Shashi Prabha vs University of Jammu

T.S. Doabia, J.

This order shall dispose of two writ petitions referred to above. The facts have been taken from OWP No. 459 of 1996.

The assertion of the petitioner is that the notification issued by the State Government on 28th of June 1994, i,e. Jammu and Kashmir Reservation

Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as Reservation Rules) should be complied with and followed by the University of Jammu also.

In the exercise of powers conferred under Section 124 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir read with Article 15(4) and Article 16(4) of the

Constitution of India, the State Government has issued aforementioned Reservation Rules (popularly identified as SRO 126). Provisions of Section

124 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir are in parimateria with Article 309 of the Constitution of India. It is these Reservation Rules which

provide reservation in the State services. The petitioner submits that this Rule be enforced visavis reservation while making appointment in the

University of Jammu also.

The University has filed objections.

The stand taken by it is that Reservation Rules are applicable only when a person is seeking appointment with the State Government. These Rules

are not applicable to the employees of the University of Jammu. It has its own Rules and Regulations. It is stated that in exercise of powers

conferred in the statutes of the university reservation in fact has been made by University of Jammu at its own level also. It is accordingly stated that

University of Jammu is not to be guided and governed by Reservation Rules of 1994.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that University of Jammu is instrumentality of State. As it is getting funds from the State

Government, therefore, all those notifications which are issued by State Government and more so, the notification issued qua reservation would

apply ipso facto to University also. He has placed reliance on a decision reported as V. Hariharan Pillai v. State of Kerala, AIR 1968 Kerala 42

and also decision of Gujarat High Court quoted in AIR Manual Volume 10 at page 211.

The two decisions are being relied upon for the proposition that an authority which falls within the definition of instrumentality of the State is bound

by the policy decision taken by the State.

Reliance is also being placed on Article 39 of the Constitution of India. This Article reads as under :

The State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing:

(a) that the citizens, men and women equally, have the right to an adequate means of livelihood.

(b) that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common good;

(c) that the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment.

(d) that there is equal pay for equal work for both men and women.

(e) that the health and strength of workers men and women, and the tender age of children are not abused and that citizens are not forced by

economic necessity to enter avocations unsuited to their age or strength.

(f) that children are given opportunities and facilities to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity and that childhood and

youth are protected against exploitation and against moral and material abandonment.

I am of the opinion that the argument put across by the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted. Reservation Rules of 1994 have

been issued in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 124 of J&K Constitution. These rules are basically meant for providing reservations

in Government Service only. The university is an autonomous body. Until and unless the Rules framed by the State Government are adopted by the

University, the petitioner cannot seek benefit of Reservation Rules. See the decision reported as Suryanarayan Sahu and others v. Council of

Scientific and Industrial Research, 1998(2) Supreme Court Cases 162. The recommendations of Third pay Commission appointed by the Central

Government were accepted for Central Government employees. The employees of Council of Scientific and Industrial Research also wanted the

benefits. This was denied. The denial was held to be good. In para 18, it was observed:

The situation that now emerges is that the CSIR is not bound to adopt all the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission and it is not material

if the Central Government accepted the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission. The CSIR is an independent body.

In view of the above the petitioner cannot get benefits of SRO 126 referred to above. The above SRO is meant for services connected with the

affairs of State of Jammu and Kashmir. No mandamus can be issued to the University to adopt SRO 126 when it has its policy in the matter of

providing reservation to its employees.

The net result is that in terms of the interim order passed by this court, if selection has been made, respondentUniversity would be at liberty to go

ahead with the same.

This petition is found to be without merit and is dismissed.