Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 912 (KER)

State Of Kerala v. G. Radhakrishna Pillai

2021-10-05

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.

body2021
JUDGMENT : A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J. In these batch of writ appeals we are called upon to examine the correctness of the judgment dated 31.03.2021 of a learned single judge of this court that disapproved of an amendment effected to the various University Statutes in Kerala to change the pattern of rotation while implementing the communal reservation in the services under the University, from department wise to category wise, by treating all departments as one unit. 2. The contention of the writ petitioners, placing reliance on precedents of the Supreme Court, was that the clubbing of posts of Assistant Professors, Associate Professors and Professors of all departments to create separate cadres in relation to each of the above categories of posts, and applying the rules of communal rotation to the said cadres would effectively tantamount to providing 100% reservation in single post cadres, which is legally and constitutionally impermissible. The said contention found favour with the learned single judge who allowed the writ petitions by initially setting aside the recruitment notification dated 27.11.2017 issued by the Kerala University that indicated that communal reservation was being applied by treating all the posts in the categories of Professors/Associate Professors/Assistant Professors in the various teaching departments of the University as one category for the purposes of reservation. Thereafter, through a ‘corrigendum’, the learned judge set aside the notification dated 20.07.2014 of the State Government publishing the University Laws (Second Amendment) Act, as well as the University Order dated 25.10.2017 of the Kerala University implementing the amended provisions in the University. 3. The judgment of the learned single judge gave rise not only to the appeals preferred by the State and the University that were parties in the writ petitions before the learned judge, but also to a host of other appeals, that were filed after obtaining the leave of this court, by persons who had already secured appointments based on the recruitment notifications and who would, therefore, be prejudicially affected by the judgment of the learned judge. The said persons were not parties in the writ petitions that were disposed by the common judgment that is impugned in these appeals. The said persons were not parties in the writ petitions that were disposed by the common judgment that is impugned in these appeals. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants before us that, while the impugned judgment of the learned single judge did not actually declare the amended provisions of the University statutes as illegal or unconstitutional, but merely set aside the gazette notification publishing the amendments effected in the various statutes, as also the recruitment notification, pursuant to which recruitments had already been effected during the pendency of the writ petitions, the appeals were preferred in anticipation of any consequential orders that might be passed by the Kerala University cancelling their appointments, based on the judgment of the learned single judge. 4. We have heard the learned Advocate General Sri. Gopalakrishna Kurup, assisted by the learned senior Government Pleader Sri.V.Manu and the learned Government Pleader Sri. T.B.Hood, for the State Government, Sri. Thomas Abraham, the learned counsel appearing for the Kerala University, the learned Senior Counsel Sri. P.Ravindran, assisted by Smt.Lakshmi Ramadas, the learned counsel, the learned Senior Counsel Smt. Sumathi Dandapani, assisted by Sri.Millu Dandapani, the learned counsel Sri. Elvin Peter, Sri. Raghuraj, Sri. Mohan Jacob, Sri. Aravindaksha Pillai, and Sri. C.Unnikrishnan, the learned counsel for the other appellants, the learned Senior Counsel Sri. George Poonthottam, assisted by Sri. Navneeth, the learned counsel and also Sri. Ajaykumar, the learned counsel for the respondent writ petitioners. 5. Before proceeding to consider the submissions made before us by the learned counsel appearing in these matters, we deem it apposite to set out the factual backdrop in which the writ petitions were filed before the learned single judge. Factual Background: 6. Prior to 2014, the statutory provisions in the various university statutes in the State provided, inter alia, that: ‘In making appointments to the teaching and non-teaching posts, the university shall mutatis mutandis observe the provisions of clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Rule 14 and the provisions of Rules 15, 16, 17 and 17A of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958, [hereinafter referred to as the 'KS&SSR'] as amended from time to time’. 7. The relevant portion of Rule 14 of the KS&SSR, 1958 reads as follows: “14. Reservation of appointments. 7. The relevant portion of Rule 14 of the KS&SSR, 1958 reads as follows: “14. Reservation of appointments. -Where the Special Rules lay down that the principle of reservation of appointments shall apply to any service, class or category, or where in the case of any service, class or category for which no Special Rules have been issued, the Government have by notification in the Gazette-declared that the principle of reservation of appointments shall apply to such-service, class or category, appointments by direct recruitment to such service, class or category shall be made on the following basis: (a) The unit of appointment for the purpose of this rule shall be 20, of which 2 shall be reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and 8 shall be reserved for the Other Backward Classes and the remaining 10 shall be filled on the basis of merit: Provided that out of every five posts reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, one shall go to a Scheduled Tribe candidate and the remaining four shall go to Scheduled Case candidates and in the absence of a candidate to fill up the post reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidates, it shall go to a Scheduled Caste-candidate and vice versa. (b) The claims of members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled-Tribes and Other Backward Classes shall also be considered for the appointments-which shall be filled on the basis of merit and where a candidate belonging to a Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe or Other Backward Class is selected on the basis of merit, the number of posts reserved for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or for Other Backward Classes as the case may be, shall not in any way be affected. (c) Appointments under this rule shall be made in the order of rotation specified below in every cycle of 20 vacancies. 1. Open Competition 2. Other Backward Classes 3. Open Competition 4. Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes 5. Open Competition 6. Other Backward Classes 7. Open Competition 8. Other Backward Classes 9. Open Competition 10. Other Backward Classes 11. Open Competition 12. Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes 13. Open Competition 14. Other Backward Classes 15. Open Competition 16. Other Backward Classes 17. Open Competition 18. Other Backward Classes 19. Open Competition 20. Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes 5. Open Competition 6. Other Backward Classes 7. Open Competition 8. Other Backward Classes 9. Open Competition 10. Other Backward Classes 11. Open Competition 12. Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes 13. Open Competition 14. Other Backward Classes 15. Open Competition 16. Other Backward Classes 17. Open Competition 18. Other Backward Classes 19. Open Competition 20. Other Backward Classes Provided that the fourth turn in the third rotation and the twelfth turn in the fifth rotation shall go to Scheduled Tribe candidates and the fourth and twelfth turns in the first, second and fourth rotations, the twelfth turn in the third rotation and the fourth turn in the fifth rotation shall go to Scheduled Caste candidates and in the absence of a candidate for appointment against the turn allotted for Scheduled Tribe candidates, it shall go to a Scheduled Caste candidate and vice versa: Rule 15 lays down the procedure to be followed in cases where suitable candidates are not available in the particular community or group. It also provides that in no year of reservation including carrying forward vacancies to a category of post shall exceed 50% of the total number of vacancies for which selection by direct recruitment to that category is resorted to in that year. Rule 16 provides that, there shall be sub rotation among major groups of other backward classes. In Rule 17, the grouping of other Backward Classes for the above purpose is indicated. Provisions are also made therein to distribute the 40% reservation allowed to other Backward Classes among the different groups of other Backward Classes in the case of direct recruitment to the post included in the Kerala Last Grade Service and to the posts other than those included in the Kerala Last Grade Service. Rule 17A deals with the Special Recruitment from among the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and enables the State Government to reserve a specified number of posts in any service, class, category or grade to be filled by direct recruitment exclusively from among the members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. 8. Based on the statutory provisions as they stood prior to 2014, the Universities in the State had been categorizing the teaching and non-teaching posts department wise while applying the reservation principles enumerated in the KS&SSR. 8. Based on the statutory provisions as they stood prior to 2014, the Universities in the State had been categorizing the teaching and non-teaching posts department wise while applying the reservation principles enumerated in the KS&SSR. The recruitment notifications issued in connection with direct recruitment to the various posts also indicated those posts in the various departments that were reserved for SC/ST/OBC. It was later noticed that a department wise categorization of the teaching posts resulted in a large number of single post cadres, in the direct recruitment to which, the principles of reservation could not be applied on account of the constitutional prohibition against 100% reservation. The State government therefore decided to amend the various University Statutes so as to bring about uniformity in the matter of application of reservation principles to the teaching and non-teaching posts under the Universities, by resorting to a categorization of teaching posts that would ensure plurality of posts in each category. The legislative process of amendment that ensued resulted in the enactment of the Universities Amendment Act that amended certain provisions in the various university statutes in Kerala, including the Kerala University Act. The amended provisions of Section 6 (2) of the Kerala University Act (which were called in question in the writ petitions), reads as follows: “6. University open to all classes and creeds:- (1) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (2) In making appointments to the teaching and non-teaching posts, the University shall, mutatis mutandis, observe the provisions of clauses(a), (b) and (c) of rule 14 and the provisions of rules 15, 16, 17 and 17A of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958, as amended from time to time and communal rotation shall be followed category wise treating all the departments as one unit.” 9. While the amendment took effect from 20.07.2014 consequent to the amendments being published in the Gazette, the University Order implementing the amended procedure in the Kerala University was issued only on 25.10.2017. Thereafter, vide Notification dated 27.11.2017, the Kerala University invited applications for filling up the posts of Professors, Associate Professors and Assistant Professors in various departments of the University, by grouping all the posts of Professors, Associate Professors and Assistant Professors, in the various departments of the University, as separate cadres/categories for the purpose of applying the reservation principles, and identifying the reserved posts in each cadre/category. It was at this stage, and while the recruitment process was underway that the writ petitions were filed impugning the University order and notifications referred above, and praying for a declaration from this court that the amended provisions of Section 6 (2) of the Kerala University Act were unconstitutional. As already noticed, the writ petitions were allowed by the common judgment that is now impugned before us. Arguments of counsel: 10. The arguments of the learned Advocate General, Senior Counsel and other counsel appearing for the appellants can be summarised as under: • The State Government having decided to extend communal reservation to persons belonging to the SC/ST/OBC categories while effecting recruitment to posts in the services of the State, had also made the reservation principles enumerated under the KS&SSR applicable to appointments to teaching and non-teaching posts in the services under the various universities in the State. In as much as the earlier method of categorizing posts department/subject wise for the purposes of applying the reservation principles had resulted in a large number of posts being categorized as single posts in a cadre, and thereby excluded from communal reservation, it was decided to restructure the cadres in such a way that there was a plurality of posts in each cadre and the principles of reservation could thereafter be applied while effecting recruitment to those posts. • Cadre structuring and re-structuring is within the sole preserve of an employer and so long as the structuring/re-structuring of posts in a cadre is based on criteria that bear rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved through such an exercise, the structuring/restructuring of posts cannot be interfered with by this court in exercise of its powers of judicial review under Article 226 of our Constitution. This is more so when the structuring/restructuring exercise has a statutory backing. Reliance is placed on the decisions reported in Union of India v. Pushpa Rani and Others – [ (2008) 9 SCC 242 ], Nair Service Society v. Dr. T. Beermasthan and Others – [ (2009) 5 SCC 545 ] and S.Sivaguru v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others – [ (2013) 7 SCC 335 ]. Reliance is placed on the decisions reported in Union of India v. Pushpa Rani and Others – [ (2008) 9 SCC 242 ], Nair Service Society v. Dr. T. Beermasthan and Others – [ (2009) 5 SCC 545 ] and S.Sivaguru v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others – [ (2013) 7 SCC 335 ]. • While it is now well settled that there cannot be any reservation while making appointments to a single post that by itself forms a cadre, the grouping of all Assistant Professors, Associate Professors and Professors of the University respectively, in separate cadres, for the purposes of applying the reservation principles does not amount to a grouping of unrelated posts in a cadre with the sole purpose of overcoming the prohibition against reservation to single posts. At their respective levels, each of the posts of Assistant Professors, Associate Professors and Professors, irrespective of the subject taught, carry the same duties, responsibilities and scale of pay and, after the adoption of the UGC Regulations, the eligibility requirements for recruitment to the posts are also the same in the respective levels. There can, therefore, be no objection to creating separate cadres of Assistant Professors, Associate Professors and Professors, where all the posts, irrespective of the discipline taught, can be included in the respective cadres. Thus, Assistant Professors of all the departments in the University would constitute one cadre and likewise there could be separate cadres for Associate Professors and Professors. • It is pointed out with reference to the decisions in University of Cochin v. Dr. N. Raman Nair & Ors. – [ (1975) 3 SCC 628 ] and Jose v. Cochin University – [1993 KHC 342] that the principle of categorization of posts of Assistant Professors and Associate Professors in separate cadres, irrespective of the subject taught by them, had been recognised as valid in principle, and in view of the statutory backing now provided to the said arrangement through the amendment impugned in the writ petitions, the observations of the supreme court in Raman Nair (supra) and that of the learned single judge in Jose (supra) have to be seen as covering the issue as regards validity of the amended provisions of the statute. This is more so because even as per the statutory provisions under the KS&SSR, the State/University is given a choice of applying the reservation principles to any service, class or category. This is more so because even as per the statutory provisions under the KS&SSR, the State/University is given a choice of applying the reservation principles to any service, class or category. • The amendments brought about in the University Acts, apart from furthering the object of providing reservation in posts under the Universities, also takes into account the increasing emphasis given to multi-disciplinary approaches to education and hence the categorization of all posts of Assistant Professors, Associate Professors and Professors in separate cadres, irrespective of the subject/department concerned, cannot be seen as having effected a grouping of dissimilar posts in a cadre. The interchangeability of posts for the purposes of justifying inclusion in a common cadre has to be viewed in the said context as also in the backdrop of the enabling provisions of the University Acts and the KS&SSR that permit such categorization. • It is pointed out that through the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Teachers’ Cadre) Act, 2019 the Central Government has recognised the principle of treating the University/College/Institution as a single unit for the purposes of reservation of posts in direct recruitment in the Teachers’ cadre and the UGC has since issued instructions to all Central and State Universities and Deemed Universities coming under its purview to adopt the said practice in the respective educational institutions under their administrative jurisdiction. In the light of the said statutory prescription, the amendments introduced in the State University Acts cannot be seen as arbitrary, unreasonable or unconstitutional. 11. Per contra, the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel Sri. George Poonthottam and the learned counsel Sri. Ajaykumar, appearing on behalf of the respondents are as follows: • It is well settled through the judgments in Dr. Chakradhar Paswan v. State of Bihar and Others – [ (1988) 2 SCC 214 ], Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh v. Faculty Association & Others – [ (1998) 4 SCC 1 ], State of U.P. and Others v. M.C. Chattopadhyaya and Others – [ (2004) 12 SCC 333 ], Dr. Chakradhar Paswan v. State of Bihar and Others – [ (1988) 2 SCC 214 ], Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh v. Faculty Association & Others – [ (1998) 4 SCC 1 ], State of U.P. and Others v. M.C. Chattopadhyaya and Others – [ (2004) 12 SCC 333 ], Dr. V.P. Mahadevan Pillai v. University of Kerala -[ 2005 (3) KLJ 84 ], State of Karnataka & Others v. K.Govindappa and Another – [ (2009) 1 SCC 1 ], State of U.P. and Others v. Bharat Singh and Others – [ (2011) 4 SCC 120 ], Vivekanand Tiwari and Others v. Union of India and Others -[2017 (6) ALJ 722], M.S.Balamurugan v. State of Tamil Nadu -[(2020) SCC Online Mad. 6197], that there cannot be any reservation to a single post in any cadre. The position remains the same even if there is a structuring/re-structuring of cadres effected by the University if, on a careful scrutiny, it is found that the posts included in the re-structured cadre are not interchangeable. • The purported object of providing greater reservation to backward classes of persons while effecting direct recruitment to teaching and non-teaching posts in the services under the Universities concerned, cannot justify the inclusion of dissimilar posts in a cadre while implementing the reservation principles enumerated under the KS&SSR. While examining whether teaching posts included in a cadre are similar and interchangeable, the subject/discipline concerned is a relevant feature that must inform the inclusion of a post in a cadre. In the instant cases, a teacher in subject A cannot be seen as interchangeable with a teacher in subject B and hence the said teaching posts in different departments cannot be clubbed together in one cadre for the purposes of applying the reservation principles under the KS&SSR. The amendments effected to the University Statutes are therefore arbitrary and unconstitutional. • The decisions in Dr. The amendments effected to the University Statutes are therefore arbitrary and unconstitutional. • The decisions in Dr. Suresh Chandra Verma & Others v. The Chancellor Nagpur University & Others – [ (1990) 4 SCC 55 ], State of U.P. and Others v. M.C. Chattopadhyaya and Others – [ (2004) 12 SCC 333 ], State of Karnataka & Others v. K.Govindappa and Another – [ (2009) 1 SCC 1 ], Vivekanand Tiwari and Others v. Union of India and Others -[2017 (6) ALJ 722], R.R. Inamdar v. State of Karnataka and Others -[2019 (17) SCALE 424] are authorities for the proposition that the posts of Assistant Professors, Associate Professors and Professors of various departments cannot be clubbed together for the purposes of creating a common cadre in the respective categories, since they do not satisfy the test of interchangeability. Discussion and Findings: 12. We have considered the pleadings in the appeals before us and also the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side. We have also considered the averments in the argument notes submitted by counsel. The central issue that we are called upon to examine in these appeals is whether, for the purposes of applying the rules of communal reservation, the grouping of teaching posts carrying similar pay scales, duties and responsibilities, albeit in different subjects, can be seen as arbitrary and therefore illegal and unconstitutional ? While the learned counsel have taken us through a plethora of judgments dealing with similar issues that arose in various other states, we have to examine the statutory provisions in the context of which those decisions were rendered so as to decide their applicability to the appeals before us. With this preliminary caveat in mind, we may now proceed to consider the precedents on the issue. 13. Taking cue from the pronouncement of a seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. N.M.Thomas – [ (1976) 2 SCC 310 ], that Article 16(4) is not an exception, but a facet of Article 16 (1) of our constitution, and that Article 16 (1) envisaged not formal or legal equality but proportional equality or progressive elimination of pronounced inequality, it was declared in Indra Sawhney v. UOI – [(1992) Supp. 3 SCC 217] that reservation cannot ordinarily exceed 50%, but in rural and remote areas some relaxation could be made if the situation so warranted. 3 SCC 217] that reservation cannot ordinarily exceed 50%, but in rural and remote areas some relaxation could be made if the situation so warranted. The court, however, clarified that having regard to Article 335, it may not be advisable to provide for reservation in certain services and positions where either on account of the nature of duties attached to them or the level in the hierarchy at which they obtain, merit alone counts. By way of illustration, the court mentioned that provision for reservation would be inadvisable in technical posts in research and development organisations/departments/institutions, in specialities and super specialities in medicine, engineering and such other courses in physical sciences and mathematics, in defence services and in the establishments connected therewith. The same was held to be the case with posts at the higher echelons eg. Professors (in Education), Pilots in Indian Airlines and Air India, Scientists and Technicians in nuclear and space applications. (Id, at 752) (emphasis supplied). 14. In Dr. Chakradar Paswan v. State of Bihar – [ (1988) 2 SCC 214 ], the Supreme Court, for the first time, considered the question as to whether reservation can be extended even to a single post in a cadre. The issue arose in the context of structuring of cadres in the Directorate of Indigenous Medicines. The argument of the State was that the posts of Director and Deputy Director could validly constitute a cadre. While holding that permitting reservation for recruitment to single posts would render meaningless the guarantee to equality under Articles 16 (1) and (2) of the Constitution, the court found that the posts of Director and Dy. Director could not be clubbed together to form a cadre because the posts were not interchangeable and the incumbents did not perform the same duties, carry the same responsibilities or draw the same pay. The statutory provisions that provided for reservations to be applied to each grade or post separately was also taken note of by the court. Further the Government of India had also prohibited a grouping of isolated posts in that case. 15. In Dr. Suresh Chandra Verma & Others v. The Chancellor, Nagpur University & Others – [ (1990) 4 SCC 55 ], an employment notice was challenged as bad in law since it had mentioned only the total number of reserved posts without indicating the particular posts so reserved subject-wise. 15. In Dr. Suresh Chandra Verma & Others v. The Chancellor, Nagpur University & Others – [ (1990) 4 SCC 55 ], an employment notice was challenged as bad in law since it had mentioned only the total number of reserved posts without indicating the particular posts so reserved subject-wise. Referring to the use of the word “post” in the context of the statute, where it was seen as having a relation to the faculty, discipline or the subject for which it is created, and taking note of the fact that the impugned notice did not give any indication as regards the posts that were reserved for particular categories of persons, the court held that the inherent ambiguity in the matter of identification of reserved posts required it to hold the impugned notice as invalid and direct the University to apply the reservation norms post-wise or subject-wise. 16. In Post-Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh v. Faculty Association and Others – [ (1998) 4 SCC 1 ], a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court was considering a Review Petition against a three-judge bench decision in Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research v. K.L. Narasimhan – [ (1997) 6 SCC 283 ], pursuant to a reference of the issue to the larger bench by a reference order reported at State of Punjab and Another v. M.L.Sehgal and Others – [ (1997) 6 SCC 777 ]. The question before the constitution bench was whether in a single cadre post, reservation for SC’s, ST’s and OBC’s could be applied either directly or through the roster in which vacancies are rotated amongst general category and reserved category candidates? The question was answered in the negative by clarifying that total exclusion of general members of the public and cent per cent reservation for the backward classes is not permissible under the constitutional framework. That until there was plurality of posts in a cadre, the question of reservation would not arise because any attempt at reservation, by whatever means, and even through the device of rotation of roster in a single post cadre, was bound to create 100% reservation of such post whenever such reservation was to be implemented. The view taken in Dr. Chakradar Paswan (Supra) was approved by the constitution bench. 17. The view taken in Dr. Chakradar Paswan (Supra) was approved by the constitution bench. 17. In S.I.Rooplal and Another v. Lt.Governor, Delhi & Ors – [ (2000) 1 SCC 644 ], the court while dealing with the issue of ‘equivalence of posts’ held that equivalence of two posts is not judged by the sole factor of equal pay and went on to identify four factors in that regard viz. (i) the nature and duties of the post, (ii) the responsibilities and powers exercised by the officer holding the post; the extent of territorial or other charge held or responsibilities discharged, (iii) the minimum qualifications if any prescribed for recruitment to the post; and (iv) the salary of the post. It is significant that inter-changeability of the posts was not seen as a criterion for equivalence. 18. In State of Karnataka & Ors. v. K. Govindappa & Anr. -[ (2009) 1 SCC 1 ], the issue that came up for consideration before the court was whether all posts of lecturers could be taken together to constitute a cadre for the purposes of reservation, or the solitary post of lecturer in History, had to be seen as constituting a separate cadre in view of its non-interchangeability. It was held, following Dr. Chakradar Paswan (Supra) and Post-Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research (Supra) that the post of lecturer in History had to be seen as constituting a separate cadre because the post was not interchangeable with the post of lecturer in any other subject. This judgment was followed by a division bench of the Allahabad High Court in Vivekanand Tiwari & Ors. v. UOI & Ors. – [2017 (6) ALJ 722], the Special Leave Petition against which judgment was dismissed by the Supreme Court by an order dated 22.01.2019 in SLP (C) Diary No.14318/2018. In the Allahabad case too, the court was swayed by the argument that an Asst. Professor in subject A cannot be an applicant for direct appointment as Associate Professor or Professor in subject B or C and further, that the seniority for becoming Head of Department would be of teachers in the same subject. Their non-interchangeability and absence of inter-se competition for higher posts were deemed sufficient to hold that their posts could not be clubbed for the purposes of reservation. 19. Their non-interchangeability and absence of inter-se competition for higher posts were deemed sufficient to hold that their posts could not be clubbed for the purposes of reservation. 19. The decision in Govindappa (Supra) has since been followed by the supreme court in R.R. Inamdar v. State of Karnataka and Others -[2019 (17) SCALE 424], and quite recently, a single judge of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has taken a similar view in M.S. Balamurugan v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors – [(2020) SCC Online Mad. 6197]. 20. The principles that can be gleaned from the precedents considered above are that (i) there cannot be 100% reservation to a post in a service, (ii) reservation principles can be applied to a cadre of posts only if there is a plurality of posts in such cadre, and (iii) posts included in a cadre must share a commonality of features and must be inter-changeable vis-à-vis the said features. 21. The question posed in these appeals is whether the teaching posts grouped together to form separate cadres of Assistant Professors, Associate Professors and Professors can be seen as interchangeable ? In our view, there are various features that can be attributed to teaching posts under a University such as the pay scale attached to the post, the teaching/administrative duties and responsibilities that go with the post, the eligibility requirements for the post, etc. Teaching posts carrying similar pay scales, duties and responsibilities and eligibility requirements can be seen as interchangeable vis-à-vis those features and yet, may become non-interchangeable when a different feature, such as the subject taught, is also introduced. The concept of interchangeability of posts is therefore one that has to be examined in the backdrop of the object sought to be achieved through the grouping of posts, and vis-à-vis those features in the posts that are seen as furthering that objective. Our enquiry in these cases must therefore be to see whether the feature of subject taught, or the department in which it is created, is one that bears nexus to the object of furthering reservation in the posts concerned. 22. Our enquiry in these cases must therefore be to see whether the feature of subject taught, or the department in which it is created, is one that bears nexus to the object of furthering reservation in the posts concerned. 22. As already noticed, the impugned amendments were felt necessary when the state government found that a department wise categorization of the teaching posts resulted in the creation of a large number of single post cadres, in the direct recruitment to which, the principles of reservation could not be applied on account of the constitutional prohibition against 100% reservation. The State government therefore decided to amend the various university statutes so as to bring about uniformity in the matter of application of reservation principles to the teaching and non-teaching posts under the universities, by resorting to a categorization of teaching posts that would ensure plurality of posts in each category. In our view, when plurality is the main objective to be achieved for effectively implementing the reservation principles, the identification of common features in posts for inclusion in a group must be limited to the bare minimum required for ensuring a greater plurality of posts within that group. The common features identified must bring out the essence of the duties and responsibilities attached to the post, and a grouping of the posts on that basis must also be authorised by the statutory provisions in vogue. Viewed thus, introducing such features as would result in a reduction of the number of posts in an identified group would be counter-productive to the object of achieving plurality. Further, when viewed in the backdrop of the main objective of ensuring a plurality of posts in a cadre, interchangeability of posts can only be a secondary feature that has to be considered, vis-à-vis the features that have contributed to the inclusion of the posts in the cadre, and when so considered, it merely serves to ensure that there is no grouping of dissimilar posts. 23. On going through the precedents cited before us, and adverted to above, we notice that the statutory provisions, against the backdrop of which it was found that there was no interchangeability between similar teaching posts in different subjects/disciplines that were sought to be included in a cadre, clearly envisaged the application of reservation principles to posts taken subject-wise/department-wise. 23. On going through the precedents cited before us, and adverted to above, we notice that the statutory provisions, against the backdrop of which it was found that there was no interchangeability between similar teaching posts in different subjects/disciplines that were sought to be included in a cadre, clearly envisaged the application of reservation principles to posts taken subject-wise/department-wise. In other words, the applicable statutory provisions in those cases authorised a subject-wise/department-wise inclusion of posts in a cadre and an application of reservation principles to those posts. It followed, therefore, that the aspect of inter-changeability of posts in a cadre also came to be examined on the said criterion. We may, in this context, refer to the facts in State of UP v. M.C Chattopadhyaya – [ (2004) 12 SCC 333 ], where a three-judge bench of the supreme court considered the issue of reservations to the post of Professors under the U.P.State Universities Act, 1973. It was held therein that though there can be reservation in respect of the post of Professor and the provisions of the reservation Act would apply, the same could not be applied taking all the professors as a cadre but had to be applied subject wise. The statutory framework that was considered in the said case is laid out in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the judgment and reads as follows: “3. Under the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973, Section 2(19) defines the expression “teacher” to mean “a teacher employed by the university for imparting instruction and guiding or conducting research either in the University or in an institute or in constituent college maintained by the university”. 4. A look at the provisions of Sections 31(10), 31(3), 31(9) and 31- AA would indicate that the Act provides for recruitment to the post of Professor directly and there is a provision for promotion only in personal cases depending upon the preconditions prescribed under Section 31-AA. The statute of the University prescribes the procedure for direct recruitment as well as for personal promotion to the posts of Reader and Professor (see 10.02, 11.04, 11.12-B). It thus appears that the statute conceives of posts of Professor belonging to a single cadre. The statute of the University prescribes the procedure for direct recruitment as well as for personal promotion to the posts of Reader and Professor (see 10.02, 11.04, 11.12-B). It thus appears that the statute conceives of posts of Professor belonging to a single cadre. Under the provisions of the Reservation Act promulgated in the State of U.P. called the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994, “public services and posts” have been defined in Section 2(c) and sub-clause (iv) thereof would bring within its sweep a university established by or under an Uttar Pradesh Act. Section 3 of the Reservation Act Provides for reservation in all public services and posts. It also says that the percentage of vacancies to which recruitments are to be made in accordance with roster referred to in subsection (5) of Section 3 shall be reserved in favour of the persons belonging to Scheduled Casts, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes of Citizens. Sub Section 5 of Section 3 stipulates that the State Government shall, for applying the reservation under sub-section (1), by a notified order, issue a roster which shall be continuously applied till it is exhausted. It would thus be apparent that the principle of reservation could be applied to a post of Professor in accordance with a roster that has been issued by the State Government.” (emphasis supplied) The statutory provisions in that case envisaged an application of the reservation principles to a post, as distinct from a cadre or category of posts. 24. As against the above, and against the backdrop of the provisions of Rule 14 of the KS&SSR that make the principles of reservation applicable to any “service, class or category”, a scheme of cadre structuring/re-structuring that included posts across all subjects/disciplines in separate cadres at different levels was followed in the Cochin University (later renamed as the Cochin University of Science & Technology) in the past, which was the subject matter of litigation before this court as well as the Supreme Court. 25. In University of Cochin v. Dr. N. Raman Nair & Ors. 25. In University of Cochin v. Dr. N. Raman Nair & Ors. – [ (1975) 3 SCC 628 ], the court had to consider the validity of a resolution of the syndicate of the Cochin University, that resolved to apply the rules of reservation to teaching staff as a class, except to the post of Professor which was to be filled up exclusively on considerations of merit. The resolution was taken in the backdrop of the statutory provision (Section 6(2) of the Cochin University Act, 1971) that stipulated that ‘in making appointments to posts in any service, class or category under the University, the University shall mutatis mutandis, observe the provisions of clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Rule 14 and the provisions of Rules 15, 16 and 17 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules (KS&SSR) as amended from time to time’ (emphasis supplied). 26. The court found that while the provisions of the University Act lodged in the University a power to determine what should constitute a class or category of service under the University, the Syndicate could not alter the provisions of the Act, which made it incumbent on the university to apply the rotation rule, as contemplated in the rules, to 'posts in any service, class or category under the university' and that the High Court was right in holding that if Section 6 (2) were to operate on its terms, selection to the post of Reader, for the first time made by the university should, in the first turn, go to the candidate adjudged best on open competition, and only on the next turn or turns to candidates on the principle of communal rotation. The court reasoned that the statutory provision was intended to ensure that whatever may be the kind of post to be held by a person in a service ‘under the university’, principles laid down in Rules 14, 15, 16 and 17 of the KS&SSR must apply in making appointments to it. It is significant to note that this decision was rendered in the backdrop of the statutory provision that held the field and the resolution of the syndicate of the university was struck down since it ran counter to the statutory provision. It is significant to note that this decision was rendered in the backdrop of the statutory provision that held the field and the resolution of the syndicate of the university was struck down since it ran counter to the statutory provision. The court also observed that a classification, which puts the whole teaching staff in one class for the purposes of applying the rule, was “seemingly unassailable unless it had the effect of destroying the distinction between the classes and categories of service” (emphasis supplied). 27. The Cochin University Act, 1971 was thereafter repealed and replaced by the Cochin University of Science & Technology Act, 1986, Section 7 (2) of which Act provided that ‘in making appointments for all posts as determined by the syndicate in any service, class or category under the university, the university shall mutatis mutandis observe the provisions of clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Rule 14 and the provisions of Rules 15, 16 and 17 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules (KS&SSR) as amended from time to time’. Section 31 of the Act provided for the constitution of the selection committee and the manner in which selection had to be made to the different posts of both teaching and non-teaching staff under the university. Sub-section (11) of Section 31 provided that ‘communal rotation shall be followed category wise treating all the departments as one unit’ (emphasis supplied). 28. The validity of a recruitment notification issued by the Cochin University of Science & Technology, that contemplated the application of communal reservation principles to the posts of Readers and Lecturers by classifying Readers of all departments in one group & Lecturers of all departments into another group and treating them as separate units, came up for consideration before this court in Jose v. Cochin University – [1993 KHC 342]. After taking note of the judgments of the Supreme Court in Dr. Raman Nair (Supra), and distinguishing the judgments in Dr. Chakradar Paswan (Supra) and Dr. Suresh Chandra Varma (Supra), the court found that the classification of the posts, in accordance with the mandate under subsection (11) of Section 31 of the 1986 Act was in accordance with the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in Dr. Raman Nair (Supra) and while enacting the 1986 statute the legislature had had the benefit of the view expressed by the court in the said judgment. Raman Nair (Supra) and while enacting the 1986 statute the legislature had had the benefit of the view expressed by the court in the said judgment. The court also accepted the contention of the University that the posts of lecturers, or readers or professors of all departments were treated as one class of lecturer, reader or professor in order to effectively implement the mandate under Article 46 of the constitution and of the provisions in Section 7 (2) of the 1986 Act. The court then found that to bring about equality among all sections of the public, it was necessary to classify the posts in the above manner and implement the rules of reservation in favour of members of the scheduled caste and scheduled tribe and backward classes, and further, that if the posts were not classified as directed in sub-section (11) of Section 31, it would not be possible to apply the rules of reservation as provided under Rules 14 to 17A of the KS&SSR. 29. The aforesaid judgment in Jose (Supra) has not been carried in appeal and has therefore attained finality. That apart, we find that the amendments now effected to the various University Acts virtually does nothing more than to provide a statutory backing to the scheme of grouping of posts that was approved in the context of the Cochin University of Science & Technology Act, 1986 read with the KS&SSR. The amendments effected in 2014 only enabled the Universities to apply the principles of communal reservation under the KS&SSR, by grouping all the posts of Professors, Associate Professors and Assistant Professors, in the various departments of the University, as separate cadres/categories for the said purpose. We fail to see how the said amended provisions can be viewed as unconstitutional. 30. We also find that in the light of the clear statutory provisions obtaining under the amended Kerala University Act read with Rules 14 to 17A of the KS&SSR where the principles of reservation are to be applied to any “service, class or category” and not to 'posts', the decisions of the Supreme Court in Dr. Chakradar Paswan (Supra), Govindappa (Supra), R.R. Inamdar (Supra) and the decisions of the Allahabad and Madras High Courts in Vivekanand Tiwari (Supra) and Balamurugan (Supra) have to be seen as rendered in the context of the statutory provisions that obtained in those cases. Chakradar Paswan (Supra), Govindappa (Supra), R.R. Inamdar (Supra) and the decisions of the Allahabad and Madras High Courts in Vivekanand Tiwari (Supra) and Balamurugan (Supra) have to be seen as rendered in the context of the statutory provisions that obtained in those cases. We do not see those decisions as laying down a general rule, divorced of statutory context, that teaching posts in different subjects or disciplines cannot be included in a single cadre for the purposes of applying the principles of communal reservation. It would be apposite in this context to refer to the observations of the Supreme Court in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. N.R. Vairamani – [ (2004) 8 SCC 579 ] where the court held that a decision cannot be relied on without disclosing the factual situation. It was observed: “9. Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. Observations of courts are neither to be read as Euclid's theorems nor as provisions of a statute and that too taken out of their context. These observations must be read in the context in which they appear to have been stated. Judgments of courts are not to be construed as statutes. To interpret words, phrases and provisions of a statute, it may become necessary for judges to embark into lengthy discussions but the discussion is meant to explain and not to define. Judges interpret statutes, they do not interpret judgments. They interpret words of statutes; their words are not to be interpreted as statutes.” 31. We also take note of the fact that after the introduction of the UGC Regulations governing various aspects of eligibility for recruitment and promotion to teaching posts, which regulations have been adopted in the State of Kerala, there is a commonality in the matter of recruitment and promotion to the different teaching posts such as Associate Professors, Assistant Professors and Professors irrespective of the discipline in which the posts are instituted. We also find that the Central Government has recognised the principle of treating the University/College/Institution as a single unit for the purposes of reservation of posts in direct recruitment in the teachers cadre and that the said principle finds statutory expression in the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation In Teachers' Cadre) Act, 2019. We also find that the Central Government has recognised the principle of treating the University/College/Institution as a single unit for the purposes of reservation of posts in direct recruitment in the teachers cadre and that the said principle finds statutory expression in the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation In Teachers' Cadre) Act, 2019. The UGC has also issued instructions to all Central and State Universities and Deemed Universities coming under its purview to adopt the said practice in the respective educational institutions falling under their jurisdiction. The aforesaid facts fortify the contentions of the appellant State and University that the amendments brought about in the University Statute cannot be seen as unreasonable or arbitrary. The upshot of the above discussion is that we do not find the impugned amendments to the Kerala University Act to be vitiated on any ground that would render them unconstitutional. Consequently, the action taken by the University based on the said amendments including those taken pursuant to the University Order dated 25.10.2017 and the Notification dated 27.11.2017 are upheld. We therefore allow these appeals by setting aside the impugned judgment of the learned single judge and dismissing the Writ Petitions. No costs.