Impossible To Apply Reservation Without Communal Rotation Roster: Kerala High Court Refuses Relief To SC/ST Candidates Who Participated In Selection Without Demur
|The Court upheld the tribunal's rejection of SC/ST candidates' belated reservation claim, and held that the objection to notification ought to have been raised before participation.
The Kerala High Court has held that a selection process cannot grant reservation benefits to candidates in the absence of an adopted and formulated communal rotation roster. The Bench observed that when a recruitment notification is issued without providing for reservation due to the absence of a rotation roster, candidates claiming reservation must challenge the notification at the threshold rather than participating without objection and raising the issue after being found unqualified.
Addressing the structural impossibility of granting retroactive reservation, the Bench noted that even if an institution is legally required to implement a reservation policy, formulating a rotation roster is a mandatory prerequisite. The Court further applied the doctrine of estoppel, holding that candidates who voluntarily take a chance under an unreserved advertisement cannot turn around to demand reservation benefits upon non-selection.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice Basant Balaji observed, “There is an adscititious problem the petitioners face at this juncture. If the reservation policy had to be followed by the 1 st respondent, a roster for rotation ought to have been made, which, to our information, was not then available. We are told by Sri.Sajith Kumar that, subsequently, the 1st respondent has adopted the reservation policy, to make it part of their Rules; and that notifications issued thereafter contain such provisions.
“As far as this particular case is concerned, at the time when Annexure A1 was issued, the roster for communal rotation, or for disadvantaged sections, has not been adopted/formulated; and it would have been impossible for any reservation selection to have been made in its absence. Indubitably, if the petitioners had a genuine case about reservation, they ought to have challenged Annexure A1 notification, so that the question of its validity, in the absence of provisions for reservation therein, could have been looked into and answered. However, what they have done is to participate in Annexure A1 without demur; and then to raise the issue of reservation, when they were not selected.”, the Bench said.
Advocate K.J. Saji Isaac appeared for the petitioner and Senior Advocate M.R. Hariraj and Advocate V. Sajith Kumar appeared for the respondents.
The petitioners, belonging to the SC/ST community, contended that Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology (SCTIMST), being an autonomous body receiving Grant-in-Aid from the Government of India, was legally obligated to have adopted a reservation policy in its recruitment process.
They argued that the institute's notification (Annexure A1) inviting candidates only from the general category was therefore vitiated by this omission. The petitioners participated in the selection process pursuant to the notification but were not found qualified, following which they raised the contention regarding absence of reservation.
The petitioners' Original Application challenging the selection on this ground was dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, by order dated December 18, 2019, holding that having participated in the process with full knowledge of the notification's scope, the petitioners could not subsequently claim the benefit of reservation merely because they were not selected. The petitioners challenged this order before the Kerala High Court.
“As rightly found by the learned Tribunal, the petitioners have voluntarily participated in the process pursuant to Annexure A1, to be found not qualified; and it is at that stage, that they suddenly spring up and project a contention that, had the reservation policy of the Government of India been applied by the 1st respondent, they would have been included”, the Bench noted.
On a separate contention regarding the validity of the selection process itself, the Court declined to entertain it, observing that since neither the impugned order nor the grounds raised before the Tribunal indicated any such plea, it can only be assumed that such contentions were never impelled before the learned Tribunal, and that the appropriate remedy would have been a review application rather than a fresh petition before the High Court.
The Original Petition was dismissed, confirming the impugned order of the Central Administrative Tribunal.
Cause Title: Dr. Anumon V. Divakaran & Ors. v. Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:63504)
Appearances:
Petitioners: K.J. Saji Isaac, Dr. Elizabeth Varkey, Jithin Saji Isaac and Ajeesh Emmanuel, Advocates.
Respondents: M.R. Hariraj, Senior Advocate, C. Dinesh, CGC, S. Vishnu, Liju V. Stephen, V. Sajith Kumar, Indu Susan Jacob and Vinay M.E., Advocates.