make his submissions clear, Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the 1st respondent/University has wrongly reserved only one post for BC, one post for MBC, three posts for SC/ST and wrongly allotted 18 posts for general turn as against reserving six posts for BC, five posts for MBC, five posts for SC/ST and seven posts for general turn.
9. Referring to Madurai Kamaraj University Handbook, it was contended that although the members of DDE has been classified as Professor, Reader, Lecturer etc, as provided in the Madurai Kamaraj University Handbook, only Lecturer/Assistant Professor posts were directly recruited whereas the posts of Professors, Readers/Associate Professors were filled up on promotion by way of Career Advancement Scheme as per the statutes of the 1st respondent/University from the posts of Lecturer/Assistant Professor only, therefore, he pleaded, the Madurai Kamaraj University Handbook also clearly shows that the posts of Assistant Professor are not single cadre posts as contended by the 1st respondent/University. Supporting this statement, he has also filed a separate affidavit.
10. He has placed heavy reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in R.K.Sabharwal vs. State of Punjab reported in (1995) 2 SCC745 to impress upon the court that the 1st respondent/University should provide reservation in accordance with the roster to be maintained in each department and the roster has to be implemented in the form of running account from year to year, because the purpose of running account is to make sure that SC/ST and BC candidates get their percentage of reserved posts. If a first post in a cadre goes to Scheduled Caste, thereafter, the said class is entitled to 7, 15, 22 onwards upto 91st posts. When the total number of posts in a cadre are filled by the operation of roster then the result envisaged in the impugned advertisement is achieved. He pleaded, in a cadre of 100 posts when the posts earmarked in the roster for the Scheduled Castes and the Backward Classes are filled, the percentage of reservation provided for the reserved categories is achieved. Accordingly, prayed for allowing these writ petitions.
11. Mr.Isaac Mohanlal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents pleaded that Madurai Kamaraj University is a top 9th University out of 476 Universities existing in the country, funded by the State Government and University Grants Commission and by playing a leading role at the National and International levels, is offering distance education programme in various subjects for about 1.25 lakhs students as of now. To make the education even at the higher level easily accessible to the people living in backward areas, more particularly, the remote areas, who are unable to come to University and colleges, DDE was established in the year 1974. Subsequently, from the name of Institute of Correspondence after 20 years in the year 1994, the directorate came to be known as Directorate of Distance Education.
12. Mr.Isaac Mohanlal further pleaded that DDE presently is having 23 departments in it, every department is functioning as a separate unit with the approval of the University Syndicate. Moreover, the University is also having few evening colleges, two constituent colleges, 74 affiliated colleges and several approved institutions. When this is the existing system, the University has issued two notifications dated 27.04.2013 and 28.04.2013 respectively, inviting candidates for filling up 23 posts of Assistant Professor in various departments under the 2nd respondent/DDE. The University has been following strictly UGC Regulations in regard to the recruitment of teachers for various departments under DDE. The Scrutiny Committee consisting of subject experts would scrutinise the candidates' applications, after proper scrutiny, it would make selection from and out of the eligible candidates. When the Selection Committee considers the candidates' merit and ability by way of interview, this would include testing their writing skill, marks are awarded under various heads namely, written rest (25 marks), teaching competency test (25 marks), interview performance (15 marks), Teaching/Post Doctoral research Experience (10 marks), publications (15 marks) and Seminars/Conferences/workshops (10 marks), totalling 100 marks. Only after thorough and complete assessment of merit, ability and overall performance of the candidates, eligible candidates with full competency, are selected for the respective posts and only after the Syndicate's approval, the selected candidates would be given the order of appointments to join the posts.
13. He further submitted that at present, the 1st respondent/University has got four revenue districts within its territory namely, Madurai, Dindigul, Theni and Virudhunagar, for its better administration and in order to complete the selection process for the purpose of recruitment under DDE, each department is considered as a separate unit and the posts are identified and notified only department-wise and discipline/subject wise. Any person appointed as Assistant Professor or Associate Professor in any one of the departments under DDE must serve only in the said department, the reason is the post is not transferable to any other department, therefore, the challenge made by the petitioner on the ground that DDE has been completely sub classified is unknown to the existing procedure followed right from the establishment of the 2nd respondent/DDE from the year 1974. When a system is rightly followed from the date of its inception namely, 1974 till now, all of a sudden, the petitioner cannot rush to this Court by filing the present writ petition challenging the method of appointment by applying 200 point roster as per G.O.Ms.No.241, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (K) Department, dated 20.10.2007.
14. In continuation of his submission, Mr.Isaac Mohanlal, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the last recruitment took place in DDE was for the department of education made in the year 2008 by notification dated 10.08.2008 making the recruitment subject wise, even now, the same procedure is being followed and the persons who are going to be appointed through the present recruitment are the first appointees to the posts of Assistant Professor in the respective departments, therefore, when the respondents have recruited the teachers to various departments functioning in DDE as a separate unit, the arguments first time advanced before this Court that all the departments functioning under the DDE should be formed as a single unit for the purpose of filling up of the vacancies, is not permissible by the provisions under Chapter XXXII of the Madurai Kamaraj University Statutes, which provides that the teachers under the Directorate of Distance Education are not transferable to other departments of the Directorate or to the regular departments of the University, therefore, the prayer made by the petitioner before this Court challenging the impugned advertisement to treat the entire DDE as a single unit and thereupon to apply 200 point roster by keeping all the 23 posts together, is wholly untenable.
15. Adding further, he has submitted that DDE is a separate unit which is funded exclusively by the University itself, moreover, there is no funding by the State Government and the UGC. That apart, the faculty of DDE are not even given representation in the Senate and the Academic Council in view of the statutory provisions. Therefore, mere non representation from the directorate to these councils, will not convert the directorate into a single unit. In view of that, the impugned advertisement is legal and the communal roster fixed is also in order, inasmuch the University has rightly followed the vertical reservation wherever applicable in filling up of the said 23 posts in the posts of Assistant Professor in various departments by treating each department as a separate unit, he pleaded. Contending more, it was further pleaded that when the petitioners have submitted their applications in response to the notification and also attended the interview held on 11.07.2013, their candidatures have been considered in the selection held on 12.07.2013, however, the results are not published in view of the order passed by this Court on 03.07.2013 in M.P(MD)No.2 of 2013 permitting the University to proceed with the selection and to withhold the results.
16. One Dr.K.Thirupathi Vengatachalapathi had already submitted an application dated 14.05.2013 for the post of Assistant Processor in Sociology. When the said post has been notified as general turn, his application has been considered under the said category, moreover he appeared before the Selection Committee and attended the interview on 11.07.2013 and therefore, the petitioners cannot file the writ petitions assailing the said notification on the ground that DDE should be treated as a single unit and that roster must be followed by clubbing all the 23 posts together.
17. Adding more, he has further contended that when the provisions of the University statutes provide that the teachers appointed under DDE are not transferable to the regular departments of the University, the question of mixing up all the 18 departments as single unit is not only impracticable but also against the provisions contemplated under Chapter XXXII of the Madurai Kamaraj University Statutes.
18. Finally, distinguishing the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of R.K.Sabharwal vs. State of Punjab reported in (1995) 2 SCC745 it was further pleaded that the ratio laid down therein is dealing with roster to be maintained in each department, and the question of treating several departments into single unit, the teachers working therein are not transferable to other departments have not been the subject matter of issue, therefore, the ratio relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the running account has to be maintained while applying 200 point roster is wholly misconceived. On the other hand, by relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka and others vs. K.Govindappa and another reported in (2009) 1 SCC01 another judgment by Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research vs. Faculty Assn. reported in (1998) 4 SCC1 he submitted that application of rule of rotation for filling up a single post does not offend Articles 14 and 16(1) of the constitution and moreover, it has been settled that in the absence of duality of posts, it will offend the constitutional bar against 100% reservation as envisaged in Article 16(1) of the Constitution. Consistently, in the year 2008, for filling up of the posts of Assistant Professor in all the 18 departments, the University, keeping every discipline/subject as a single unit has issued notification dated 10.08.2008 followed by the present impugned notification that too, after obtaining approval of the Syndicate on 07.03.2010 before issuance of the impugned notification for filling up the 23 posts in 18 departments, hence no one can have any grievance against the present impugned advertisement. On this basis, he prayed for dismissal of these writ petitions as meritless. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
19. Dr.A.Deivendran/petitioner in W.P(MD)10392/13 who is working in Gandhigram Institute of Rural Health and Family Welfare Trust in the department of Health Promotion and Education as a lecturer in Behavioural Science from 2006, claims to have possessed eight years of service.
20. Dr.M.Senthilkumar/petitioner in W.P(MD)11151/13 who is working as Assistant Professor from 04.06.2007 claims to have published books in Tamil. He also claims to have presented papers in National/International Seminars and Workshops from 1999, moreover, he is also a member of the Board of Studies (PG) at Vivekananda College of Arts and Sciences for Women, Tiruchengode.
21. Dr.T.Saravanan/petitioner in W.P(MD)11225/13 belongs to SC community, after completing Ph.D in History from the respondent University, is working as a Guest Lecturer at Aringar Anna Government Arts College. Athoor, Salem District.
22. Dr.K.Thirupathi Vengatachalapathi/petitioner in W.P(MD)12842/13 who is belonging to SC candidate said to have been selected for the post of Doctorate Fellowship for ICSSR candidates to pursue higher research and completed Ph.D in Sociology and is waiting for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in Sociology.
23. All these petitioners after issuance of the impugned advertisements in publications dated 27.04.2013 and 28.04.2013 calling for applications for the recruitment to the posts of Assistant Professor in various departments in DDE, finding that DDE has not been treated as a single unit, and 23 posts have been wrongly advertised as separate unit, have filed the present writ petitions, challenging the same as unreasonable.
24. Therefore, the common grievance of all the petitioners for challenging the present impugned advertisement is that sub classifying DDE into 18 departments and following roster system has resulted in offering most of the seats for general turn category. It is pertinent to mention that the 1st respondent/University after coming into existence in the year 1966 by virtue of Madurai Kamaraj University Act, 1965 has established DDE in the year 1974, which was earlier known as the Institute of Correspondence Courses, later on, the said department became DDE. The 1st respondent/University is funding the 2nd respondent/DDE from its own source. In fact, each department is functioning as a separate department with the prior approval of the University and the Senate. As DDE is functioning separately with the fund exclusively granted by the University itself, there is no financial assistance given by the State Government separately nor by UGC to the 2nd respondent/DDE. That apart, the faculty of the 2nd respondent are not given representation in the Senate and the Academic Council in view of the statutory provisions contained in Madurai Kamaraj University Act, 1965. Besides, Chapter XXXII of the University statutes also provides that the teachers working under DDE are not transferable to the regular departments of the University, resultantly, if any teacher from the directorate desires to apply for any vacancy that occurs in the department, the said teacher will have to apply separately and appear before the appropriate Selection Committee. In this context, it is pertinent to refer to the relevant provisions of the statutes of the University:- ".1.A University Department of Study and Research is one established by Statute and under the direct control of the University and/or such associate department run by other institutions which are recognised by the Syndicate without causing any financial commitment to the University. 2.There shall be in the University, the following Schools comprising the relevant departments of study, research and/or teaching in the following branches of knowledge. ...............".
25. When the above Chapter VII of the University statutes provides for different kinds of schools that comprises of Departments of Study, research and/or teaching in various branches of knowledge, which is attached to the regular stream under the University funded by the State Government and the UGC, they are all approved as a separate unit by the University Syndicate. Moreover, Chapter XXXII is also extracted hereunder for better appreciation of the issue involved in the present writ petitions. INSTITUTE OF CORRESPONDENCE COURSE AND CONTINUING EDUCATION1There shall be an Institute of Correspondence Course and Continuing Education including Open University System in the University. 2.The Institute shall provide instructions for such courses through correspondence as are decided by the Syndicate from time to time. 3.The teaching staff will consist of the Director and such other teaching staff as may be appointed by the Syndicate from time to time. 4.The teachers of the Institute shall be selected for appointment by a Committee nominated by the Vice-Chancellor. The members of the Committee shall be the Vice-Chancellor as Chairman, the Director of the Institute and four persons who are experts in the subjects in which the appointment is to be made. It will be competent for the Vice-Chancellor to exclude from the committee any of the above persons, who subsequently happens to be also an applicant for the post, for which the Committee has been constituted. In the case of Readers and Lecturers of the Institute, one of the experts shall be the Professor of the Institute in the subject concerned, if there is one. 5.All appointments in the Institute either as Professors, Readers or Lecturers shall be on probation for two years and will be confirmed subject to the satisfactory completion of probation. 6.The teachers of the Institute are not transferable to University Departments and if any vacancy arises in the Departments of the University and if any other teacher from the Institute wants to apply, he or she has to apply separately and appear before the appropriate Selection Committee.
26. From the reading of the above chapter of the University statutes, it could be seen that all appointments shall be done by the committee nominated by the Vice Chancellor and all the teachers of the institute are not transferable to University departments and further the above chapter also makes it clear that if any vacancy is arisen in the department of university, if any other teacher from the institute wants to apply to the said post he/she has to apply separately and appear before the appropriate selection committee, therefore, when the above provision makes the issue very clear that no teacher working in one discipline is transferable to another discipline in the university department, the question of treating all the departments into one single unit, for the purpose of recruitment by applying the rule of reservation is not permissible. Inasmuch as when the Act itself has made various departments working under the 2nd respondent as a separate department all the 18 departments cannot be treated as a single unit, but that does not mean that the University can escape from applying the rule of reservation as and when any selection is made to fill up the vacancies arising in the 2nd respondent/DDE. In fact, when the recruitment took place in the 2nd respondent/DDE to fill up the vacancies in the department of education in the year 2008 by notification dated 10.08.2008, the recruitments were made only subject wise not as contended by the petitioners, therefore, in the present recruitment to the posts of Assistant Professor for all the 18 departments advertised through the present impugned advertisement, all the appointees to the posts of Assistant Professor are going to be the first appointees in the respective departments. As a matter of fact, after 2008, the present recruitment is only the second recruitment undertaken by the University in DDE by making the cadre strength in 2010, moreover, the affidavit filed by the respondents clearly shows that the cadre strength of the Assistant Professors in each one of the 15 disciplines is only one and the cadre strength in the remaining three disciplines is English-2, Management Studies-4 and Computer Science-2, therefore, wherever more than one post is going to be filled in, the reservation roster is going to be followed. On the other hand, wherever there is only one post, it is going to be filled in as per the ratio laid down in the case of State of Karnataka and others vs. K.Govindappa and another reported in (2009) 1 SCC01 wherein the Apex Court held that reservation cannot be applied to a single isolated post as it would amount to 100% reservation. At this juncture, it is relevant to extract the relevant paragraphs of the above said judgment.
22. While there can be no difference of opinion that the expressions ".cadre"., ".post". and ".service". cannot be equated with each other, at the same time the submission that single and isolated posts in respect of different disciplines cannot exist as a separate cadre cannot be accepted. In order to apply the rule of reservation within a cadre, there has to be plurality of posts. Since there is no scope of interchangeability of posts in the different disciplines, each single post in a particular discipline has to be treated as a single post for the purpose of reservation within the meaning oif Article 16(4) of the Constitution. In the absence of duality of posts, it will offend the constitutional bar against 100% reservation as envisaged in Article 16(1) of the Constitution.
23. The decision in Chakradhar Paswan (Dr.) case, which has been subsequently approved by the Constitution Bench in Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research case makes it clear that isolated and separate posts can exist within a cadre and in case of such posts, if there was only one post, the same could not be set apart for a reserved candidate.
27. The Apex Court while emphasising the need for balancing the interest of general and reserved categories in making reservation for backward classes has also made it clear, the State cannot ignore the interest of the general candidates and finally held that in a single post cadre, reservation at any point of time on account of rotation of roster is bound to bring about a situation where such a single post in the cadre will be kept reserved exclusively for the members of the backward classes and in total exclusion of the general members of the public. In this context, it is pertinent to extract the following passages:- 34. In a single post cadre, reservation at any point of time on account of rotation of roster is bound to bring about a situation where such a single post in the cadre will be kept reserved exclusively for the members of the backward classes and in total exclusion of the general members of the public. Such total exclusion of general members of the public and cent per cent reservation for the backward classes is not permissible within the constitutional framework. The decisions of this Court to this effect over the decades have been consistent.
35. Hence, until there is plurality of posts in a cadre, the question of reservation will not arise because any attempt of reservation by whatever means and even with the device of rotation of roster in a single post cadre is bound to create 100% reservation of such post whenever such reservation is to be implemented. The device of rotation of roster in respect of single post cadre will only mean that on some occasions there will be complete reservation and the appointment to such post is kept out of bounds to the members of a large segment of the community who do not belong to any reserved class, but on some other occasions the post will be available for open competition when in fact on all such occasions, a single post cadre should have been filled only by open competition amongst all segments of the society.
36. Mr Kapil Sibal has contended that in some higher echelons of service in educational and technical institutions where special expertise is necessary to hold superior posts like Professors and Readers, there should not be reservation even if there is plurality of posts in such cadre as indicated in the majority view in Indra Sawhney case1. It is, however, not necessary for us to decide the said contention for the purpose of disposal of these matters, where the question of reservation in single cadre post calls for decision.
37. We, therefore, approve the view taken in Chakradhar case that there cannot be any reservation in a single post cadre and we do not approve the reasonings in Madhav case, Brij Lal Thakur case and Bageshwari Prasad case upholding reservation in a single post cadre either directly or by device of rotation of roster point. Accordingly, the impugned decision in the case of Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research cannot also be sustained. The review petition made in Civil Appeal No.3175 of 1997 in the case of Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh, is therefore allowed and the judgment dated 2-5-1997 passed in Civil Appeal No.3175 of 1997 is set aside.
28. A mere perusal of the above ratio laid down by the Apex Court makes the issue clear that there cannot be any reservation in a single post cadre, therefore, in view of the admitted fact that when Chapter XXXII of the University statutes provides that the teachers working in various disciplines of DDE are not transferable to other directorate or to the regular department of the University, the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to treat the entire department in the 2nd respondent as a single unit is far from acceptance. Moreover, when the statutory provisions more particularly, chapter XXXII of the University statutes keep each department under the 2nd respondent/DDE as a separate unit, the DDE cannot be made as single unit as the same is not permissible under Chapter XXXII, therefore, the application of ratio as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the case of R.K.Sabharwal vs. State of Punjab reported in (1995) 2 SCC745to the case on hand cannot be accepted.
29. In view of the above discussion, these writ petitions stand dismissed and the results for the interview ordered to be withheld by this Court, by order dated 12.07.2013 are directed to be declared. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs. NB2 To 1) The Madurai Kamaraj University, Represented by the Registrar i/c, Palkalai Nagar, Madurai-625 021. 2) The Director, Directorate of Distance Education, Madurai Kamaraj University, Palkalai Nagar, Madurai-625 021.