1. Dispute over appointment to a reserved post — conflict between merit-based selection and age-based preference under special recruitment rules for backlog vacancies in a state university. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 408
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, ARAVIND KUMAR, JJ.
Chaitra Nagammanavar – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 6772-6773 of 2023
Decided On : 02-05-2024
Important Points
Important Point – Appointment – Age bar – University is bound to comply with what is declared in its advertisement – In order to obviate injustice caused to candidate, university may consider creating a supernumerary post to accommodate the candidate.
Subject
Service Law - Recruitment and Appointment
Act Referred
Karnataka State Civil Services Unfilled Vacancies Reserved For Persons Belonging to SC and ST Special Recruitment Rule: R.6
Headnote
Service Law – Appointment – Age bar – University is bound to comply with what is declared in its advertisement and 2001 Rules will be guiding principles for selection in question – Requirement of Government to specify manner, procedure and time for identifying, filling backlog vacancies and completing the same was amply clear to University – An unusual situation has arisen in this case because of university's conduct – Though appellant was appointed in contravention of Rule 6 of 2001 Rules, she continued in office during subsistence of writ proceedings – Unfortunate situation has arisen not because of anything wrong attributable to appellant, but due to indifferent manner with which university conducted itself – In order to obviate injustice caused to appellant, university may consider creating a supernumerary post to accommodate her – This is an extraordinary situation for exercising such discretion – Appeals dismissed. [Karnataka State Civil Services (Unfilled Vacancies Reserved For Persons Belonging to SC’s and ST’s) (Special Recruitment) Rules, 2001 – Rule 6] (Paras 20, 22 and 23)
Facts of the case:
Bangalore University, constituted under Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000, issued an advertisement dated 21.03.2018 for filling up backlog vacancies to posts reserved for scheduled castes (SC’s) and scheduled tribes (ST’s). Of the 34 posts advertised for Assistant Professors, one post of Assistant Professor in the department of English was reserved for a candidate belonging to the ST community. Single Judge of High Court, by a judgment dated 16.01.2021, allowed the writ petition and set aside appellant’s selection and appointment on the ground that university specifically declared in advertisement that ‘Mode of Selection’ shall be as per the 2001 Rules. Therefore, its appointment of appellant, who did not fall in age bracket of 29-40 years, was illegal. Consequently, Respondent No. 7, who is preferential candidate, was directed to be appointed. Appellant and university filed their respective writ appeals, namely W.A. 190/2021 and 233/2021, before Division Bench of High Court. While confirming order of Single Judge, Division Bench also directed that respondent No. 7 is entitled to be appointed as per 2001 Rules. Thus, present Civil Appeal by appellant, who was originally appointed candidate.
Findings of Court:
Civil Appeal Nos. 6772- 6773/2023 against the judgment and final order dated 12.03.2021 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Writ Appeal No. 233 of 2021 c/w Writ Appeal No. 190 of 2021 (S-RES) are dismissed, subject to the observations made in previous paragraph.
Result – Appeals dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
-
constitutional law
-
fundamental rights
- equality of opportunity in public employment (Para 9)
-
fundamental rights
- statutory interpretation
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mrigank Prabhakar, AOR Ms. Divija Mahajan, Adv. Mr. Vaibhav Sabharwal, Adv. Ms. Amisha Devi, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Gagan Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rahamathulla Kothwal, Adv. Ms. Siddika Aisha, Adv. Ms. Manju Jetley, AOR Mr. D. L. Chidananda, AOR Mr. Shubhranshu Padhi, AOR Mr. Anand Sanjay M Nuli, Sr. Adv. Mr. Agam Sharma, Adv. Mr. Suraj Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Dharam Singh, Adv. Mr. Nanda Kumar K B, Adv. Ms. Akhila Wali, Adv. Mr. Akash Kukreja, Adv. M/S. Nuli & Nuli, AOR
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mrigank Prabhakar, AOR Ms. Divija Mahajan, Adv. Mr. Vaibhav Sabharwal, Adv. Ms. Amisha Devi, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Gagan Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rahamathulla Kothwal, Adv. Ms. Siddika Aisha, Adv. Ms. Manju Jetley, AOR Mr. D. L. Chidananda, AOR Mr. Shubhranshu Padhi, AOR Mr. Anand Sanjay M Nuli, Sr. Adv. Mr. Agam Sharma, Adv. Mr. Suraj Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Dharam Singh, Adv. Mr. Nanda Kumar K B, Adv. Ms. Akhila Wali, Adv. Mr. Akash Kukreja, Adv. M/S. Nuli & Nuli, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Whether a state university is bound by civil service recruitment rules for backlog vacancies or governed exclusively by its own autonomous statutes and merit-based procedures. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 )
3. The amendment to the Reservation Act extended backlog vacancy filling to universities, and the university's advertisement and government directives created a binding obligation to follow specified rules. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 )
4. An appointing authority is bound by the mode of selection declared in its own advertisement, especially when aligned with statutory mandates for filling reserved backlog vacancies. (Para 20 )
5. Appeals dismissed; appointment of the preferential candidate upheld, with a suggestion to the university to consider a supernumerary post for the originally appointed candidate. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 )
6. Do rules framed under the State Civil Services Act apply to appointments in state universities for filling backlog vacancies?
Yes, if the Reservation Act, specifically Section 4(1A), mandates that public sector establishments, including universities, identify and fill unfilled reserved vacancies as a one-time measure according to procedures specified by the State Government. (Para 10 , 11 , 17 )
7. Is an appointing authority bound by the mode of selection specified in its own recruitment advertisement?
Yes, the court held that the university is bound to comply with the mode of selection declared in its advertisement, particularly when such declaration aligns with government directives and statutory objectives. (Para 20 )
8. Can government directives and university advertisements establish a binding procedure for filling vacancies in the absence of a formal notification?
Yes, where a university advertises a specific mode of selection in compliance with government demands and statutory requirements, the lack of a formal notification does not invalidate the university's obligation to follow that declared procedure. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 )
1. A routine service dispute involving competing claims for appointment was transformed into a pleasurable discourse by the newly designated senior advocates of this court, Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, Mr. Anand Sanjay M. Nuli, Mr. Gagan Gupta. Mr. D.L. Chidananda, appearing for the respondent-State rose to the occasion and made crisp, clear and categorical arguments to match the submissions made by the senior counsels.
2. The facts, to the extent they are relevant for our consideration, are that the Banglore University, constituted under the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000,1[Hereinafter, referred to as the ‘Universities Act’.] issued an advertisement dated 21.03.2018 for filling up backlog vacancies to posts reserved for scheduled castes (SC’s) and scheduled tribes (ST’s). Of the 34 posts advertised for Assistant Professors, one post of Assistant Professor in the department of English was reserved for a candidate belonging to the ST community.
3. The advertisement provides that qualifications for the post shall be as provided under the UGC Regulations, 2010 and the UGC (4th Amendment) Regulations, 2016. The ‘Mode of Selection’, or the method of selection, as specified in the advertisement, is important.2[“MODE OF SELECTION
The list of selected candidates will be prepared as per the following Government of Karnataka Notifications:
1. No. DPAR 13 SBC 2001 dated: 21.11.2001 & Dated: 01.06.2002
2. UGC Regulations 2010, UGC (4th Amendment) Regulations, 2016 and AICTE 2016 Regulations.”]. It is provided that the list of selected candidates will be prepared as per the Karnataka State Civil Services (Unfilled Vacancies Reserved For Persons Belonging to the SC’s and ST’s) (Special Recruitment) Rules, 2001, hereinafter referred to as the ‘2001 Rules’. Rule 6 of the 2001 Rules provides for a preference in favour of candidates between the age bracket of 29 and 40 years. In other words, amongst the eligible candidates belonging to a scheduled tribe, those who fall within the age bracket of 29- 40 years, would have a preferential right to be appointed over and above even meritorious candidates.
4. The appellant and respondent No. 7 are both ST candidates, and both of them were eligible for appointment to the solitary post of Assistant Professor in the English department reserved for a candidate beloniging to the ST community. While the appellant was higher in merit, respondent no. 7 was within the age bracket of 29-40 years, and as such, was a preferential candidate as per Rule 6 of the 2001 Rules. Though the university advertised that the ‘Mode of Selection’ shall be as per the 2001 Rules, it followed its own procedure and proceeded to appoint the appellant on the basis of merit. Respondent no. 7 naturally challenged the appointment of the appellant by filing Writ Petition No. 4923/2020 before the High Court of Karnataka.
5. The Ld. Single Judge of the High Court, by a judgment dated 16.01.2021, allowed the writ petition and set aside the appellant’s selection and appointment on the ground that the university specifically declared in the advertisement that the ‘Mode of Selection’ shall be as per the 2001 Rules. Therefore, its appointment of the appellant, who did not fall in the age bracket of 29-40 years, was illegal. Consequently, Respondent No. 7, who is the preferential candidate, was directed to be appointed.
6. The appellant and the university filed their respective writ appeals, namely W.A. 190/2021 and 233/2021, before the Division Bench of the High Court. While confirming the order of the Single Judge, the Division Bench also directed that respondent No. 7 is entitled to be appointed as per the 2001 Rules. Thus, the present Civil Appeal by the appellant, who was the originally appointed candidate.
7. Before we consider the rival contentions, it is necessary to refer to three legislations that have a bearing on the case. The Karnataka State Civil Services Act, 19783[Hereinafter referred to as the Civil Services Act, 1978.]; the Karnata
