Author- Rajni Yadav, Dr. D. Y. Patil Law College, Pune

KEYWORDS

PIL, Service matters, employment

CASE DETAILS

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The petitioner, O.K. Yadav and Anr. filed a PIL challenging the Roster Point System employed by the University of Delhi. The petitioner contended that this system was arbitrary and resulted in inadequate representation for the candidates who belong to SC/ST, and OBC in various university positions. All the petitioners demanded a review of the university’s recruitment and promotion policies to ensure fair representation for these categories.

FACTS OF THE CASE:-

• The factual background of the case:-

The main issue of the case was the petitioners raised concern regarding the Roster Point System used by the Delhi University for recruitment and promotions.

The petitioner also claimed that the system failed to adequately represent candidates who belong to SC/ ST, and OBC.

The petitioner also makes an allegation of discrimination that the university implemented the arbitrary roster system and violates the principles of equality under (Art. 14) and social justice of the Indian constitution.

The petitioner also alleged that the system favoured the groups that are leading to the marginalisation of SC/ ST, and OBC candidates in a faculty position.

The petitioners requested before the Hon’ble Court that the University change its policies to ensure fair representation of reserved categories of teaching and non–teaching facilities.

• Procedural background of the case: –

This case was filed as a PIL before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. In this case, the petitioner argued that the matters are related to public concern and it affected the constitutional as well as fundamental rights that are granted under the Indian constitution of marginalized communities.

Delhi University contended that the maintainability of the PIL, the matter which was raised pertained to service matters and these matters pursued by aggrieved individuals, not through PILs.

SC ruling, including the case of Dr. Duryodhan Sahu V. Jitender Kumar Mishra, clarified that service matters can’t be addressed under PILs.

The Delhi High Court in this case emphasized that service disputes should be raised by individuals directly not through PILs.

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition and said that in service matters PILs are not the appropriate forum.

LEGAL ISSUES:-

• Is this PIL poses is whether the Roster Point System adopted by the Delhi University through its policies and guidelines.
• The Delhi University questioned the maintainability of the PIL in service matters.

PETITIONER’S SIDE ARGUMENTS –

• In this case t, the petitioners challenged the Roster Point system and argued that this system was arbitrary and also deprived the members of SC, ST and OBC of fair representation in various posts in the university as well as its affiliated colleges.
• In Teachers Forum & Anr. V. University of Delhi & Ors. A similar petition in this case has been previously dismissed by the court on the grounds of lack of standing. The university asserted that it was complying with the directives issued by the Central Government and the University Grants Commission in formulating the roster.
• The Delhi High Court citing its previous ruling, rejected the current petition as untenable, stating that public interest litigations concerning service matters are not within the purview of the High Courts. The court stressed that individuals personally impacted by such policies should pursue suitablremediesie through the established legal avenues.

RESPONDENT’S SIDE ARGUMENTS:-

• The University argued that the petitioner was not eligible to file PIL due to lack of standing. They referred to a similar case, Delhi University SC/ ST/ OBC Teachers Forum & Anr. V. University of Delhi & Ors., where the court had rejected the petition because the petitioners were not considered eligible. The university claimed that the same reason should apply to this case.
• The respondents argued that this matter is a service matter, and these matters are usually resolved through designated legal procedures instead of PILs. They also highlight that service matters these types of matters directly affected, rather than through PIL filed by individuals who are not connected to the issue.
• The respondents also pointed out that the petitioners had not included individuals who would be directly affected by the outcome of the case. Since the university had made around 800 appointments, any decision by the court could impact those appointees. The absence of these individuals in the case was considered a major error.
• The university also argued that it had followed the rules set by the Central Government and the uUniversityGrants Commission while implementing the Roster Point System. They claimed that the system was meant to ensure fair representation and that the university’s actions were fully aligned with the prescribed policies.

LEGAL PROVISIONS:-

 Constitutional Provisions –

• Article 14 – “Equality before lathe w and equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.”
• Article 16 – “Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment, allowing for reservations in favour of underrepresented classes.”

University Grants Commission –  

“It provides didirectiveso the central universities regarding the implementation of reservation policies for ST/ SC/ OBC in teaching.”

Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Teachers Cadre) Act, 2019 

“This act mandates a uniform rereservationolicy across all central educational institutions, ensuring adequate representation of SC, ST, OBC in teaching positions”.

JUDGMENT:-

In the matter of O.K. Yadav & Anr. V. University of Delhi & Ors. Adjudicated on 8^th March 2018, the dDelhihigh court dealt with a PIL that challenged the Roaster Point System instituted by the University of Delhi. The petitioners contended that the system was discriminatory and failed to ensure adequate representation for members of the SC, ST, and OBC in various posts and cadres within the university.

The university opposed the maintainability of PIL, referring to a related case, Delhi University SC/ ST/ OBC Teachers Forum & Anr. V. University of Delhi & Ors. , where the court has dismissed the plea due to a lack of locus standi. The court, in that matter, relied on several Supreme Court rulings, including Dr Duryodhan Sahu V. Jitender Kumar, Mishra & B. Srinivasa Reddy V. Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board Employees’ Association, which cclarifiesthat service – related disputes should not be pursued as PILs.

These following legal precedents, the Delhi High Court, in this case, held that PIL was not sustainable. It stressed that disputes concerning service-related matters should be brought forward by the affected individuals through proper legal mechanisms. As a result, the court dismissed the writ petition.

CONCLUSION:-

The Delhi High Court in this case held that the PIL challenging the Roster Point System was not maintainable. The court also addressed that service-related issues must be addressed by individuals directly affected through appropriate legal forums rather than as PILs. Referring to past Supreme Court rulings, the court reiterated that such matters can’t be litigated under the guise of public interest. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.