Recognition of Supernumerary Reservation Posts and Prohibition of Negative Parity Claims in University Appointments

Introduction

The petition in Deepak Pathania v. Central University of Himachal Pradesh arose out of a challenge to the appointment of a Scheduled Tribe candidate (the “private respondent”) as an Associate Professor in the Department of Environmental Sciences. The petitioner, Mr. Deepak Pathania, had applied against two advertised vacancies, secured a place at serial No. 1 on the waiting list, but was passed over when a third—“supernumerary”—post was created and filled by the private respondent. The key issues were:

Whether the creation of a supernumerary post to implement reservation guidelines was valid.
Whether the petitioner, who claimed entitlement to any new vacancy, could seek the removal of the private respondent and claim the post himself (“negative parity”).
Whether delay and subsequent changes in the cadre of Associate Professors barred the petitioner’s remedy.

The parties before the Himachal Pradesh High Court included the petitioner (Deepak Pathania), respondent No. 1 (Central University of Himachal Pradesh), and respondent No. 2 (the private respondent). The University was represented by the Deputy Solicitor General, and the private respondent by his advocate.

Summary of the Judgment

Justice Satyen Vaidya dismissed the petition. The Court held that:

The University validly applied UGC guidelines (dated 25.08.2006) and Government of India reservation norms by creating a supernumerary post to accommodate a Scheduled Tribe candidate.
The petitioner’s challenge to the private respondent’s appointment on the ground that the post was “non‑existent” was untenable, because the vacancy was lawfully created and filled.
The petitioner could not claim “negative parity”—i.e., demand a right to a post he simultaneously alleged never existed.
A delay of over a decade, coupled with the private respondent’s departure and the natural abolition of his supernumerary post, rendered the petition infructuous.

Analysis

Precedents and Guidelines Cited

Although no binding case law was directly cited in the judgment, the Court relied on:

UGC Guidelines (25.08.2006) on the implementation of reservation in universities, which permit inter‑disciplinary (cadre‑wise) allocation of reserved posts.
Government of India’s reservation policy: 15% seats for Scheduled Castes (SC) and 7.5% for Scheduled Tribes (ST).
Directions issued by the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes, endorsing strict compliance with ST reservations.

In the absence of Supreme Court precedents explicitly on “supernumerary posts for reservation,” the Court treated these guidelines and policy directives as the controlling authorities on the subject.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning unfolded in four steps:

Validity of Supernumerary Post: When the petitioner and the private respondent appeared on the waiting panel (No. 1 and No. 2 respectively), the University’s Executive Council re‑examined its cadre‑wise reservation roster. It found that one of the two advertised posts in Environmental Sciences should be allotted to an ST candidate. Since both general‑category selectees had already joined, the Council lawfully transferred one vacant Associate Professor post from another discipline on a supernumerary basis.
Doctrine of Negative Parity: The petitioner’s case depended on two contradictory contentions—first, that the third post was “non‑existent” and its filling was void; second, that he was entitled to that very post. The Court refused to entertain a “negative parity” claim, noting it would amount to seeking relief on a post that the petitioner simultaneously asserts never existed.
Laches and Infructuous Relief: Over twelve years elapsed between filing and final hearing. The private respondent had left service, automatically abolishing his supernumerary post. The passage of time, coupled with lack of prosecution by the petitioner, rendered any prospective relief impossible.
Final Disposition: In the absence of a live controversy or available post, the Court dismissed the petition as devoid of merit.

Impact

This decision clarifies three important points for university recruitment and reservation law:

Universities may create supernumerary posts to implement reservation policies even after the initial advertisement, provided they follow UGC and Government guidelines.
Aggrieved candidates cannot pursue “negative parity” remedies—simultaneously challenging the validity of a post and claiming the same post as right.
Excessive delay and subsequent changes in staffing can render a writ petition infructuous, underscoring the need for prompt legal recourse in service matters.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Supernumerary Post: An additional position created temporarily—beyond the originally sanctioned strength—to meet a specific requirement (here, to honor ST reservation norms).
Negative Parity: A contradictory legal claim where a petitioner simultaneously denies the existence of a vacancy while seeking the right to hold it.
Writ of Mandamus: A judicial order compelling a public authority to perform a statutory duty (e.g., appointing a candidate).
Writ of Certiorari: A judicial order quashing an inferior body’s decision (e.g., setting aside an appointment).
Laches: A defense based on the petitioner’s undue delay in asserting a legal right, leading to prejudice against the opposing party.

Conclusion

The High Court’s ruling in Deepak Pathania v. Central University of Himachal Pradesh lays down a clear precedent: institutions may validly expand their cadre on a supernumerary basis to fulfill reservation obligations, and candidates cannot adopt a “negative parity” stance to challenge such appointments. Moreover, service litigants must pursue remedies without undue delay, or risk having their petitions dismissed as infructuous. This judgment thus fortifies the integrity of reservation implementation and underscores the importance of timely legal action in academic service disputes.