The court rejected a writ petition challenging the rejection of a proposal for 34% reservation in a college due to backlog. It held that Rule 9(7) does not allow disturbing reserved quotas or filling reserved seats with open category candidates.
Petition rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
(-1-)
hvn
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2226 OF 2007
Sajid Saifuddin .... Petitioner
Versus
The Modern Education
Society and Ors. ... Respondents
Ms. Ushajee Beri i/by Mihir Desai for Petitioner.
CORAM: F.I.REBELLO&
R.M. SAVANT,JJ.
DATED: APRIL 09, 2007
P.C.:
. The college has forwarded the proposal to the
Government by working out 34% reservation. The
Petitioner belongs to the open category. The
application for approval was rejected on the ground
that even considering 34% reservation, there was
backlog and as such no approval can be granted.
. The learned counsel draws our attention to Rule
9(7) of the M.E.P.S. Rules. That rule, read with
Rule 8 only permits filling in of vacancies in the
absence of candidates belonging to groups as set out
therein from other groups. That does not mean that
the quota set out in Rule 9(7) can be disturbed. It
presupposes that there are vacancies in terms of the
percentage reserved therein for the group from which
appointment is being made. If there is no vacancy
(-2-)
in terms of the percentages reserved, there is no
question of filling the vacancy by persons from
other group.
. Reliance placed on Rule 10 (a) and (b), in our
opinion, again is misplaced considering the clear
terminology of Rule 7 and 8. The Judgment in
Shakuntala Ganpatsa Shirbhate Vs. Industrial
Weaving Cooperative Society and Others, AIR 1994
Supreme Court 36 does not, in any way, take a view
contrary to the rules. On the contrary, vacancies
were interchanged between Nomadic Tribes and
backward class candidates. We find no proposition
in that judgment as sought to be canvassed on behalf
of the Petitioner, that irrespective of percentage
of vacancies, it is open to the College to fill in
the vacancies from candidates from other categories.
Rule 7 restricts itself only to the reserved
category and not to open category candidates. In
other words, the open category candidates cannot be
appointed on the regular basis for the seats
reserved for reserved candidates.
. In our opinion, there is no merit in this
petition, which is accordingly rejected.
(R.M. SAVANT,J.)(F.I.REBELLO, J.)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a college can fill seats reserved for backward classes from open category candidates when a backlog prevents full utilization of the reserved quota.
Whether Rule 9(7) of M.E.P.S. Rules permits disturbing the reserved percentage quota to fill vacancies.
Whether open category candidates can be appointed on a regular basis for seats reserved for reserved categories.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Shakuntala Ganpatsa Shirbhate Vs. Industrial Weaving Cooperative Society and OthersReferred¶18
Shakuntala Ganpatsa Shirbhate Vs. Industrial Weaving Cooperative Society and Others, AIR 1994 Supreme Court 36 · Who else cites this
Sajid Saifuddin
The Modern Education Society
F.I. Rebello
R.M. Savant
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court