← All recent judgments
Kerala High Court31 March 2026

Dr. Ramees T.P v. Kerala Veterinary & Animal Sciences University

Single judge · Justice P.V. Asha

Why it matters

Listen

Advocates advising candidates or institutions in matters arising from university bifurcations or statutory reorganisations can cite this judgment for the proposition that a successor university cannot reset the communal reservation roster to the prejudice of communities next in rotation; the roster must be continued from where the predecessor institution left off, and any fresh-roster appointments in the transferred departments are liable to be set aside.

Summary

Two writ petitions — WP(C) No. 8166/2015 (Dr. Lasna Sahib) and WP(C) No. 8906/2015 (Dr. Ramees T.P.) — were heard together, both challenging appointments made by the Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University (KVASU) to the posts of Assistant Professors in Animal Nutrition and Veterinary Public Health respectively. The petitioners, both belonging to the Muslim community, contended that KVASU wrongly restarted the communal reservation roster afresh upon its formation, instead of continuing the roster as it stood in the Kerala Agricultural University (KAU) at the time the departments were transferred. This restart gave the Ezhava community a double benefit of reservation, while Muslim community candidates — who were next in the rotation under the KAU roster — were prejudiced.

The University defended the fresh roster on the ground that KVASU is an independent legal entity created by Act 2 of 2011, with its own Statutes, and that a new reservation cycle was inevitable given the reorganisation of staff and posts. It relied on State of Kerala v. Mohandas V.K.: 2018 KHC 144 to argue that appointments under a new statute cannot be governed by conditions under the old statute.

The Court disposed of both petitions, directing KVASU to make appointments to the reserved turns in the two departments in continuation of the reservation roster followed in KAU. It held that since the entire departments — along with their staff — stood transferred to KVASU under Section 55 of the Act with all liabilities intact, restarting the roster would grant double reservation benefit to communities already represented through the KAU roster, violating Rules 14 to 17 of KS&SSR and the constitutional purpose of reservation. The Court distinguished Mohandas V.K. as not dealing with reservation and therefore inapplicable. It expressly limited the direction to the two departments in question, leaving appointments in all other departments undisturbed. KVASU was directed to complete the appointments within two months of receipt of the judgment.

Key principle

When an entire university department, along with its staff, is transferred to a newly constituted university under a statutory scheme that vests all assets, liabilities and obligations in the successor institution, the successor university must continue the communal reservation roster from the point at which it stood in the predecessor institution; restarting the roster afresh amounts to granting double reservation benefit to communities already represented, in violation of Rules 14 to 17 of KS&SSR and the constitutional purpose of reservation.

Holding

Disposed of — KVASU directed to make appointments to reserved posts in Animal Nutrition and Veterinary Public Health departments in continuation of the KAU reservation roster, because Section 55 of the KVASU Act transferred all liabilities of the predecessor university including the obligation to maintain the communal rotation, and restarting the roster afresh would unconstitutionally double the reservation benefit already enjoyed by certain communities.

Statutes invoked

  • Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University Act, 2010 · 55
  • Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University Act, 2010 · 58
  • KS&SSR · Rules 14 to 17
  • Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University Statutes · Statute 132(4)

Practice areas

writserviceconstitutional
AI-generated summary, written by Claude Sonnet 4.6 from the court's published judgment. Always verify the original before relying on the summary in court. Generated on 21 May 2026.