Court Directions Cannot Supplant Statutory Procedures for Appointments and Promotions: Karnataka High Court - 2025-09-02

Courts Cannot Compel Statutory Bodies to Bypass Rules, Says Karnataka HC in NITK Promotion Dispute

Bengaluru : The Karnataka High Court, in a significant ruling on service law, has held that judicial intervention cannot be used to supplant statutory procedures governing appointments and promotions. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C M Joshi set aside a Single Judge's order that had directed the National Institute of Technology, Karnataka (NITK) to implement the recommendations of a one-man committee to resolve a long-standing promotion dispute with two faculty members.

The Court emphasized that when a field is governed by a statute, a "deviated procedure could not have been thrust upon the appellants," reinforcing the autonomy of statutory bodies like NITK's Board of Governors.

---

A Decade-Long Legal Battle

The case originated from writ petitions filed in 2013 by Dr. Mervin Herbert and Dr. Srikantha, faculty members at NITK. They challenged the institute's failure to grant them promotions and financial up-gradation under the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS). They argued that NITK had wrongfully withheld these benefits, citing the pendency of their earlier writ petitions as a reason.

In an effort to resolve the impasse, NITK constituted a one-man committee headed by Prof. H.V. Sudhakar Nayak, which proposed solutions to address the faculty members' grievances. The Single Judge, in a judgment dated September 25, 2023, noted that the petitioners had agreed to these solutions and, in the interest of giving a "quietus" to the matter, directed NITK to implement the committee's report.

NITK challenged this directive, leading to the present appeals.

---

Key Arguments in Court

NITK's Stance: The institute, represented by Advocate Sri Manmohan P N, argued that the Single Judge's order was contrary to the National Institutes of Technology Act, 2007, and its statutes. The core contentions were: - The recommendations of the one-man committee were non-binding and subject to the final approval of the statutory Board of Governors. - The court's directive effectively overruled the powers of the Board of Governors, which is the final authority on appointments and promotions. - Implementing the report would have a "cascading effect" on the institute's cadre strength and seniority lists.

Faculty Members' Position: The respondents, represented by Advocate Sri Narayana Bhat M, countered that NITK had acted unfairly by not considering their promotions for years. They also argued that the appeals filed against the dismissal of the review petitions were not maintainable. They pointed out that the institute itself had created the committee to find a solution and should not be allowed to backtrack on its findings.

---

Court's Reasoning: Primacy of Statutory Procedure

The Division Bench sided with NITK, underscoring a fundamental principle of administrative and service law. The judgment noted that the NITK Statute explicitly outlines the roles of the Selection Committee and the Board of Governors in matters of appointment and promotion.

"It is trite law that when the powers and functions of the Board of Governors as well as the Selection Committee are governed by Statutory provisions, there would be no room for judicial intervention in the same. The powers of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be exercised to supplant a valid law."

The Court observed that while the one-man committee was constituted by NITK, its recommendations did not receive the final approval of the Board of Governors. Therefore, a judicial order directing its implementation was an overreach.

"In our considered view, there could not have been a direction to accept a procedure, which is in the teeth of the statutory provisions concerning the selection and promotion," the Bench stated.

The Court also dismissed two appeals filed by NITK against the rejection of its review petitions, imposing a consolidated cost of ₹25,000, holding them to be not maintainable as per Order XLVII Rule 7 of the CPC.

---

Final Verdict and Implications

The High Court allowed NITK's main appeals (W.A.No.501/2025 and W.A.No.505/2025), setting aside the Single Judge's order from September 2023. The matter has been remanded back to the Single Judge for fresh adjudication on the merits of the original writ petitions filed in 2013.

Consequently, the contempt proceedings initiated by the faculty members against NITK officials for non-compliance with the earlier order have been closed. This judgment reaffirms the principle that while courts can review the fairness of administrative actions, they cannot substitute their own decisions for those of statutorily empowered bodies.