JUDGMENT : ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J. In all these writ petitions, the issue pertains to the selection of Assistant Professors in various subjects as per notification dated 31.12.2019 (Ext.P1 in W.P(C) No.25602/23 and hereinafter referred to as Ext.P1). Total number of posts notified as per Ext.P1 was 63. As per Section 6 (2) of Calicut University Act , in making appointments to the teaching and non teaching posts in the University, the provisions as per 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 (KS&SSR) shall be Mutatis mutandis applicable. 2. As per the provisions in the KS&SSR, a roster for the purpose of reservation has to be maintained for various communities elgible for the same. Exhibit P3 in W.P(C)No. 25602/23 is the amendment brought to the Rule 15 Part II to KS&SSR which contains the roster. As per the provisions contained therein, a roster with 100 points is to be maintained and the same has to be followed for making appointments against the vacancies earmarked for open competition and the reserved categories of SC/ST and Other backward communities. 3. The grievance of the petitioners is that, despite the aforesaid statutory stipulation, the respondent University carried out selections based on Ext.P1, by creating additional three roster points, namely, 1A, 26A and 51A, for the physically disabled candidates and filled up the vacancies based on the same. This additional slots were created by the University for implementing the statutory reservation for persons with disabilities as contemplated under Section 34 of The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPWD Act), which provided for 4% reservation for such persons. 4. According to the petitioners, by providing reservation to persons with disabilities by creating additional slots, which are not contemplated in the roster provided as per the provisions of the KS&SSR, the rotation contemplated as per the law is deviated from. As a consequence of the same, the petitioners who were otherwise eligible to get appointments based on the reservation criteria were denied their rightful opportunities. According to the petitioners, as far as special reservation contemplated under RPwD Act is concerned, it is a horizontal reservation, which has to be implemented without affecting the social reservation as per Article 16 (4) of the Constitution of India, for SC/STs and other Backward Communities. 5. According to the petitioners, as far as special reservation contemplated under RPwD Act is concerned, it is a horizontal reservation, which has to be implemented without affecting the social reservation as per Article 16 (4) of the Constitution of India, for SC/STs and other Backward Communities. 5. W.P(C)Nos.7250/22, W.P(C)No.16407/21 and 16078/21 were filed challenging the appointments made by the University based on Ext.P1 notification referred to above. In W.P(C)No.16078/21 and 16407/21 the petitioners have challenged the constitutional validity of Section 6 (2) of the Calicut University Act as well. In W.P(C)No.7250/22 and W.P(C)No.16078/21, all the candidates who were granted appointments based on the selection process carried out by the University were impleaded as the respondents. 6. During the pendency of the aforesaid writ petitions, one Dr.Anupama K.P, a candidate for Assistant Professor in journalism and Mass Communication, approached this Court by filing W.P(C) No.16456/21, challenging the appointment made as per Ext.P1 with regard to the post of Assistant Professor in the discipline referred to above. In the said writ petition, similar contentions that are raised in the above writ petitions were raised. The learned single judge dismissed the said writ petition, which was challenged before a Division Bench of this Court by filing Writ Appeal No.1527/21. The Division Bench, in the writ appeal set aside the judgment of the learned single judge and the said judgment is produced as Ext.P6, in W.P(C) No.25602/23, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Ext.P6’). 7. As per Ext.P6 judgment, this Court accepted the contention of the appellant therein that, while creating additional slots of 1A, 26A and 51A in the hundred point roster, the University violated the requirements under the KS&SSR and also violated the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney and Others v. Union of India and Others [1992 Supp(3) SCC 217], Rajesh Kumar Daria v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and Others [ (2007) 8 SCC 785 ] and Anil Kumar Gupta and Others v. State of U.P. and Others [(1995) 5 SCC 173] . Accordingly the Writ Appeal was disposed of directing the University to rework the rotation chart in respect of the appointments already made pursuant to Ext.P1 notification notionally, by following the procedure prescribed by the Apex court in the decisions referred to above and retain persons who are appointed otherwise than in accordance with the said procedure in supernumerary posts, so that, they will not be affected. It was also observed that the University will be free to adjust their appointments against future vacancies as and when they arise. 8. Even though the University challenged Ext.P6 judgment before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the same was rejected by confirming Ext.P6 judgment, as per Ext.P7 produced in W.P(C) No.25602/23, hereinafter referred to as ‘Ext.P7’. 9. W.P.(C)Nos.25602/23, 10898/24, 25315/23, 25325/23, 39324/23 and 19805/23 were filed by respective petitioners who were the participants in the selection process, seeking appointments to the post of Assistant Professors in various disciplines. The main relief sought in those writ petitions was to direct the University to rework the rotation chart in respect of the appointments already made pursuant to Ext.P1 notification, in accordance with the declaration of law made by this Court in Ext.P6 judgment. 10. Although WP(C)No.4733/2021 is a connected matter related to the issue involved in the cases referred to above, the reliefs sought therein stand on a different footing. The petitioner therein is a member of the Syndicate of the University and the main relief sought therein is to direct the University to furnish roster details and the date of occurrence of 47 vacancies, on which appointments are already made. 11. The University has filed counter affidavits and additional counter affidavits in all the cases, disputing the contentions raised by the respective petitioners and justifying the actions taken by them. In the additional counter affidavit, the University stated that they had already re-worked the roster chart as directed by this court in Ext.P6 judgment, without affecting the persons who were already granted appointments. Ext.R1(a), the re-worked rotation chart, was produced in W.P(C) 25602/23. 12. The petitioners have filed reply affidavits stating that even in Ext.R1(a), the University failed to implement the directions issued by this Court in Ext.P6 judgment. Ext.R1(a), the re-worked rotation chart, was produced in W.P(C) 25602/23. 12. The petitioners have filed reply affidavits stating that even in Ext.R1(a), the University failed to implement the directions issued by this Court in Ext.P6 judgment. This contention was raised mainly on the reason that, after deleting the additional slots earlier incorporated as 1A, 26A, 51A in the initial selection process, the University had shown the said slots separately, by making the appointments against the same slots earlier created based on the date of occurrence of vacancies. This was done by preparing the rotation chart as per the provisions in KS&SSR for total number of posts of 60, whereas the total vacancies notified were 63. Therefore, it was pointed out that, practically, such reworking would not result in any difference as far as the appointments to the reserved candidates are concerned and thus Ext.P6 judgment was not implemented in letter and spirit.These writ petitions are to be considered, in the above factual background. 13. It is to be noted in this regard that, as far as the reliefs sought in W.P(C)Nos.7250/22, 16078/21 and 16407/21 are concerned, even though the issues are covered in their favour as per Ext.P6 judgment, the question as to whether the reliefs as sought in the said writ petitions are to be granted or not is to be considered, in view of the fact that in Ext.P6 judgment it was clarified by the Division Bench of this Court that the direction contained in the said judgment will not affect the rights of parties in pending writ petitions where the selections and appointments were made pursuant to Ext.P1 notification are under challenge. 14. Heard Sri.P.Raveendran, the learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri.Sabu M.R, appearing for petitioners in W.P(C)No.25602/23, 10898/24, 25315/23, 25325/23 and 39324/23, Sri.George Poonthottam, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri.A.L.Navaneeth Krishnan appearing for petitioners in W.P.(C)Nos.19805/23, 7250/22, 16078/21, 16407/21 and 4733/21, Sri.Premchand R.Nair, learned Government Pleader for the State of Kerala, Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, learned Standing counsel for the University and Sri.T.B.Hood, learned counsel appearing for the party respondents (selected candidates) in W.P(C) Nos.16078/21 and W.P(C) No.7250/22. 15. The learned Senior counsels appearing for the petitioners have vehemently contended that the university's actions in not following the directions issued by this court in Ext.P6 judgment are illegal. 15. The learned Senior counsels appearing for the petitioners have vehemently contended that the university's actions in not following the directions issued by this court in Ext.P6 judgment are illegal. It was pointed out that, Ext.R1(a) was issued by the University in total violation of the directions issued by this Court, and therefore, the interference of this Court is sought. 16. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel for the University stoutly opposes the said contentions by pointing out that the direction in Ext.P6 judgment was to rework the rotation chart by following the procedure prescribed by the Apex Court in Indra Sawhney, Rajesh Kumar Daria and Anil Kumar’ s cases (supra). While issuing Ext.R1(a), the said directions are followed and therefore, none of the reliefs sought are liable to be considered. The learned counsel for the party respondents who were already granted appointments, supported the contentions of the learned standing counsel for the University and the learned counsel also brought the attention of this Court to the averments contained in the additional counter affidavits filed by the respondents 7, 8, 11 to 29, 31 to 40 and 42 to 59 in W.P.(C) No.16078/21 wherein the hardships that may occur to the party respondents in case they were ousted from the respective employments, are highlighted. It was pointed out that, they had completed more than 3½ years of service in the respondent University, 21 of them have already crossed the age of 40 years and therefore, there would not be any scope for a fresh employment opportunities. The details of the posts earlier held by some of them were also mentioned in the additional counter affidavit and stated that they joined the present employment based on the selection process conducted as per Ext.P1, after resigning from the said posts. 17. Large number of decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court were also relied on by all the parties concerned to substantiate their respective contentions which shall be dealt with hereinafter as and when the necessity arises. 18. Thus, the only question that arises for consideration is whether the principles of reservation as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court were followed while making the selection process based on Ext.P1. 18. Thus, the only question that arises for consideration is whether the principles of reservation as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court were followed while making the selection process based on Ext.P1. As far as the initial selection process is concerned, in Ext.P6 judgment, this Court elaborately considered the same and found that the additional slots created in the roster points as serial Nos 1A, 26A and 51A were not proper. The said finding was made by this Court after referring to the decisions in Indra Sawhney, Rajesh Kumar Daria and Anil Kumar’ s cases (supra). Relevant observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which were relied on are also extracted in Ext.P6 judgment. It is discernible from the aforesaid observations and findings that after scrutinizing the procedure adopted by the University, this Court found that while implementing the reservation policy, the University has granted reservation to the persons with disabilities, by applying the principles of vertical reservation, whereas going by the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the reservation for persons with disabilities was to be provided horizontally. This aspect was clearly mentioned in paragraph 812 of Indra Sawhney’ s cases (supra). which was extracted in paragraph 13 of Ext.P6 judgment and read as follows: “There are two types of reservations, which may, for the sake of convenience, be referred to as ‘vertical reservations’ and ‘horizontal reservations’. The reservations in favour of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other backward classes [under Article 16(4)] may be called vertical reservations whereas reservations in favour of physically handicapped [under clause (1) of Article 16] can be referred to as horizontal reservations. Horizontal reservations cut across the vertical reservations — what is called interlocking reservations. To be more precise, suppose 3% of the vacancies are reserved in favour of physically handicapped persons; this would be a reservation relatable to clause (1) of Article 16. The persons selected against this quota will be placed in the appropriate category; if he belongs to SC category he will be placed in that quota by making necessary adjustments; similarly, if he belongs to open competition (OC) category, he will be placed in that category by making necessary adjustments. Even after providing for these horizontal reservations, the percentage of reservations in favour of backward class of citizens remains — and should remain — the same. Even after providing for these horizontal reservations, the percentage of reservations in favour of backward class of citizens remains — and should remain — the same. This is how these reservations are worked out in several States and there is no reason not to continue that procedure.” 19. After referring to the decisions mentioned above, in paragraph Nos.14 and 15 of Ext.P6 it was observed as follows: “14. Admittedly, the University has not adopted the procedure as has been laid down in the decisions aforesaid of the Apex Court. Instead, as pointed out by the petitioner, the University has effected the reservation in favour of “persons with disabilities” vertically as is done in the case of reservations in favour of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes, by earmarking roster points 1, 26 and 51 for the said classes and additional slots were created in those roster points as slots 1A, 26A and 51A in order to protect the interests of candidates who are otherwise entitled to be considered for appointment against vacancies corresponding to the said roster points. In that process, the roster points fixed in terms of Annexure to Part II of KS & SSR for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and all Other Backward Communities have been completely changed. As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, it is on account of the said reason that the vacancy corresponding to roster point 54 became the vacancy corresponding to roster point 51A earmarked for “persons with disabilities” and the petitioner, who would have otherwise been appointed against the vacancy corresponding to roster point 54, was denied appointment. In light of the decisions of the Apex Court referred to in the preceding paragraph, the procedure adopted by the University as referred to above is faulty and illegal. In Indra Sawhney , it has been held categorically by the Apex Court that while effecting the reservations in favour of category of persons like "persons with disabilities", it is obligatory for the employer to ensure that the percentage of reservations in favour of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes remain intact. In Indra Sawhney , it has been held categorically by the Apex Court that while effecting the reservations in favour of category of persons like "persons with disabilities", it is obligatory for the employer to ensure that the percentage of reservations in favour of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes remain intact. In the case on hand, it is seen that on account of the faulty procedure adopted by the University, candidates belonging to ETB Communities who were otherwise entitled to 9 posts in a process of selection for filling up of 63 vacancies, could get only 8 posts. That apart, the procedure adopted by the University is violative of Rule 15 of Part II KS & SSR also, for the same is contrary to the rotation turns provided for in the Annexure to Part II KS & SSR. In terms of the said Annexure, the rotation turns for ETB Communities are 2, 14, 18 28, 34, 42, 54, 58 and 62 and on account of the introduction of additional slots in the roster, the turns of ETB communities have been changed to 3, 15, 19, 30, 36, 44, 57 and 61. When a percentage of reservation is fixed in favour of a category by allotting reserve points in a roster, the same are to be filled from among the members of that reserved category only. It is so held by the Apex Court in R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab , (1995) 2 SCC 745 . The relevant portion of paragraph 4 of the judgment in the said case reads thus: “When a percentage of reservation is fixed in respect of a particular cadre and the roster indicates the reserve points, it has to be taken that the posts shown at the reserve points are to be filled from amongst the members of reserve categories and the candidates belonging to the general category are not entitled to be considered for the reserved posts.” Again, the procedure adopted by the University is violative of the requirement under Section 34 of the Act also, as, if the said procedure is adopted, in a rotation of 104 appointments, only 4 persons with disabilities would be appointed, which may not satisfy the requirement of 4% reservation.” 15. As noticed, the view taken by the learned Single Judge is that the vacancy corresponding to slot 54 in the 100 Point Roster has been filled up by the University by appointing a candidate belonging to ETB Communities and it is on account of the said reason, the learned Single Judge chose to dismiss the writ petition. The petitioner also takes the stand that slot 54 in the 100 Point Roster has gone to the vacancy that arose in the Botany Department of the University on 31.05.2019 against which the fourth respondent in the writ appeal was appointed and it is on that premise, the petitioner has impleaded the said person in the writ appeal as the person who would be affected by the decision in the writ petition. It is seen that the vacancy corresponding to slot 54 has become slot 51A on account of the introduction of additional slots in the roster for effecting reservation in favour of "persons with disabilities", and no candidate was appointed by the University against the said slot since there were no candidates among the "persons with disabilities" who have applied for selection for appointment as Assistant Professor in the Department of Journalism and Mass Communication. The fourth respondent in the writ appeal is a person appointed against roster point 57 which was a slot due to an open competition candidate. The premise on which the learned Single Judge chose to dismiss the writ petition cannot, therefore, be said to be correct.“ 20. After holding as above, observations were also made the Division Bench as to how the roster should have been maintained by the University, in Para.17 of the Ext P6 judgment which read as follows: “17. Having found that the procedure adopted by the University for effecting reservation in favour of "persons with disabilities" was illegal and faulty, the next aspect to be considered is as to the relief to which the petitioner is entitled to. As explained by the Apex Court in Anil Kumar Gupta and Rajesh Kumar Daria , in the case on hand, the University should have first filled up slots in the roster due to open competition candidates and candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes, and should have thereupon examined the number of candidates belonging to the category “persons with disabilities” who could secure the appointments. Insofar as three persons are entitled to appointment in that process, the shortfall, if any, should have been made up by adjusting/accommodating the required number of candidates belonging to the category “persons with disabilities” against their respective social reservation categories. Had this been a case where the requirement under Section 34 could not have been satisfied by adopting the said procedure, the University should have deleted the corresponding number of candidates from the bottom of the list, instead of introducing additional slots for "persons with disabilities" in between. Be that as it may, inasmuch as it is found that slot 54 in the roster due to the second vacancy that arose in the Department of Journalism and Mass Communication on 01.04.2019 is one earmarked for appointment of a candidate belonging to the communities “Ezhavas, Thiyyas and Billavas”, in the absence of any candidate belonging to the category “persons with disabilities”, the petitioner being the second rank holder and a candidate belonging to the communities “Ezhavas, Thiyyas and Billavas”, she should have been appointed by the University against that vacancy. As noted, since no candidate was appointed by the University against the second vacancy that arose in the Department of Journalism and Mass Communication on 01.04.2019, no one would be affected also by such appointment.“ 21. In the light of the above observations, the selection process was found to be defective, however, taking note of the fact that the persons already granted appointments were working in the University for quite some time and their appointments were not under challenge in the writ petition which was the subject matter of Ext.P6, it was directed that the University has to rework the rotation chart in respect of the appointments already made pursuant to Ext.P1 notification notionally, by following the procedure prescribed by the Apex Court in the decisions referred to above and retain persons who are appointed otherwise than in accordance with the said procedure in supernumerary posts so that they will not be affected by this decisions. It was also observed that the University will be free to adjust their appointments against future vacancies as and when they arise. 22. Thus, it is evident that this Court entered into a categorical finding that the procedure adopted by the University by granting separate slots in the roster chart, for persons with disabilities was not proper. It was also observed that the University will be free to adjust their appointments against future vacancies as and when they arise. 22. Thus, it is evident that this Court entered into a categorical finding that the procedure adopted by the University by granting separate slots in the roster chart, for persons with disabilities was not proper. It was also specifically mentioned in paragraph 17 that the University should have filled up slots in the roster due to open competition candidates and candidates belonging to SC/ST and Other Backward Castes, and should have thereupon examined the number of candidates belonging to the category of persons with disabilities. The observations are to the effect that, in case the list of candidates already granted appointments by following the procedures referred to above, contained a sufficient number of candidates with physical disabilities to meet the requirements of Section 34 of the RPwD Act, it was not necessary to grant any further appointments to persons with disabilities. On the other hand, if there was any short fall that should have been made up by adjusting/accommodating the required number of candidates belong to the persons with disabilities against their respective social reservation categories. 23. The learned standing counsel for the University, as well as the learned counsel for the party respondents, raised various contentions with regard to the manner in which the reservation of physically disabled candidates was to be implemented, while attempting to justify the procedure adopted by the University so far. The learned counsels have brought the attention of this Court to the observations made by Indra Sawhney, Rajesh Kumar Daria and Anil Kumar’ s cases (supra) to support their contentions and they also tried to distinguish the same in the facts and circumstances of this case. The learned counsels also relied on a judgment rendered by a single Bench of this Court in Muhazin P. and another v. Government of Kerala and others [ 2011 (1) KLT 71 ] wherein the manner in which the reservation to physically disabled persons has to be implemented in the light of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, was considered. Placing reliance upon the observations therein, it was contended that, as far as the reservation of physically disabled persons are concerned, it is an out of turn reservation which has to be implemented along with the other reservations. Placing reliance upon the observations therein, it was contended that, as far as the reservation of physically disabled persons are concerned, it is an out of turn reservation which has to be implemented along with the other reservations. It was pointed out that in Muhazin’s decision (supra) the similar procedure adopted by the Government of Kerala was upheld by this court. However, I am unable to entertain the said contentions. In Ext.P6 judgment, this Court specifically considered the said contentions of the University and after referring to the decision in Muhzin’s case (supra) it was observed that the said decision has nothing to do with the issue to be decided in the said case. Thus, the said contention of the respondents cannot be entertained. 24. Similarly, as regards the manner of providing reservation to the physically disabled candidates by providing separate slots, in Ext.P6 judgment, a categorical finding is already entered into by holding that it is erroneous. The manner in which the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court are to be understood and implemented were also specifically considered and directions were issued in paragraph 17 and 18 of the said judgment. The said directions are very specific and such findings and directions are already upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as per Ext.P7 judgment. Therefore, under no circumstances, the respondent University could have allotted separate slots affecting the roster points and the turns contemplated under Rule 15 of the KS & SSR as evidenced by Ext.P3 in W.P(C)No.25602/2023. 25. When it comes to the Ext.R1(a), which is the re-worked rotation chart, it can be seen that practically no changes have been made by following the observations made by this Court in Ext.P6. Earlier, in the initial selection process, the additional slots were created by providing 1A, 26A and 51A. Now the said slots are deleted from the rotation chart by reducing the number of posts to 60 from 63. Thereafter, a separate chart of three persons with physical disabilities were created and going by the details of the occurrence of vacancies as shown in the counter affidavit filed by the University in W.P(C) No.16456/2021 which culminated in Ext.P6 judgment, it can be seen that very same vacancies were earmarked for physically disabled candidates by making a cosmetic change in the rotation chart after showing the said chart separately. Therefore, Ext.R1(a) cannot be treated as a rotation chart re-worked in terms of the directions issued by this Court. Thus, the directions in Ext.P6 are not at all implemented by the University. Ofcourse, the learned standing counsel for the University and the learned Counsel for the party respondents raised various contentions to defend the method of the selection adopted by the University, by granting reservation through separate slots to the persons with disabilities. According to them, the reservation implemented by them is in tune with the decisions rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney’s case and other cases referred to by the Division Bench. However, the said contentions cannot be accepted in view of the fact that, in Ext P6 judgment, after referring to the said decisions came to a definite finding that, the method adopted by the University to provide reservation to persons with disabilities were not correct and specific directions were also issued as to how the same has to be implemented. The said directions became final, as those were upheld by the Honourable Supreme Court. Therefore, the University cannot reagitate the matter before this court again and instead, is bound to implement the same in letter and spirit. 26. Now, when coming to the reliefs to be granted as prayed in the writ petitions, it is to be noted that, one of the contentions raised by the party respondents are by highlighting the difficulties that may arise, if their appointments are interfered with at this point of time. It is an undisputed fact that all these party respondents were appointed in the year 2021 and as of now, about four years have elapsed. While considering these aspects, the averments in the additional counter affidavit filed by the party respondents in W.P.(C)No.16078/21 are relevant. Paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 7 reads as follows: 4. It is submitted that 16 among us were working in Government or Aided institutions in substantive posts on regular basis before our appointment as Assistant professor in the 3d respondent - University. The 25" respondent Dr.Sanoop resigned from the Government of India service and the others were relieved from the respective posts to join the 3 respondent - University in February, 2021. Now more than three years have elapsed and our lien period is over. The 25" respondent Dr.Sanoop resigned from the Government of India service and the others were relieved from the respective posts to join the 3 respondent - University in February, 2021. Now more than three years have elapsed and our lien period is over. The previous service details of the Assistant Professors, who were appointed in the 3d respondent University in 2021l, are given below. Sl No. Name Department Date of Joining Relieved Post the Previous Service 1 Dr. Pramod C. Botany 27.10.2006 Asst. Professor, Collegiate Education Department, Govt. of Kerala. 2 Dr. Resmi L. Botany 24.01.2008 Asst. Professor, Christian College, Kattakkada 3 Dr. Deepna Latha Botany 28.10.2019 Asst. Professor, Sree Krishna College, Guruvayur 4 Dr. Derry Holaday Chemistry 29.12.2020 Asst. Professor, Fathima Matha National College, Kollam 5 Dr. Muneer Babu Economics 24.06.2019 Asst. Professor, Collegiate Education Department, Govt. of Kerala 6 Dr. Sanoop M.S. Economics 01.07.2016 Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Govt. of India 7 Dr. Reesha Karally Education 10.04.2014 Teacher Educator, GITE, Malappuram 8 Dr. Shibi C. Hindi 14.06.2012 Asst. Professor, Carmel College, Mala 9 Dr. Satheesh P. History 17.08.2013 Thunjath Ezhuthachan Malayalam University, Tirur 10 Dr. Aparna T Malayalam 15.03.2015 Asst. Professor, Zamorin’s Guruvayurappan College, Calicut 11 Dr. Mubeena T. Mathematics 18.03.2013 Asst. Professor, Collegiate Education Department, Govt. of Kerala 12 Dr. N.A. Shihab Sanskrit 19.12.2007 Asst. Professor, Collegiate Education Department, Govt. of Kerala 13 Dr. Renjith Rajan Sanskrit 29.01.2020 Part Time Junior Language Teacher Sanskrit, Govt. HSS, Omallur 14 Dr. Dileep Kumar Statistics 25.02.2020 Asst. Professor, Nehru Arts and Science College, Kanhangad 15 Dr. Aneesh E.M. Zoology 09.07.2012 Asst. Professor, St. Joseph’s College, Irinjalakuda 16 Dr. Binu R. Zoology 29.08.2017 Asst. Professor, Christ College, Irinjalakuda 5. It is submitted that the following party respondents had crossed the age of 40 years. Sl.No Name Department Age (Years) 1 Dr. Muneer G.P. Arabic 43 2 Dr. Pramod C. Botany 44 3 Dr. Resmi L. Botany 44 4 Dr. Derry Holaday M.G. Chemistry 40 5 Dr. Suja T.D. Chemistry 46 6 Dr. Priyalekha N.S. Comparative Literature 43 7 Dr. Sreekala M. Comparative Literature 44 8 Dr. Muneer Babu M. Economics 43 9 Dr. Rajula Helan K.P. Economics 42 10 Dr. Reesha Karally Education 43 11 Dr. Shibi C. Hindi 43 12 Dr. Satheesh P. History 45 13 Dr. Mubeena T. Mathematics 40 14 Dr. Prasad T. Mathematics 42 15 Dr. Shibu E.S. Nano Science 42 16 Dr. Sreekala M. Comparative Literature 44 8 Dr. Muneer Babu M. Economics 43 9 Dr. Rajula Helan K.P. Economics 42 10 Dr. Reesha Karally Education 43 11 Dr. Shibi C. Hindi 43 12 Dr. Satheesh P. History 45 13 Dr. Mubeena T. Mathematics 40 14 Dr. Prasad T. Mathematics 42 15 Dr. Shibu E.S. Nano Science 42 16 Dr. Savithri A. Philosophy 42 17 Dr. Drisya K. Physics 40 18 Dr. N.A. Shihab Sanskrit 46 19 Dr. Renjith Rajan Sanskrit 41 20 Dr. Aneesh E.M. Zoology 42 21 Dr. Binu R. Zoology 45 6. It is submitted that after entry in the service of the 3rd respondent University, following party respondents had received offer of appointment fron the Government and other institutions. Since they have already joined the service as Assistant Professor in the 3rd respondent University, they did not accept the offer of appointment. Sl Name Department Position Offered Department No. 1 Dr. Mahesh S. Hindi Full Time Junior Teacher Govt. of Kerala 2 Dr. Vijisha K. Rajan Nano Science Asst. Professor Department of Collegiate Education, Govt. of Kerala 3 Dr. Shibu E.S. Nano Science Ramanujan CSIR CECRI, Fellow Karaikudi, (Research) Tamil Nadu 4 Dr. Suja T.D. Chemistry Asst. Professor (Contract) Central University, Haryana 7. It is submitted that we had completed more than 32 years of service in the 3 respondent University and our probation in service has been declared. It is not in interest of any one to upset our appointment at this distance oftime especially since some of us had quit our earlier job to join the University service and most of us are now above lhe age of 40. It will not be easy for all of us to get another assignment commensurate with our age, educational qualifications and experience. The alleged illegality on the part of the University in observing the rules of reservation ought not to be to the prejudice of our right to continue in service as n fault can be attributed to anyone of us.” 27. In this regard, the observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ritesh Tewari and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others [ (2010) 10 SCC 677 ] is relevant. In paragraph No.26, the circumstances under which the discretionary powers available to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are to be exercised, are mentioned. In this regard, the observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ritesh Tewari and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others [ (2010) 10 SCC 677 ] is relevant. In paragraph No.26, the circumstances under which the discretionary powers available to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are to be exercised, are mentioned. It was observed in paragraph No.26 as follows: “26.The power under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary and supervisory in nature. It is not issued merely because it is lawful to do so. The extraordinary power in the writ jurisdiction does not exist to set right mere errors of law which do not occasion any substantial injustice. A writ can be issued only in case of a grave miscarriage of justice or where there has been a flagrant violation of law. The writ court has not only to protect a person from being subjected to a violation of law but also to advance justice and not to thwart it. The Constitution does not place any fetter on the power of the extraordinary jurisdiction but leaves it to the discretion of the court. However, being that the power is discretionary, the court has to balance competing interests, keeping in mind that the interests of justice and public interest coalesce generally. A court of equity, when exercising its equitable jurisdiction must act so as to prevent perpetration of a legal fraud and promote good faith and equity. An order in equity is one which is equitable to all the parties concerned.“ 28. In Girjesh Shrivastava and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others [ (2010) 10 SCC 707 ] a similar situation was dealt with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and in paragraph 31 it was observed as follows: “31. More importantly, in deciding these issues, the High Court should have been mindful of the fact that an order for cancellation of appointment would render most of the appellants unemployed. Most of them were earlier teaching in non-formal education centres, from where they had resigned to apply in response to the advertisement. They had left their previous employment in view of the fact that for their three-year long teaching experiences, the interview process in the present selection was awarding them grace marks of 25%. It had also given them a relaxation of 8 years with respect to their age. They had left their previous employment in view of the fact that for their three-year long teaching experiences, the interview process in the present selection was awarding them grace marks of 25%. It had also given them a relaxation of 8 years with respect to their age. Now, if they lose their jobs as a result of the High Court's order, they would be effectively unemployed as they cannot even revert to their earlier jobs in the non-formal education centres, which have been abolished since then. This would severely affect the economic security of many families. Most of them are between the age group of 35-45 years, and the prospects for them of finding another job are rather dim. Some of them were in fact awaiting their salary raise at the time of quashing of their appointment by the High Court.” In the said decision, after making the observations as extracted above, it was held that the equities were not properly balanced by the High Court by setting aside their appointments. 29. Similar observations were made by the Honourable Supreme Court in respect of candidates selected through an error committed by the Board concerned in the evaluation of the answer scripts, in Vikas Pratap Singh and Others v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others [ (2013) 14 SCC 494 ]. In the said decision, it was held so, taking note of the fact that appellants therein have not committed any fraud or misrepresentation in being appointed. In Rajesh Kumar and Ors. V. State of Bihar and Ors. [ (2013) 4 SCC 690 ] also, similar observations were made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the matter of wrongful selection of Junior Engineers (Civil), considering the fact that there was no fraud or malpractice committed by the appellants therein and the said candidates have worked in the establishment for seven years. 30. Vikas Pratap Singh's case (supra) was followed in Anmol Kumar Tiwari and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Others [ 2021(5) SCC 424 ] in the matter of appointment of Police Sub Inspectors. In Sivanandan C.T and Others v. High Court of Kerala and Ors. ( 2024 (3) SCC 799 ) , the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the question of appointment of District and Sessions Judge. In the said decision, even after finding that, the selection procedure was erroneous, in paragraph 55, the following observations were made: “55. In Sivanandan C.T and Others v. High Court of Kerala and Ors. ( 2024 (3) SCC 799 ) , the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the question of appointment of District and Sessions Judge. In the said decision, even after finding that, the selection procedure was erroneous, in paragraph 55, the following observations were made: “55. The question which now arises before the Court is in regard to the relief which can be granted to the petitioners. The final list of successful candidates was issued on 6-3-2017. The candidates who have been selected have been working as District and Sessions Judges for about six years. In the meantime, all the petitioners who are before the Court have not functioned in judicial office. At this lapse of time, it may be difficult to direct either the unseating of the candidates who have performed their duties. Unseating them at this stage would be contrary to public interest since they have gained experience as judicial officers in the service of the State of Kerala. While the grievance of the petitioners is that if the aggregate of marks in the written examination and viva voce were taken into account, they would rank higher than three candidates who are respondents to these proceedings, equally, we cannot lose sight of the fact that all the selected candidates are otherwise qualified for judicial office and have been working over a length of time. Unseating them would, besides being harsh, result in a situation where the higher judiciary would lose the services of duly qualified candidates who have gained experience over the last six years in the post of District Judge.” 31. When the relief sought by the petitioners in these cases are considered in the light of the above principles, the following aspects are to be noticed. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the party respondents, most of the candidates who were granted appointments, were occupying similar posts and they have resigned therefrom for joining the respondent University as Assistant Professors. 21 of the said respondents had already crossed the age of 40 years. Even going by the contentions of the petitioners, the party respondents do not have any role in the irregularities found by this Court in Ext.P6 judgment. It was only due to the incorrect and inappropriate application of reservation policy by the University, for which the party respondents cannot be held responsible. Even going by the contentions of the petitioners, the party respondents do not have any role in the irregularities found by this Court in Ext.P6 judgment. It was only due to the incorrect and inappropriate application of reservation policy by the University, for which the party respondents cannot be held responsible. They just participated in the selection process based on Ext.P1, and they were granted appointments by the University. Now, about 4 years have elapsed since they joined the University. Moreover, in Ext.P6 judgment itself, this aspect was specifically taken note of by the Division Bench of this Court. Such observations were made by this Court taking note the fact that, they were working in the university for quite some time. Further, while directing the University to re-work the rotation, specific directions were issued by this Court as to how the same has to be implemented without affecting the appointments of the party respondents herein. Therefore, the University was bound to implement the same while re-working the rotation chart. Therefore, I find it proper not to interfere with appointments already made by the University. 32. As regards the challenge raised with regard to the Constitutional validity of Section 6 (2) of the Calicut University Act , it is to be held that, the same is also not entertainable in view of the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala and Others v. Dr.G. Radhakrishna Pillai and Ors. ( 2022(1) KLT 253 ), where, the provision analogous to the said provision inserted in Kerala University Act was upheld. Therefore the said issue is also covered against the petitioners and it is answered accordingly. In the light of the aforesaid observations and findings, I hold that, the issue regarding the manner of implementation of reservation for physically disabled persons, while conducting the selection process of Assistant Professors based on Ext.P1, is already concluded by this Court in Ext.P6 judgment. The contentions raised by the University justifying Ext.R1(a) are not acceptable in view of the fact that, all those contentions were in fact considered by this Court in Ext.P6 judgment and were rejected. Therefore, the University cannot reagitate the matter in this writ petition, particularly since the directions in Ext.P6 are already confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The contentions raised by the University justifying Ext.R1(a) are not acceptable in view of the fact that, all those contentions were in fact considered by this Court in Ext.P6 judgment and were rejected. Therefore, the University cannot reagitate the matter in this writ petition, particularly since the directions in Ext.P6 are already confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the respondent-University is directed to rework the rotation chart, by strictly following the directions issued by this Court in Ext.P6 judgment. As regards the reliefs sought by the petitioners in WP(C) Nos.7250/2022, 16078/2021 and 16407/2021, it is observed that, even though the contentions of the petitioners regarding the erroneous application of reservation policy are upheld, the reliefs sought by them to interfere with the appointments already granted to the party respondents is declined for the reasons mentioned above. The University is directed to issue appropriate orders in this regard by strictly implementing the observations in the judgment of this court in W.A No 1527/2021, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.