Reduction of Posts only with Valid Reason

Shruti Kalra vs. University of Delhi

Filed under: Article 226 of the Constitution of India
Person with Disabilities Act, 1996 Petitioner: Shruti Kalra
Respondent: University of Delhi & others
Citation: 90 (2001) Delhi Law Times 262
Court: In the High Court of Delhi
Judge: A.K.Sikri

Facts

Shruti Kalra, a blind person passed her Senior Secondary Examination with distinction in Accountancy and Economics and topped in her B.A. degree in Instrumental music. She had also completed her M.A in instrumental music. She then completed her M.Phil from Delhi University.

After her education, she started working as a Trained Graduate Teacher in a school in Delhi. And later was selected by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) for an appointment as a Lecturer in Instrumental music and was appointed Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) by the Delhi Administration.

However, it was Shruti's ambition to become a lecturer in the Delhi University. Therefore, she applied for the post of a lecturer in Shyama Prasad Mukherjee College in response to an advertisement. She was called for the interview. However, she was not selected after the interview and she learnt that the college filled only one post.

The advertisement had mentioned the 3% reservation for blind and orthopedically handicapped candidates. She felt that injustice was done to her as she deserved the post - on her merit even without the reservation, and with the reservation there should have been no question. Since there was no appointment of a handicapped person made, she claimed appointment on two counts:

Firstly, that there was no possibility of her not being appointed as no other person with disability had applied and she was the only deserving candidate

Secondly, there was no other handicapped candidate who could be considered equal to her either on merit or on experience.

She made a representation to the Vice-Chancellor who had promised to take the matter up with the college authorities. While her representation was still under consideration, the second post for a music teacher, which was not earlier filled up, was advertised again.

Shruti applied again and was called for an interview. She was placed second in the merit list. However no appointments were made to the second post. Shruti filed the present writ petition when even the person who was placed first in the merit list did not get the job.

Arguments made on behalf of the College:

The principal of the college in his affidavit stated that in the past three years the workload in the college with respect to music had reduced and therefore only one teacher was required in the subject.

Arguments made on behalf of Shruti Kalra:

In her reply to the affidavit, Shruti stated that it was a fallacious attempt to deny justice by fabricating a story of "reduction of workload". She also pointed out that fewer people seeking admission to a specialized subject like instrumental music was nothing new and that the situation had not changed much since the filing of the petition.

Further, appointments against a permanent post should not be affected by fluctuations in the student strength.

Observations of the court

The Court considered two points -

1. Validity of the selection procedure adopted by the college earlier
2. Validity of the college's decision of not filling up the second post.

In response to the first point, the Court observed that since the two posts advertised were reserved for handicapped candidates, hence Shruti's candidature should have been considered and not treated as an empty formality.

Referring to the 'Brochure on Reservations and Concessions for Physically Handicapped in Central Government Services' the Court noted that the brochure mentioned that preference should be given to handicapped persons in the posts identified in the Appendix; and teaching was one of the identified posts. Further, the Court felt that the Selection Committee had treated her like any general candidate and that such an act was not valid.

In response to the second point regarding the college's decision to leave the second post vacant, the Judge opined that though it was the prerogative of the employer, however, the reasons for the same would necessarily have to be convincing (refer to quotes). In this case, the reason extended was not acceptable. Therefore, the writ petition was allowed with the following directions -

1. To consider and decide whether the college was to fill the second post of a lecturer in instrumental music in view of the mandate of the PWD Act.
2. To fill up the post keeping in view the reservation policy contained in the circular and the PWD Act.
3. And entitlement to costs.

Sections Referred:

Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950

Cases Referred:

• Pushkar Singh & others vs. University of Delhi & others, CWP No. 2549/95
• State of UP vs. Dr. Dina Nath Shukla 7 another, AIR 1997 SC 1095

Quotes from the judgment:

"no doubt it is the prerogative of the employer to fill or not to fill the post. However, the reason give for not filling of the post is not at all convincing and an impression is left in the mind that the excuse taken is to deprive the petitioner to get the post. The reduction in the number of students would be no excuse so long as the discipline is taught in the college. Each section would be having definite number of classes per week and with 3 years course, the number of classes to be taught gets multiplied by three. Therefore, the work load has to be considered on this basis and not on the basis as to how many students are there in one class".