By the impugned judgment, the High Court has held that under the provisions of Rule 14 to 17 of Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, numberselection method was applicable for filling up the reserved vacancy and as the writ petitioner was eligible to be appointed against the said reserved vacancy the elimination of the writ petitioner on the score of number being found suitable in the selection process, was improper.
1 was number selected against such reserved vacancy and a writ petition was presented by him before the Kerala High Court.
One of the grounds urged in the writ petition was on the basis of qualification, experience and performance in the interview put together, the petitioner can only be placed above respondents 4, 5 and The elimination of the petitioner from the select list therefore smacks malafides.
1 was a candidate for the appointment to the post of Junior Assistant Professor in the Kerala Agricultural University when an advertisement for filling up such post had been given.
I to the post of Assistant Professor in the said University because in the meantime the post of Junior Assistant Professor was abolished and the junior Assistant Professors were upgraded as Assistant Professors.
1997 Supp 6 SCR 161 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Leave granted.
It may be stated that the respondent No, 1 belongs to Ezhava companymunity and it is an admitted position that there was a post reserved in the cadre of Junior Assistant Professor for a candidates belonging to Ezhava companymunity.
The High Court therefore directed for appointment of the respondent No.
The respondent No.
