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.

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 Karnataka S